Mike Jericho has put together a valuable post on the subject (he was a little upset some of his efforts had been overlooked, but I am rectifying that somewhat now. It points out the value of pointing out matters in the comments section). For every article on the BBC website that reveals some hard information, there will be several soft-wad padding articles, usually with a strong politically correct dimension, linked to it. Mike’s post is an examination of that padding concerning Islam and Christianity.
Of Sidebars and Bullshit
Bookmark the permalink.
That was a thorough and well-merited fisking of the BBC’s mindset. Now how about bringing them to book for their lie about the 12 cartoons of mohamad which, for some reason best known to the BBC, suddenly became 15. In such a clear-cut instance, the BBC is either lying or their research(??) staff aren’t doing their jobs.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4666906.stm
Probably one of the most auspicious days in 2006.
The RN have been waiting years for these ships, pitty that they won’t be getting the original 12 they were promised..
I posted the below last week, I’m too lazy to find when responsible journalsits should have nown about these “fake” cartoons doing the round to whip up Muslim feeling.
But then the BBC could have just read the origonal magazine and, i don’t know, counted the pictures or something…
BTW – In our time this week is, I beleive, going to be about one of the Caliphates. I really like the show but it does depend on just who the experts are. It will be interesting to see how uncritical it ends up beeing, a sharp fisking by those who know better than I would be appreciated.
——
On the cartoons – a bounty has been offered for the deaths of the cartoonists:
http://www.metimes.com/articles/…05-072933- 7972r
Also a story over at the “Brussels journal” (via dhimmi watch) about a group of muslims touring the middle east to drum up more cartoon outrage. In order to do so they manufactured more cartoons, of a more offensive nature.
“…Meanwhile, the Danish tabloid Extra Bladet got hold of a 43-page report that Danish Muslim leaders and imams, on a tour of the Islamic world are handing out to their contacts to “explain” how offensive the cartoons are. The report contains 15 pictures instead of 12. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile deamon [see it here], the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout [here] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog [here]. Apparently, the 12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious hatred. ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmi…ives/ 009804.php
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/668
Actually let me appologise for reposting all that, Ive been off line for 3 days and hadn’t therefor skimmed through all the other posts to assemble an idea of what had or had not already been covered.
Im obviously made for a career at the BBC myself.
O/T
Hidden in the regions yesterday(gone now) is an account of the case involving the alleged killers of 15yr old Kriss Donald. I think this trial when it starts should be given the same wall to wall coverage as other racist crimes. What an oppertunity for the BBC to prove they have no bias when it comes to race.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4666050.stm
Mike Jericho’s analysis of Al Beeb’s sidebar articles is just superb. When I read the Beeb’s biased rubbish, I often want to picture the person or persons who is writing them. Why do they do it, why do they see the world that way? The person whose salary I am forced to pay via my licence fee. The person who may be named or is anonymous, unlike newspaper articles, in Al Beeb we don’t always get a named article. Is it a he or a she? Is it a number of different people? Is the person a Muslim or of other faith or no faith? What qualifications and knowledge do they have in order to be assigned writing such stuff. Is anyone editing their output before it goes on Al Beeb’s website? (Oh dear no, that won’t please the Arabs, can’t bring them too abruptly to reality, better change that!)
Alas for the British licence-fee payer, at the mercy of the BBC dictatorship, I think the answers to those questions would add up to Jeff Randall’s comment – “It’s visceral, they think they are on the middle ground”.
And absolutely NOTHING any outsider says will change their view. Until the dictatorship of the licence-fee ends.
Epi-me : the cartoon rage issue just keeps running – France’s “Soir” has republished the cartoons, and Germany’s “Die Welt” too.
They’re doing it again!!!!!!
A whole article on a poor dear Asian man who grew a beard and terrified people in Britain. He complains he was told he looked dodgy, right after the July bombings. Dodgy! I’d say from his photo he looks terrifying, more like, in the light of those bombings.
Absolutely not a mention of – maybe I should try to fit in, maybe I want NOT to frighten people right now, I want NOT to draw attention to myself, I want to be helpful to other British people, I want to support other British people, I’m glad to be here, and not Pakistan, I want to play my part in British society. Oh No, it’s the usual narcissistic self-centred approach, if I want to do something that is going to make people nervous, that’s their problem, not MINE. And I shall complain for all I’m worth.
The BBC are still asking us:
“What do you think of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten? Send your views using the form below:”
at the bottom of this page:
Arab ministers condemn cartoons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4668068.stm
However the BBC does not publish the pictures so that we can look at them and form a view. This is not UK government censorship, this is BBC censorship. Worse than China.
