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.
Hal, you are now one of a very small list of people banned from commenting at Biased BBC. I regret that this has been necessary, especially as I have explained to you fairly and reasonably the whats and whys of the ground rules for commenting here – you might feel safe from UK libel law sitting pretty in Spain, but we’re not prepared to risk carrying the can for someone like you. It seems you are unable to respond with anything other than self-righteous foul-mouthed abuse, like a drunk at a dinner party who insists on his right to piss on the host’s sofa from across the room. Do not post here again – you are no longer welcome.
Laura “Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that they will not stop until they have turned the whole world muslim.
That’s just what HuT were yelling at the Sacranie press conference, yet the programme’s next & final comment was the root causes line.
Did they ignore what the jihadists were saying or expect us not to take them seriously?
Andrew or whoever.
I must object to you deleting n entire post just because it included a reference to a video clip by Orla Guerin concerning the terrorism in Egypt. Her obvious refusal to use the T word about the Egypts atrocities. Last I can see is that there are 10 British people still missing in Sharm.
IMHO you should NOT have deleted the links to other specific BBC misreporting, CLEAR examples of BBC refusals to use the T word about the Egypt terrorism.. Specific LINKS to the BBC evasions. You have dumped those links, usable evidence of BBC bias, down Orwell’s memory hole.
Can you please explain your editorial policy here more clearly.
Is it worth posting attempts at genuine stuff here in a fast-moving news situation, if you are going to arbitrarily delete it for fear of offending people at the the BBC ?
There are plenty of other sites to post at, here and in the US and OZ. And journlists, commentators and TV presenters to inform, here and abroad
Do you want to be the prime site for complaints about BBC bias ?
The 12.26am call was me.
Can I add that I object to posts being deleted without an email of explanation.
You let rubbish from known disruptors sit on your site, distracting from the theme of BBC bias.
Anonymous: “I must object to you deleting n entire post just because it included a reference to a video clip by Orla Guerin concerning the terrorism in Egypt”.
Which comment would that be?
We very, very rarely delete comments. Speaking for me, I haven’t deleted any comments for months, with two exceptions – I deleted two comments before the weekend that were gratuitously offensive, and I have deleted two or three foul-mouthed comments this evening, none of which were anything like the post you describe, so I am at a loss as to what you’re referring to.
Do post it again if it was your comment.
For those in doubt about the comments policy here, please refer to the Statement of policy on comments on the main blog page.
Thank you.
P.S. I have no problem with offending people at the BBC – as if you can’t tell from my blog posts. What I do have a problem with is wasting time dealing with libel complaints arising from comments made here by third-parties.
I used have a couple of old Bulgarian hot-ott-orities. Trouble is the grommets have perished and some of the flanges have nurdled and you just cant get replacements round here. Theyre up on bricks in my shed now.
Re: The New AQ on BBC last night.
Have to agree that it was pretty good. Wilson quickly distanced himself from Curtis (Power of Nightmares), saying that “some people” had tried to say that AQ did not exist, but that he “did not share that view”.
At the end though it came out with the line that the only thing fuelling muslim anger was Western foreign policy rather than a clash of civilisations. Will be interesting to see what episodes 2 and 3 bring. It would be interesting to hear a full debate on this topic, to see why Muslims are so angered at Western policy.
The BBC should have been doing this years ago, instead of that Power of Nightmares rubbish.
Cherie Blair is a barrister. Under the rules barristers have to operate under they cannot refuse a case. It’s known as the “cab rank” rule. I am sure that Hizb deliberately got their solicitors (themselves Hizb members) to sign her up, knowing how much potential it had to embarrass the government. I think Dilpazier Aslam didn’t decide of his own initiative to apply for the Guardian traineeship. Hizb runs like a Trotskyist party. Its members are foot soldiers in the great jihadi campaign. Hizb seems to be doing its best to infiltrate itself into the mainstream (as is Hamas).
Judy: “Cherie Blair is a barrister. Under the rules barristers have to operate under they cannot refuse a case. It’s known as the “cab rank” rule”.
Cobblers! The cab rank rule is not as firm a rule as the name suggests – there is no one rank, and no independent person administering it. Each barrister or set of barristers employs a clerk – if the case comes the way of those chambers (i.e. through the client’s choice) then the clerk (employed by the barrister!) decides whether or not the barrister is available for the case – there are a whole load of reasons why any barrister may or may not be available for any given case – if you take a look at the Bar Council web site you’ll see just how much scope there is in applying the cab rank rule.
Even if the so-called ‘cab rank rule’ was firm and transparent, it remains relevant and of public interest that it happens to be the Prime Minister’s wife who secured the outcome of that highly contentious case, and as such should be reported by the BBC as part of their coverage of it.
How many votes did Palestinian terrorist sympathiser C. Booth (Blair) get? The bbc picks up on her clap-trap because of her husband. Would anyone write about her if she was a single woman? By the way, what exactly is her surname? Did she change it by deed poll after her marriage?
Judy’s comment still holds water insofar as Hizb pushing the case toward Cherie’s chambers.