Rashid Ramda is an Algerian who has been in Belmarsh prison for the last ten years, accused of financing the 1995 Paris Metro bombings which killed 11 people, and fighting extradition to an uncivilised country where confessions are extracted by the use of torture. Judges agreed with him, blocking his extradition to France in 2002.
This site chronicles Mr Ramda’s many fine qualities, the hideous regime under which he is kept, and the ‘Scottish lady Ann’ who has been his only visitor.
You can listen to his “letters filled with poetry, descriptions of the Sahara, and discussions about English literature”, addressed to that same Scottish lady, on Radio Four FM on Thursday.
“Letters from Belmarsh – Thu 28 Jul, 20:00 – 20:30 30 mins
An extraordinary glimpse behind the bars of Belmarsh Prison, through the correspondence between a Scottish grandmother and a Muslim man fighting extradition to France. Rachid Ramda, accused of the Paris Metro bombing, sends letters filled with poetry, descriptions of the Sahara, and discussions about English literature”
UPDATE – the broadcast was pulled at (shortish) notice yesterday, to be replaced by an edition of Crossing Continents. I haven’t found out why. The link above is now defunct (indeed the programme seems to have disappeared ftom the BBC website), but the programme description is here.
Letters From Belmarsh
8.00-8.30pm BBC RADIO 4
Saleya Ahsan presents this programme about a Scottish grandmother, Ann, who, through a chance encounter, started writing to prisoners held under terrorism laws at Belmarsh. In the beginning, she knew nothing about the legislation, or about Muslims.“I’d never met one; there is no Muslim community where I live.” But over the last two years of correspondence, her perceptions, fears and beliefs have been challenged and changed, and this ordinary woman has become a fervent human rights campaigner – although she doesn’t like to be called a campaigner.
The men she writes to include an Algerian accused of having a role in the Nineties Paris Metro bombing, who has been held on remand for nine years without charge. He writes poetry to her. Through him, she learns about another severely depressed Algerian who has no arms and has had periods of solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.
Depression is an illness rife amongst the internees. None have seen their families since their detention yet there have been no charges, no trials and no convictions. Ann has become an unlikely expert in internment, the justice system and high-security prisons.
Presenter/Saleya Ahsan, Producer/Lynne Mennie
I have italicised a couple of lines above. What is NOT mentioned is that
a) Mr Ramda has been fighting extradition to France, so far successfully
b) like all Belmarsh detainees, Mr Ramda and his Algerian colleague are free to leave at any time, providing they leave the UK. if they prefer to remain in detention, that is their decision, unless they can find no other country willing to accept them. In which case, it might be asked, should they be free to live in the UK ?
Doubtless these pertinent questions will be answered in the programme itself. Anyone got a transcript ?
OT,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4714691.stm.
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot eight times at Stockwell station after he was mistaken for a suicide bomber
I think it may be a mistake. He was shot five times not eight.
I think 8 is the new figure after examining the body.
Van Gogh killer jailed for life
Tuesday, 26 July, 2005, 08:38 GMT 09:38 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4716909.stm
Pretty important news. A horrific murder by a islamist nutter. Jailed for life, no parole.
Didn’t you see the report? Oh. That’ll be because at BBC online it has been filed under ‘Entertainment’.
What perverted mind at the BBC thought that the court case outcome of a brutal murder (and it was incredibly brutal, not that you’d know from the BBC articles) is an ‘Entertainment’ story?
Van Gogh was a film maker, but this is not a celeb/entertainment story. That demeans & desensitises what actually took place.
Now lets get on to the mealy-mouthed, pathetically short, uninfomative article.
1. According to the BBC:
“During the trial, Mr Bouyeri gave the court little insight into why he killed Theo Van Gogh.”
Really? Not a teansy-weensy bit to do with Islam then?
Hmm. Do we have any clues? Here are some quotes that the “radical islamist” gave to the court:
“I should cut everyone’s head off who insults Allah or his prophet.”
and
“Bouyeri, 27, confessed to the murder during his trial at Amsterdam District Court earlier this month, saying he had been motivated by his religious convictions. The Dutch-Moroccan praised Allah and carried the Koran in court during the trial.
Have you got any ‘insight’ as to why he killed Van Gogh? Shall we let the Beeb in on this ‘secret’? Why do they omit this information and try to mislead us by saying there was confusion as to motive??? Why??
Above isn’t sourced by any mad neo-con blog, try Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L2649225
Also according to the BBC:
“..sentenced to life in prison for the November murder of controversial film-maker Theo Van Gogh”
Ah, so it was Theo Van Gogh who was controversial, not the murdering islamist. Being controversial, that’ll be a possible ‘justification’ for his murder then. He was ‘asking for it’!