Archduke – I’m in France so Ill be off to the library to see if they have a copy and if so what it says (as best as I can understand it anyways).
Also heres a link for a chronology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings
Which again you would of thought the BBC could have looked at.
Over at the BBC Religion and Ethics board (on which we can find people saying homsoexuals should be killed) we find muslim posters comparing the publication of Cartoons of Mohamed to ones of Auschwitz amongst other things…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=2127604&skip=80&show=20
This is one of the more thoughtful posters over there by the way.
——
Message 88 – posted by br_ameen, 22 Hours Ago
The reason nonMuslims don’t object/mind/are insensitive to this type of insult to Islam is that they are seldom if ever subjected to such insults themselves.
I mean, when is any religion/ideology/sensitive topic DELIBERATELY and PUBLICLY insulted like this? And using childish, irrelevant caricatures that are designed to affirm anti-Muslim bigotry?
Someone mentioned Aushcwitz…what if someone started drawing and publishing childish caricatures of Auschwitz; showing jews working in the fields and saying to each other…”Gee, once this is all over, why don’t we pretend they were killing us. Then they might give us Israel!!”
And even then, that cartoon wouldn’t be degrading the beliefs, values, lifestyle, and culture of Jews and Jewish prophets since the beginning of time.
No, what is happening here is deliberate and public harrassment/verbal abuse of an entire people.
The Dutch, for all their self-proclaimed “openmindedness” are quickly earning a reputation for petty bigotry and racial contempt.
If people really cared whether Muslims receive decent treatment, they would object to people publicly mischaracterizing us, our religion, and our Prophet…especially if these mischaracterizations are intentionally designed to reinforce KNOWN propaganda.
——–
France enters Muslim cartoon row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669360.stm
“A French newspaper has reproduced a set of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad…”
So why hasn’t the BBC yet? Since when was my freedom of information from the UK’s state broadcaster subject to threats of violence from religious groups?
No-one has the right not to be offended and we still have the right to free speech and freedom of thought, so the question to the UK MSM is where are the pictures??
sorry, above should read
Since when was my right to freedom of information…
Hazel
I think that programme is a pack of lies. The key for me was the ‘story’ about the Muslim who “as soon as he walked into the room and the manager saw the colour of his skin and his beard he was told to “forget it” and sent away.”
This is utterly preposterous. No employer in today’s Britain would dare to do anything like that – the burden of proof is on the employer if a case of discrimination is brought. This man is a fantasist and the reckless fool who walked around deliberately provoking people is happy to print any nonsense which promotes his cause.
The whole article, in fact, is the usual whinging and paranoia which the BBC loves to promote as ‘genuine grievances’. Can he be arrested for wasting police time, for his stunt outside Downing Street?
As for the racist murder of Kriss Donald, compare these two headlines:
Anthony Walker:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4730559.stm
Kriss Donald:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4666050.stm
Note in the first link the racist nature of the attack is present in the headline, and reinforced in the first paragraph.
For the second link there is no mention of a racial motive AT ALL.
The media is “institutionally racist” against minorities…yeah right.
Epi-Me
In the west we have a freedom of speech which allows anybody to voice their opinions without fear. That very freedom is used on a daily basis by the people protesting the Danes in which to slate Israel in a daily basis.
It isn’t oppressing the Islamic faith if that is so could you please explain how now that the Danes have apologised. The Muslim world now wants them to be punished. Really!
How about the Muslim world punishing the idiots who publish the stuff videos which the whole world finds insulting, yet the Islamic media has no problem airing time and time again. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.
Epi,
Sorry,forgot to mention.I understand you didn’t write that post.
Cartoon outrage bemuses Denmark
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669210.stm
“Denmark’s reputation as an easy-going, consensual nation has been severely tarnished in recent days.”
Hmmmm. I think this may have had an impact on the Danish psyche too.
Van Gogh killer jailed for life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4716909.stm
Far from being the ‘easy-going, consensual, bemused’ dhimmis alluded to in the BBC’s article, the Dutch are one nation who are well aware of the dangers of appeasing Islam and the erosion of freedom of thought, expression & speech.
Even the French MSM get it.
if the July bombers met up at Mosques – why arent we closing mosques down in the interests of national security?
how much will it take for the dhimmi UK gov to finally “get it” – a nuke explosion in London?
When will the colonies of the ummah recognise and respect the Freedom of speech in Denmark?
Do they have no tolerance for other cultures?
