for exposing a Guardian journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, as a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Guardian’s failure to either notice or disclose this fact in relation to articles Aslam wrote on, for instance, the case of Shabina Begum (which appears to have been a Hizb ut-Tahrir put up job from the off) and the recent terrorist attacks in London, on which Aslam opined that:
Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don’t-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We’re much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.
and that people should not be shocked by the London terrorist attacks because:
Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own
Nice guy! Strangely enough though, even though this story has been running since Wednesday, July 13th (ten days ago), and was covered in The Independent (who doubtless overcame their annoyance with Scott’s digs at them to have a good kick at their Guardian rivals!), ‘Guardian’ man revealed as hardline Islamist six days ago, it has yet to make any appearance at all on BBC News Online or, as far as I am aware, in any BBC broadcast output.
Still, now that The Guardian has finally done the decent thing and sacked Aslam (albeit in a typically leftie mealy-mouthed sort of a way), I expect the BBC will finally get round to reporting it.
To save you some trouble Beeboids, here are links to Scott’s original posts:
- July 13th: ‘Sassy’ Suicide Bombers
- July 15th: ‘Sassy’ Organisation: “Kill Jews Everywhere”
- July 17th: Ablution Hits the MSM
- July 18th: Deafening Silence from the Guardian
And links to The Guardian’s articles on the subject:
- Aslam targeted by bloggers
- Background: the Guardian and Dilpazier Aslam
- Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian – surely they mean ‘sacked’!
Now, where do you think it should go?
UK?
Politics?
Technology?
Ah, Entertainment, that’s the ticket!
P.S. Be careful about repeating that bit about Scott allegedly spending “his time indoors posting repeated attacks on the Guardian for its stance on the environment, its columnists such as Polly Toynbee, and its recent intervention in the US presidential election campaign” – it smacks of sour grapes.
Update: From today’s Sunday Times, re. the case of Shabina Begum: Lords to rule on Muslim clothes. Let us hope that justice will prevail this time, in particular to protect vulnerable Muslim girls from being pressurised by male relatives about what they wear. Let us also hope that the BBC will remember to mention Cherie Booth’s role (or otherwise) this time.
The T-word & the BBC ‘flip-flop’ policy
Why aren’t Eta ‘terrorists’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4140000/newsid_4148100/4148173.stm
I’m confused. ‘Eta’ definitely aren’t ‘terrorists’. al-qaeda are(ish). sometimes. well, depends really. the London ones? Probably. Iraq – not on your life! freedom fighters they are. Israel, Palestine – don’t get me started!
Can someone explain to me why Eta who blow people up in Spain are not terrorists but the al-qaeda guys who blew themselves up in Lodon are? I fail to see the differentiating factor(s).
Miam
How long do we have ?
Useful Analysis programme on Radio 4 by Edward Storton on what Islam really means and allows. But he is very soft on people he describes as “distingished” who have said or endorsed much nastier things than he reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/analysis/4684183.stm
Useful – but to quite an extent glossing over things IMHO.
I think we all tend to forget the ratchet effect that the BBC and in fact the left in general employ on controversial issues.
Brickbats have been generously hurled at the Corporation over the T-word and we seem to have reluctantly settled into a stalemate where the term will be used in relation to domestic incidents but refrained from in foreign coverage. Effectively the BBC has made an unofficial policy official. It’s “time to move on from this debate” is likely to be the next line. Watch as over the next months the T-word is quietly excised from domestic news. It’ll be a lot harder to revisit this matter in the future as, as usual, they’ve already won most of the ground.
If you ever wonder how some of the nonsense that currently prevails somehow became the status quo this is the process. And it continues enexorably
Miam:
God knows what the Beeb are saying to that audience….. courtesy of my license fee & taxes of course.
Not mine though. Not a penny.
Rob Read:
WHO is paying?
Not me. Not a damned penny.
Fron Miam’s linked piece – Why aren’t Eta ‘terrorists’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4140000/newsid_4148100/4148173.stm
The use of language in reporting atrocities is something to which the BBC gives a great deal of thought.
It avoids labels wherever it can. And its credibility is severely undermined if international audiences think they can detect a bias for or against any of those involved.