This was just a ‘November murder’ (BBC’s own description) by a poor misunderstood radical.
In fact, the murdering islamist was found guilty of shooting and stabbing Van Gogh, slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. The judge called it “gruesome”.
Not that you’d know that from the BBCs bias reporting, just another ‘November murder’
Bad journalism or blatant bias?
Van Gogh killer jailed for life
Tuesday, 26 July, 2005, 09:10 GMT 10:10 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4716909.stm
That’s better – moved to front news page and completely re-written article.
The Beeb are still portraying Van Gogh as controvertial for disagreeing with murdering islamists:
“Van Gogh, a strong critic of radical Islam, was shot and stabbed in broad daylight as he was cycling through Amsterdam.”
“strong critic”? Bad choice of words and portrays someone in minority. I would have thought most decent people in the UK/Europe mainstream would be “strong critics” of radical islam, beheadings, stonings, amputations etc etc
Is someone who disagrees with terrorism a “strong critic”. Appears to be so, accoring to the BBC.
Note on above – the original article I linked to has been stealth edited. Sorry.
Nice one Miam!
Van Gogh was undeniably controversial – he was already hated by feminists and Jewish groups for making films that deliberately offended women and Jews. Equally, the film he was apparently shot for involved (in Muslims’ eyes) desecrating the text of the Koran.
It’s appalling he was shot, and I’d happily stand up for anyone’s right to tell religious people they’re clowns and piss on their cultist symbols. But to portray him as some kind of investigative journalist rather than a juvenile provocateur (insert obligatory ‘takes one to know one’ gag here) is incorrect and silly.
should be “stabbed”, not “shot”, above, sorry.
Here’s a bit more background on Mr Van Gogh. “I suspect that [Jewish] Ms. Gans gets wet dreams about being fucked by Dr Mengele” is one pleasant quote. Calling (all) Muslims “goatfuckers” (geitenneukers) is another.
Arguably, the BBC article is overly respectful towards Mr Van Gogh and his views by giving the impression he was a “strong critic” of Islam (in the style of someone like Irshad Manji, rather than a playground name-caller…)
Off topic:
Did anybody see the “New AQ” program last night? The terrorists seem awfully organised, considering they don’t exist • “Power of Nightmares”.
The program was quite interesting, but the journalist seemed reluctant to challenge some rather offensive views. I found the Saudi dissident (claiming asylum in the UK), with the terrorist son, extremely offensive. Why is he allowed to run a website that distributes AQ propaganda, videos of British soldiers being killed, hostages being beheaded, weapons training videos, etc? Surely, he should be gaoled or deported?
Who is running this country? How can people be allowed to abuse our hospitality in this way? Our politicians hide behind the EU Human Rights Act. If it’s a problem, withdraw from the treaty and deport this scum.
BBC defends Iraq blast footage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4710000/newsid_4717600/4717643.stm
It’s a difficult line. No terrorist or terrorist act should be given the “oxygen of publicity” esp. if there is ‘glorification’ or ‘incitement’. In the case of last night’s prog however, notwithstanding any distress caused to the family of the murdered soldiers, I feel that Peter Taylor exposed the terrorists and showed them for what they really are. cold, calculating, fearless, remorseless, sadistic islamist terrorists. Their view and acts need to be exposed, and shown to the public, and I think the prog dealt with that pretty well on the whole.
Re: The New AQ on BBC last night.
Have to say that it was pretty good (compared to the power of nightmares anyway which was, even according to the Guardian, a “polemic”). 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. however, this may have been a cliff- hanger ending. 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 its hackneyed political correctness and anti – Americanism.
Incidentally, Tony Blair has been having a go at the American bashers in the West at his press conference today. So glad I voted for Tony.
Blair: Iraq no excuse for terror
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4716505.stm
A decent performance by Blair today re the war against the islamist jihadists. Once choice quote:
“Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism. If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?”
(The BBC should put that to Galloway next time he’s on BBC radio/tv)
In a 75 minute media conference Mr Blair also said there was “no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere. In the United States of America, there is no justification for it. Period”.
The Beeb even have Blair’s speech in full on video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm#
Things are looking up, have they been reading Biased-BBC?
Actually, the Beeb has left out some strong criticism of their ‘iraq is the reason’ line of the past few weeks:
Not quoted in the BBC online report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4716505.stm
Quoted here:
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200507/debe45f1-5b3d-42f2-a95b-e926e4ce192a.htm
Blair takes on ‘obscenity’ of terrorism
Iraq
The prime minister slammed the “obscenity” of people saying it was “concern for Iraq” that drives them to terrorism.