Utter bullshit. The left loves labels. It deals in labels. Sticking labels on its enemies is what it does. And did you get that bit on “international audiences”? Applying the T word is no indicator of bias. Terror organisations are proscribed by governments and even the UN. By not using the T word the BBC is merely chasing ratings in countries to which it owes no allegiance, in countries whose people do not pay for it, in communities which hate the Judeo-Christian West and who feed on the BBC’s Great Tit of anti-western Marxism.
Did I mention I ain’t paying for it?
england
I can see what you are saying. I don’t blame you for cynicism. But they have now been forced by public and media pressure to use the T word here in Britain. The Newswatch video suggests that a senior BBC exec went into the main newsroom just after 7/7 and ORDERED people not to use the T word. That has now been dumped.
As you say, the policy for overseas is less clear. I assert it remains the same as before – AVOID THE T WORD. And my checking of various reports on the Egypt bombings confirm that. (Especially the wretched Orla Guerin video clip.)
But that does not mean the issue is over and finished. The BBC looks in a very hypocritical position now. They afe labelling Al Q atrocities against civilians with the T word here, but not overseas, for instance Iraq, Afghsanistan, Israel, Egypt, Turkey. That maybe implies that civilian lives in Britian are somehow more valuable than foreign lives. We have terrorists – they have insurgents.
I don’t think that line is tenable. I think the BBC Governors are going to review the matter, reading between the lines of what Grade said on the Today programme. The spotlight is now on them. Any decision by the governors will become puublic. And the policy guidelines are still there in black and white, to be challenged. The BBC can’t sweep this away as easily as you think.
england
nd the brainwashing CN be halted. Look at multiculturalism – it is now becoming a dirty word.
The BBC seems to have been really (or O’Reilly!) needled by the several rounds of criticism by Fox TV.
Good. Because Bill O’Reilly and others at Fox will carry on, I think. They are right, the BBC is wrong on the T word, and on the BIAS in its news services.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1527894,00.html
(nice swipe at the Guardian !)
Lots of seething here ? Or just unctious ? :
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,1527061,00.html
Here are O’Reilly’s latest references to the BBC (video clip available on the Fox TV site as “Politics of terror”):
Talking Points
By Bill O’Reilly
The politics of terror…22 July
The politics of terror, that is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
Looks to me like this terror incident in London today was done by amateurs, but nevertheless, it is getting worldwide attention. At this point, nobody was hurt. Police say four low-level bombs were involved, but that’s still being defined. There was only minor damage.
Now let’s go to the big picture. It is becoming very clear that everybody on this planet is going to have to make a decision about terrorism, but there really are only three options. You can take a hard line, which is my position. You can appease terrorism, which is Spain’s position. Or you can refuse to confront the issue at all. And unfortunately, millions of people are doing that.
“Talking Points” will once again state that if every decent person in the world would join together against terrorism, it would be defeated quickly, but obviously that’s not happening.
Now here in the USA, we have people who have made a huge deal out of Guantanamo Bay (search), Abu Ghraib, the run up to the Iraq War, and other issues surrounding the terror war.
In my opinion, some have lost sight of the real issue, because of the politics. With all due respect to the left wing in this country, when Islamic fascists are slaughtering civilians, I’m not sure the abuse at Abu Ghraib (search) should be our main concern.
All Americans should realize that mistakes are going to be made fighting a global war on terror, but we should also realize that if we don’t aggressively fight it, more Americans will die in the streets.
Now on tonight’s “Factor”, you will once again hear people blaming Tony Blair and President Bush for terrorists. You’ll also see that the BBC , the CBC and other news organizations around the world simply will not call the threat what it is.
So why is this happening? The answer again is politics. These people despise Bush and Blair. And the terrorists take a back seat to that.
The dissenters are right, however, when they say that the war in Iraq has helped the terrorists. It has by creating division. That’s just what bin Laden wants.
In the long run, however, terrorism could be dealt a severe blow if Iraq becomes an effective democratic country. Obviously, the terrorists fear that. And more obviously, the free world should be helping Iraq, not quibbling over it.
Comes a time when you have to decide what’s best for everyone. And there’s no question that what is best for everyone in the world right now is to defeat Islamic fascism. You’ve got to stop the nonsense. And that’s “The Memo.”
John in London:
I’m not surprised that the intellectually lazy will try to blame the Egypt bomb on the Iraq war. But the fact tourists from countries that didn’t participate in the war go to Egypt, such as Switzerland, get attacked, doesn’t seem to dawn on the root-causers.