“If it is concern for Iraq, why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?” he asked.
“What is happening in Iraq is that ordinary decent Iraqis are being butchered by these people with the same terrorist ideology that is killing people in different parts of the world.”
Blair said there should be no compromise with the “warped logic” of terrorists.
“We shouldn’t even allow them a vestige of an excuse for what they do.”
Evil
In his media briefing, the prime minister also warned against the “complete nonsense” of saying there is equivalence between coalition actions in Iraq and the work of terrorists.
“It is time we stopped saying ‘ok, we abhor their methods but we kind of see something in their ideas or maybe they have got a sliver of excuse or justification’.
“They have got no justification for it.
When the Prime Minister says “we” could he be including the BBC?
“And one other thing I want to say while I’m on this subject, neither have they got any justification for killing people in Israel either.
“There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, London, Egypt, Turkey, in the United States of America. There is no justification for it, period.
“And we will start to beat this when we stand up and confront the ideology of this evil. No just the methods but the ideas.”
Published: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:45:21 GMT+01
No doubt Blair’s Focus Group Facilitating Outreach Co-ordinator has reported back that he needs to sound a little more tough.
From Laban Tall (‘Londistan’):
“However, this is all changing, according to the Guardian. Apparently we’re going to extradite to France an Algerian accused of financing the 1995 bombings of the Paris tube network (bombings obviously carried out because of Iraq).”
“He’s not all bad, though. You can listen to his “letters filled with poetry, descriptions of the Sahara, and discussions about English literature” on Radio Four FM tonight. Sweet.”
LETTERS FROM BELMARSH
Thu 28 Jul, 20:00 – 20:30 30 mins
An extraordinary glimpse behind the bars of Belmarsh Prison, through the correspondence between a Scottish grandmother and a Muslim man fighting extradition to France. Rachid Ramda, accused of the Paris Metro bombing, sends letters filled with poetry, descriptions of the Sahara, and discussions about English literature”
BBC Worldwide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/languages.shtml
BBC World Service Trust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/index.shtml
Amazing what my taxes will pay for. In effect Free TV & Radio & Internet content for all, worldwide!
Afghan ‘Woman’s Hour’ looks good though:
Celebrating women on Afghan radio
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/projectsindepth/story/2005/06/050616_afghanupdate.shtml
Iraqi ‘Eastenders’ coming soon. Courtesy of the BBC and UK taxpayers.
No wonder the BBC treats it UK viewers & listeners like sh*t. We are but a gnat on the back of a modern day broadcasting Behemoth.
Aghhh. How sweet. I wonder if he’s an expert on the French Countryside (best place to hide an arms dump) or French literature (Count of Monte Cristo).
With a bit of luck he may become an expert on french penal cuisine.
Rob,
Tis a pity the EU prevents him from becoming an expert on gravity, hemp rope and neck fractures.
What do we need a fair, unbiased broadcasting organisation for anyway? Why not free up the airwaves and let anyone say what they want, within the laws of the land? This system works for books, newspapers, theatre, lectures etc so why not TV? I don’t see the point of us paying £3 billion per year so that a priveleged few can give us their version of a politically neutral broadcasting service, along with counstless hours of ‘entertainment’. Even if it were neutral, we just don’t need it.
I just want to clarify that my Count of Monte Cristo reference doesn’t relate to an innocent man imprisoned without trial. It’s more “prison break and viscious revenge”
It says it all that, whilst Van Gogh upset jews feminists and muslims it was a muslim who carried out his grisley murder.
Miam.
“When the PM says “we” could he be including the BBC?
And could he be including his “Wife”?
Peter – does it also say it all that while Pim Fortuyn offended Muslims, greens, lefties and Guardianistas, it was a green who murdered him?
Miam – we’ve spent millions and millions of pounds trying to promote women’s rights in Afghanistan by declaring war on the Taliban and trying to keep the peace subsequently. If you’re in favour of that (which I think most commenters here of all political hues, including me, are), bunging small change at a radio station to further spread that message seems like bloody good value.
john b – Having read about the work that is being done, paid for by the British taxpayer, oversease vis-a-vis BBC radio, television and internet content, I do support it. I wonder however what impact this work has on the BBC as an organisation? Does this work influence it’s ‘world view’ with such close links to NGOs, governments, third world nations etc etc? The evidence would perhaps suggest the BBCs output is ‘skewed’ in a multi-culti liberal, left leaning outlook.
How many times do you wake up to R4 Today leading on how some NGO report claims we’ll all be living under the sea in 20 years time and something must be done? This is different from ITN & Sky.