Of course, it doesn’t explain the Morocco blasts, or the Tunisia synagogue bombing. (Of course, we know the reason Islamic terrorists blow up synagogues….)
From JiL’s Guardian link above
“O’Reilly has also laid into the Guardian since Thursday’s bombings, asking one guest: “Have you read the Guardian lately? I mean, it might be edited by Osama bin Laden. I mean, that’s how bad the paper is.”
Truer than O’Reilly expected, with Aslam being given a free rein at the Guardian.
I am sure that if someone with the resources traced the BBC’s excision of the ‘T’ word from its coverage, they will find that it was first excised by its Mid-East Bureau covering atrocities against Israel *before it became official policy for the spurious reasons given to cover up for this gross anti-semitic bias. ‘Oh the lies we weave when we at first conspire to deceive’ (or some such). Unfortunately I dont have the resources or time to mount such an investigation. But it would be so interesting if someone could provide a definitive answer to this belief.
Lastly, Blair needs to send in MI5 to investigate [Deleted] with a view to bringing charges for treason for acting as a propaganda tool of the enemy.
Personally I think the main issue with the Beeb’s somewhat tetchy response to the Fox criticism is why someone employed at license fee payer’s expense is taking the time to respond at all. There has been much criticism on the terminology issue from mainstream moderate sources in the UK yet they devote time and money to sulking at a channel which only political nerds and terminal channel hoppers will have heard of over here.
I was thinking this weekend that the standard of media coverage on London, Iraq and the ‘war on terror’ generally has really deteriorated of late. The holes in the ‘leave Iraq now/hug a Muslim today’ argument are obvious to all with the power of thought. The pro argument has degenerated into O’Reilly’s ‘if every decent person in the world would join together against terrorism, it would be defeated quickly’, surely the most utterly trite statement since Bob Geldof last spoke. Even the serious, analytical news press like the Economist appear to have no ideas other than that things aren’t going well but we should persevere.
It’ll be interesting watching the BBC’s series on the current state of Al-Quaeda to see if its anything more than speculative dross.
Channel 4 news had a “spokesman” from Hizb ut-Tahrir on its 7 o’clock show. It was shortly after 7/7. I forget his name because I had the TV on in the background.
Put a terrorist in a suit and the mainstream media fall over themselves to give them airtime.
[Deleted]
Wasn`t it Babs Plett who cried for Arafat?
So many beeb apologists, its hard to remember.
Yes, my mistake, it was Barbara Plett.
Hal (and everyone else): If you wish to make specific allegations against named individuals please do so on your own web space/blog/forum. The Biased BBC contributors are volunteers documenting BBC bias in our spare time – we have neither the time nor the inclination to risk being a mouthpiece for those who wish to risk libelling others – so if you like Biased BBC as it is, please be more careful and considerate. Thank you.
Raft trip link to London attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711533.stm
Sorry, but I laughed out lound at the last para. I hope the authorities have ‘Prezza’ under surveillance!
Yes the BBC does good work, even still produces good journalism.
BUT…..anything pertaining to the War against Islamo-fascism, The Israel Palastine conflict, the administration and the BBC morphs into a very subtle and devious is a seditious organisation, they are the terrorist’s apologists and propagandists giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
As for not wanting to use labels…what tosh! They constantly poison the well by using epithets like ‘right winger’ etc.
Apparently Kofi nnan is also having trouble with the T word.
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002255.html
Haven’t heard much from the BBC’s Rageh Omaar for a while, but glad he’s keeping well informed of events, exposing himself to a wide range of media opinions..mainly:
Independent, Guardian, Channel4 News, R4 Today programme and BBC World Service.
My media – Rageh Omaar
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1535289,00.html
How does Rageh suppose to ‘inform and eductate’ us lot if he lives in the protective bubble of left of centre political views??
“The Power of Nightmares haunted the makers of a new BBC series on Islamist terrorism, explains Sandy Smith”
After Curtis
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1535314,00.html
(registration possibly req’d).
I’ve come to the conclusion that the !bBC will not use “labels” with organisations and causes “it” staff generally supports.
The !bBC has NO future unless it can recruit from a politically diverse workforce. It would suprise no-one if an internal audit found right-wingers were in shorter supply than black KKK members.
One of the problems IMHO is that at the very top of the BBC the people who MZANAGE all the news op-eration sdo not have anythin g like the experience they should have.
Hell, we had Greg Dyke deciding on fundamental issues of jourmnalism. When the Director General was “editor in chief”.
Now Mark Byford as Deputy DG has overall editor-in-chief responsibility.
But what is his track record, his depth and breadth of experience in major JOURNALISM and CURRENT AFFAIRS ? As against climbing the bureaucratic ladder on the news side – especially regional news (horselaugh)?
Here is Byford’s biography.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/executives/markbyford.shtml
Now compare it with someone like Alasdair Milne, who rose through a deep news background to become DG. No damn contest. He was a founder producer of the Tonight programme, the equivalent of Newsnight, and then its editor. He must have had serious news experience before that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_Milne
I think the BBC is badly in need of someone with much greater news and editorial experience – and MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE – to go through the Augean stables of the BBC news empire, sort the whole place out on a six-month contract. Put some sort of block on the amateurism, the sloppiness, let alone the bias. And sort the stupid T word business out once and for all – it is a beacon of the BBC’s moral equivalency.
I simply cannot see how the BBC Governors can feel proper confidence in the present set-up. Byford’s interview about the T word was positively cringeworthy. One for the archives.
I heard this story at least an hour ago – the unfortunate Brazilian was an illegal immigrant, probably why he panicked and ran when challenged by police.
But no mention of this on the BBC homepage. Why not ? They have the story, it is hugely relevant to the current hot debate. And all the criticism of the police that the BBC has been carrying all day.
debate.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
The bbc is leading the British media in the compilation of a new English dictionary.
examples:
Terrorist = someone who commits a bomb atrocity in London.
Insurgent, or militant = a Palestinian who murders Israelis or rival gang members in the Territories.
Hank
It is worse than tht.
People who blow people mostly Egyptians are not terrorists. Their deed is not terrorism.
Euphemisms inclde insurgent and militant, as you say – plus bomber. Oh – nd Orla Guerin hd “attackers”.
No BBC report report I saw on Sharm on their website Sharm used the T word openly.
(I posted on this earlier – can’t see it any more, may have gone down the memory hole ! I used the word “”wretched” about an equivocating video report from Sharm, maybe that was why ?)
The 2.13 post was me, sorry.
“No ‘illegal immigrants’ here, move along now.”
At lunchtime on the World at One, Nick Clarke had to squeeze very hard to get ‘security correspondent’ Gordon Carerra to admit that the Brazillian was an ‘illegal immigrant’. Infact Carerra didn’t use those words, just that his visa ‘hadn’t been renewed’. I am thinking ‘illegal immigrant’ another banned word at BBC. Not ‘illegal immigrant’ but “non-valid visa owning misunderstood hard-working ethnic minority”. Not that the poor guy deserved to be shot all all. But I’d speculate that his desision, when confronted by armed police, to vault the tube ticket barrier and run away straight into a tube train, may have been influenced by the fact that he should have departed the UK in 2003. What on earth are our immigration services doing all day? Stamping passports with meaningless visas that are never followed up? Talk about a ‘soft touch’.
Remember, this Brazillian guy was an innocent illegal alien ie probably getting on with his innocent business, (black market electrician) obviously ‘under the radar’ of the authorities.
How many people with evil intent are also living in Londinistan who entered the UK on a visiting 3 ‘student visa’ and disappeared, now ‘under the radar’
Seems to me the UK ‘radar’ is well and truly blown and it ain’t just the fuse that needs replaced.
john in london.
now that he has been killed it is surely in bad taste to mention his migrant status.
there is a great deal of other material we have against the bbc.
kisinger was interviewed on hard talk
(not by tim sebastian)i wanted to hear him give us a half hour discourse on history or anything else he cared to speak about.i was really looking forward to hearing him.
instead the silly interviewer no doubt trying to show off to his peers
proceeded to be rude to the now elderly man.kissinger was plainly fed up and wished he was elsewhere.
the interviewer who’s name i cannot remember but who’s smirk i will never forget was terribly pround of himself.