My preference would be for an independent Broadcasting ‘Trust’ to subcontract these projects out to a variety of global media broadcasters and content providers, with the Beeb being a ‘supplier’ to the Trust, rather than running the whole show.
Why should the Beeb run all those 40-odd news websites globally? Why not let CNN, Reuters, Al-jezeera, whoever also input into the aims of the Trust?
Statements like this worry me:
“The BBC World Service Trust harnesses the power of communications to bring about positive social change.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/aboutthetrust/story/2003/09/030903_faqs.shtml
So the BBC, in this context, is not simply enabling reporting and broadcasting news, it actually seeks to bring about “social change”.
Who decides what is desirable in terms of social change? My worry is reinforced by recent soundings from BBC Govenors/Trust along same lines giving the UK BBC a role in shaping the social fabric of the UK
To cut a long story short, as Jane said earlier “Even if it were neutral, we just don’t need it.”
Jane is right. Before 1922 news, entertainment and comment was entirely in private hands and you could choose your sources of each. Just because the radio and TV were invented, why do we need the government and it’s appointed broadcaster to get involved?
jane is absolutely right.
biased bbc should follow a strategy.dissolve the bbc and let the free market reign.we do not ask for change we do ask for dissolution-like the monasteries.it can be argued that they have a certain absolute power and we know where that leads to.
the bbc and global warming.
john kay in today’s ft says that bush is right and there is nothing to be done about global warming.he also mentions the house of lords report which the bbc downplays.please read him.he has plenty to say and says it well.
if the bbc has the ability to argue with mr kay then let them interview him.
http://www.johnkay.com
“How many times do you wake up to R4 Today leading on how some NGO report claims we’ll all be living under the sea in 20 years time and something must be done? ”
0. Unless we’re all on Tuvalu, in which case it’ll be 10 years.
“This is different from ITN & Sky.”
Who’d advertise on a station that told the truth?
“Who’d advertise on a station that told the truth?”
“Who’d pay for advertisements on a station that the public knew told lies?”
It’s capitalism that keeps companies honest.
It’s collectivism that keeps the BBC lying.
I’ve just had my second reply to a complaint to the BBC. I told them I objected to them using the word ‘free’ in adverts for their ‘red button’ digital TV services. I said they were not free, as everyone had already paid for them via the licence fee. They don’t agree with my complaint, and told me I was the only person ever to have complained about this usage. COME ON EVERYONE. In these days of the internt and email, complaints to the BBC can be rattled off easily and quickly. Let them know how much we don’t love them. They’re never slow to tell us how wonderful they are.
ITN avoid bias by replacing anything that could be mistaken for ‘news’ (let alone ‘bias’) with endless interviews with anyone who was in any way associated with a given event.
This provides us with valuable insights into the human condition, such as the fact that people who have witnessed violent events are left in a state of shock and that people who have lost family members are bereaved.
The BBC might try to tell me what to think, but I just wouldn’t know how to *feel* if it weren’t for the ITN.
Richard
Thanks for the link to John Kay’s site.
Many of the people who express concern about climate change do not want a technological solution. Their concern is really an expression of guilt about materialism, distaste for capitalism and fear of technology. It is because Mr Bush does not experience any of these feelings that he is right on this issue.
That just about sums up the greenie left.
john b,
Peter – does it also say it all that while Pim Fortuyn offended Muslims, greens, lefties and Guardianistas, it was a green who murdered him?
Um, well, now that you mention it. . .
John B.: Greens are lefties!
Simon,
It’s not for want of trying. I have on several occasions written to the Beeb to complain but have never received a response other than the cursory acknowledgement. I gave up in the end.
Recently, however, they seem to be at least acknowledging that they receive complaints and have begun publishing them on the web. There may possibly have been a policy change there.
re the boy from Brazil … Neither the bbc nor any of the rest of the moronic and superficial media thought to ask any questions about tasers or other types of very effective non-lethal means of stopping suspects.
> “Who’d advertise on a station that told the truth?”
“Who’d pay for advertisements on a station that the public knew told lies?”
It’s capitalism that keeps companies honest.
>
Yeah, right, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4715745.stm
Who cares if a TV station tells the truth as long as it pays its way without extorting money from people who don’t need it? I can decide for myself whether to believe what is broadcast, just like I can decide if I believe or agree with what I read in a book or a newspaper. What’s different about TV?
Who cares if a TV station tells the truth as long as it pays its way without extorting money from people who don’t need it? I can decide for myself whether to believe what is broadcast, just like I can decide if I believe or agree with what I read in a book or a newspaper. What’s different about TV?