If you want to stay ‘hip’ in multicultural Britain, now’s the time to catch up on some of the ‘metaphorical rap’ our quaint young Mussslim communities have ‘enriched’ us with:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5FD2DDBD-DA09-46B0-A7C9-49FE59BE6946.htm
i am happy to see the bbc employ ethnic minorities.it is laudable.
on the other hand i am fed up with seeing the badawi lady with her abrupt and jerky head movements.she also makes a point of exagerating her accent when she pronounces middle-east names.i cringe and reach for the remote.she is certainly no replacement for tim sebastian on the hard talk show.
richard
the Brzilians immigration status is the whole point and NOT to discuss it would be in bad taste and may be dangerous for others.
as Drummer points out, he should have left or renewed in 2003.
If we had a system worth a damn he would have been monitored, kept current by regular consular visits, left uk or had his paper renewed. poor chap would not, had the above happened (our failure not his) felt the need to flee armed police. left wing immigrationn softness led directly to the death of the poor unfortunate Brazilian gentleman.
In every report she makes from Sharm in Egypt, Orla Guerin studiously avoids the T word. “Attackers” is her usual euphemism.
Absolutely ridiculous, in fact sickening. In one clip there were local protestors against the terrorism – and one had a T-shirt clearly objecting to “Terrorism”.
Does Orla Guerin maybe have a problem pronouncing her Rs ?
Michael Grade – is he actually watching ???
Or Mark Byford ???
Andrew – one has to mention spoecific BBC journalists – they are the ones doing the reports on our screens and continuing to avoid the T word.
As if they never heard or were told what Grade said.
The “root causes” of the death of the Brazillian at Stockwell station is the failure of the multi-culti UK authorities to get the most basic of things correct and police the borders properly. This is due to the more equal status that immigrants have been granted by “our” left wing media.
The BBC very seldom reports as clearly as this of the threats observable on our streets.
Very troubling article reporting from the streets of Greenwich in, of all places, the Christian Science Monitor :
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0722/p01s01-woeu.htm
Dire criticism of all the follies tht Blair AND the BBC have endorsed that have helped bring us the homegrown terrorism :
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/871kbaxp.asp?pg=2
i have been racking my mind but cannot solve the problem .what does orla guerin mean when she speaks of the egyptian “hot-orr-oties”
i think i have the spelling right but am not sure.
re your article on july 10 with tamimi and his interview with tim sebastian.
i urge all readers to look at the article.
today he was interviewed by the bbc where he presented himself as the very essence of moderation.
hey you guys at the bbc don’t you understand anything?
i wonder what tim sebastian thinks?
(if i may say so a man with a great deal of integrity and never strikes a false note in his interviews)
Aren’t the BBC’s international news websites funded by the Foreign Office out of the World Service budget? The idea being, presumably, that the Brazilians will be less annoyed with us for gunning down their innocent countrymen if we tell them about it honestly…
Can’t the UK just release a press statement like any other country?
The thought that there’s even less choice paying for and that it’s even harder to avoid paying for the world service, as it is funded by directly lowering the living standards of the financially succesful is very hurtful.
I’ll feel so much better once I get my emigration sorted out. As a higher rate taxpayer who knows how tax is used to destroy Britain and the people who pay most of it, emigrating is the most moral option. I will return when collectivism implodes through a lack of productive people to parasite off.
First time I’ve contributed to this blog, although I always read it with interest. My reason for writing – I’ve just been listening to P.M. (Monday) – I think it must take the biscuit for the most one sided programme I’ve ever heard. A string of excuses explaining what the causes of the terrorism are. I eventually switched off in complete disgust.
Anonymous: “Andrew – one has to mention spoecific BBC journalists – they are the ones doing the reports on our screens and continuing to avoid the T word”.
It’s fine to mention people by name when discussing what they’ve done, said and reported on. What is not fine are things like, for instance:
– making specious criminal allegations – apart from the legal risk of such things, it doesn’t reflect well on Biased BBC when someone starts sounding like a swivel-eyed loon (except when it’s John B! :-));
– saying things like “didn’t Such And Such cry when Arafat died”, when, in fact, it wasn’t Such And Such, it was Barbara Plett – please do us a favour – if in doubt about the facts, check it with Google before shooting off about it here! It’s not difficult – it’s right there in our archives and on BBC Viewsonline;
We don’t want to be heavy-handed about comments – they are usually very interesting and a valuable addition to Biased BBC – but please remember that you are responsible for what you say here – and if it reflects badly on Biased BBC we will, in so far as is possible (given time and the volume of comments), take action to delete such comments and, where necessary, ban people from commenting.