Don | 27.07.05 – 12:04 pm | #
This seems to presume that you or anyone has an innate understanding of what will or will not be true about any media report, or else that it doesn’t matter to you personally one way or the other.
Even if you weren’t personally affected, at least outwardly, by a particular slant, there will be many that you share your life with, and to varied extent, directly and indirectly, be affected by their views and opinions which will have been shaped by what the media produces.
Attitudes, intelligence, responsibility, awareness, and direction of our society is much affected by the media, in particular TV because of the amount it is watched by most of the public.
The BBC is particularly under scrutiny because unlike other channels where one can assume there is some degree of bias on the part of its owners or advertisers, here one expects them to be live up to their charter and endeavour to be free of bias, but still represent the democracy and society that pays for them.
Dave Heasman,
They play records. What is your point?
The market has given people choices. As you can see by download charts the market regime has corrected and kept things more honest!
Have you looked into how people get on Top of the Pops?
Teddy Bear,
Lefties say advertisers corrupt broadcasters, but broadcasters lose money if people don’t watch and thus advertising space is less valuable.
The !bBC is funded and thus corrupted by state power. There is no feedback mechanism. Perhaps this explains the runaway bias at the BBC?
Rob Read,
This may sound like a dumb question, but why do you write BBC in that strange way? (!bBC)?
Susan,
In competerese “!” = Not
It’s to imply that the British Broadcasting Corporation is no longer British.
P.S. Don’t pay the TV-tax.
Lyle – fortunately, the police seem to have thought of the taser option even if the media didn’t, thereby ensuring that the delightful Mr Omar is currently getting a full-on interrogation instead of a full-on autopsy.
Joerg – I’d recommend not correcting people from a position of ignorance. Environmentalists range from socially liberal to socially authoritarian, and from broadly-free-market through command-economy to utopian anarchy.
Rob – for as long as TV space is sparse and rationed (ie for as long as most households only get two commercial channels and one advertising-funded not-for-profit channel), their monopoly power ensures they’ll get enough viewers to bring in the advertisers no matter how much lying dross they show.
Rob Read, thanks for the explanation re: your eccentric denotation of al-Beeb. I don’t pay the tax — I live in the US.
Americans would never pay an annual tax just to own a television. We didn’t accept tax for tea (perhaps you’ve heard about that) and we damn well won’t accept it for tea-vee.
8) Nice pun Sue
The !bBC is funded and thus corrupted by state power. There is no feedback mechanism. Perhaps this explains the runaway bias at the BBC?
Rob Read | 27.07.05 – 4:14 pm | #
There is a semblance of feedback mechanism, which gives them the appearance of being accountable. However it is carefully controlled to show mostly the view that they want to portray, so it is in fact used to continue their bias, not the explanation for it.
Teddy Bear,
Much less feedback to be honest than market mechanisms based on subscription provide.
Hence the consistent lies from the !bBC.
No argument from me Rob.
The difference between ‘Terrorist’ and ‘Freedom Fighter’ is in fact simple and obvious.
A ‘Freedom Fighter’ doesn’t murder the people he’s trying to free or even enemy civilians. He attacks appropriate military targets such as troops, installations and supply lines. Of course he will not always be able to avoid occasional civilian collateral damage any more than conventional forces can. And according to the laws of war his opponent will still be perfectly justified in standing him up against a wall and shooting him. That’s the risks of the job.
Roxana, interesting definition. So how does the BBC justify calling the Jews of the Irgun and Lehi as terrorists?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A425152
Political persona in Britain had changed, and the new foreign secretary decided that the Jewish refugees was not Britain’s problem, either. Political zionists used this opportunity to push for the formation of a Jewish state. They decided that the British were not helping them any longer, and must go. The Jews smuggled in refugees, and fought the British mandate. The British did what they could to send the ships of homeless Jews away, but since the paperwork had all been destroyed during the war, they had trouble telling who had Palestinian citizenship and who didn’t. The Jews fought the British law by fighting in retaliation, using terrorist groups of angry Jews.
Hmmmm…good question. Since people keep bringing up the King David Hotel – which if I recall correctly was the residence of assorted British officials (government officials are also legitimate targets IMO) – I guess I can assume there aren’t many attacks on civilians to choose from – sort of like the anti-Vietnam folks always cite Mai Lai as an example of American brutality because all their other examples turn out to be lies.
This alone refutes their claim that their avoidance of the ‘T’ word for the reasons they give is BS.
Their last sentence posted above is a strange construction …The Jews fought the British law by fighting in retaliation, using terrorist groups of angry Jews.
I guess they didn’t want to use the happy Jews.