Another “influencial thinker” paves his way to BBC glory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4714101.stm
Islamic militant or revolutionary?
Islamic extremist or the man leading reform of the faith? Professor Tariq Ramadan explains why his critics are wrong and why the London bombings mean more than ever that Western Muslims must split from the East.
The caption under his picture reads:
Leading thinker: But Prof Ramadan has enemies
And the piece starts with:
He’s the man the Sun loved to hate.
Guess where this is going..
Azzam Tamimi is in good company, that’s for sure.
The New Al-Qaeda on TV at 9pm Monday.
Preview in The Times suggests its another root cause offering, with the new BBC favorite ex-CIA man – as OBL expert 97-99 (or somesuch)you would have thought he would just hide in his beard & shut up.
Forgot to add those links about Ramadan:
40 reasons why Tariq Ramadan is a reactionary bigot.
And the Sun article the BBC refers to.
still puzzled re orla guerin and egyptian “hot-ott-orities.
could it be a pyramid? or perhaps a snack?
The Times has a piece about Scott’s Guardian humiliation success:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1707775,00.html
It also mentions the BBC:
“Bloggers also criticised the BBC website for soliciting a comment from Dr Imran Waheed, the media spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, on the London bombing.”
Don’t want to appear pseudo-Olympian or anything, but I think it’s about time the story:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/19/the_mainstreaming_of_hizbut_tahrir.php
made it onto the front page of this blog. It’s too important to be buried in the comments.
Leftoids are receiving a well deserved kicking for aligning themselves with fascists; let’s do all we can to see that the BBC doesn’t miss out.
.
I’ve just sent this to the BBC as they did ask for comments on tonight’s “The New Al-Qaeda” I’m sure, as usual, this one won’t get shown:
What an absolutely ridiculous comment at the end of tonight’s program. Are you naive or just on the side of the terrorists. It is ridiculous to say that islamic terrorism is down to Western policies in Islamic countries. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that they will not stop until they have turned the whole world muslim. That is their one mission in life.
My thoughts on ‘The New Al-Qaeda: jihad.com’, BBC1 tonight @9pm
Well, any fears I had about this programme by Peter Taylor soon evaporated. An excellent piece of journalism that took some care and attention to put together in such a consistent and coheret way. Even though Iraq was mentioned, it was only a couple of times, and set in context that it is one of the ‘so called’ reasons used by jihadist muslims, but one of many and no suggestion that all would be solved if we pull out. As the atrocity Egypt showed, Iraq is one massive red herring.
Some of the footage eg Sacranie being hounded by Jihadists at the Finsbury Mosque was very powerful in hitting home the fact that these dangerous nutters live and breath in the UK in freedom whilst plotting the death and destruction of our own country.
My wife, who doesn’t read newspapers in detail and gets most of her news via BBC 1 and R4 Today was pretty surprised and shocked that we have these kind of jihadist living and carrying out their incitement/glorification activities in the UK. We’ve just had a good discussion of the prog and I’ve passed on some info to my wife re the BBC’s ‘bias’ coverage.
If the prog has had anything like the same effect in other households across the land then it has played it’s part in giving a decent sized audience a ‘wake-up’ call, and for that Peter Taylor should be
congratulated.
Comments?
The fact that the fascistic Hizb-ut-Tahrir co-opted the wife of the British prime Minister to act on their behalf has not received the comment which it deserves, and Cherie gets away with it (and other gaffes).
Look at what has happened here. The Prime Minister adopts the European Human Rights Act (in the UK, there were no human rights prior to this?) which directly increases the earning capacity of his wife and her legal chambers. She then acts for a bunch of islamo-nazis yet gets let off scot-free from this shameful piece of highly-paid chicanery.
Miam
It seems reasonable so far, considering it’s instalment one of three. I had the same thought as you, that many households up and down the land who don’t follow current affairs (or who only get their news from the BBC) will be waking up to the Islamists and their supporters living amongst us.
I saw footage of Sacranie’s press conference being taken over when it happened during the election but it wasn’t as clear as this. At the time it was obvious that footage had been edited to avoid showing young Islamists too clearly. We had a few of them clearly on our screens tonight.
What a shame nothing will happen to them.