Lets make this Islams last century.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4669210.stm
“Denmark’s reputation as an easy-going, consensual nation has been severely tarnished in recent days”
oh for gods sake. the publication of the cartoons proved the exact OPPOSITE – it showed just how much the Danes value freedom of speech.
if anything, it’s Islam’s image thats been tarnished , with the idiotic boycotts and protests in the Middle East.
From Ian Barnes’ link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4666906.stm
“The combat system is the cutting edge of technology and we’ve gone to a full electric compulsion system.”
Looks like the BBC have found the answer to the TV Licence cheats – a Type 45 frigate – expect to see one in a street near you soon.
Rob:”Lets make this Islams last century.”
thankfully, Ayatollah Khomeini has provided the answer for us – it’ll take about 50 years:
“Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam– begging to have their blood shed for Islam.”
From the same article about Denmark:
“All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row. ”
WHAT??? That is an unbelievable statement. What apologies from the government? They haven’t made an apology, nor are they going to. What evidence does the writer of this article have for the assertion that “all the Danes” “hope that repeated apologies…will end this unseemly row”?
That is the unthinking BBC position – as good Dhimmis they should apologise, repeatedly. From what I can gather from news sources which are not pathalogically unbalanced, however, the Danes think the opposite – that their right to free expression is non-negotiable and that no apologies are required, necessary or even to be considered.
Why isn’t the BBC pressing for an apology from the extremist Imams who produced the three extra cartoons to inflame the situation still further? Or questioning what sort of people make bomb threats over a cartoon?
Slightly OT
Oh dear oh dear, the BBC is not going to get its Cindy Sheehan moment after all. Despite Today’s barrel-scraping “how does it feel?” interview of two grieving and dignified mothers of UK soldiers killed in Iraq, neither interviewee was prepared to play the BBC/Stopper game of “Troops Out Now”. Accordingly, I can predict that this interview will disappear (almost) without trace. Imagine the hoohah if either interviewee had reacted differently.
Rob – that Danish paper has NOT apologised. it merely expressed “regret” at any offense caused, but stood by the decision to publish the cartoons.
And the Danish PM has repeatedly said that he cannot apologise for something he has no control over – i.e. the Danish press.
I have been reading “Travels with my beard”, which is as mentioned above here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4666132.stm
It starts with these two paragraphs:
“A couple of stops later a middle-aged Rasta guy got on, sat down next to me and asked: “So how’s it feel brethren?” “Erm, how’s what feel?” I replied. “How’s it feel now it’s your turn to be bottom of the pile?” he said.
We had a good chat, we talked about riots and muggers and bombs and beards. We had a right laugh. “Take it easy brother,” he said as he stepped off the moving bus.”
I am reminded of those newspaper and magazine articles where the author is continually buttonholed by people in the street who engage the writer in witty, intelligent conversation. It always seems fake, or incomplete.
Perhaps this exchange did happen as it was reported. Perhaps the “middle-aged Rasta bloke” was a friend of the author. Perhaps the writer is a often approached by witty and intelligent people who have wise points to make in a well-written way. It seems very convenient that, immediately after this conversation, he is stopped and searched by the police.
The detail about the other chap stepping off the still-moving bus whilst saying “take it easy brother” is odd. I have a mental image of a Routemaster-type bus with an open exit, going up and down Oxford Street, but this part of the article is set in East London and ends at Liverpool St station. I admit that I could be way paranoid on this point. I assume that some normal buses open the doors before they stop, and the writer could have been sitting next to the door, and Routemasters might have gone to East London (I have no idea). It seems scripted, as if this chap was using his ethnicity – shaking his money-maker – as a means of pitching an article to the BBC.
The whole thing causes me to ponder. The people in the article treat the writer with suspicion because he looks like the popular image of a terrorist. The popular image of a terrorist is that which is reported in the news. If the BBC reports Islamic terrorist attacks with photographs of the villains it will be perpetrating the popular image of a terrorist. I imagine the BBC’s reporters wince whenever they are compelled by truth to accompany their bulletins with photographs of bearded, angry-looking men of Middle Eastern descent.
As I see it the BBC can therefore either (a) not report Islamic terrorist attacks, (b) report them in passing, (c) not use photographs of the perpetrators or (d) report the attacks with photographs, but at the risk of perpetrating stereotypes.
I imagine the BBC’s reporters high-fived when Timothy McVeigh came along, or the Soho nailbomber. Because both of these people can be used as counter-arguments to people who state that terrorism is mostly carried by people of a certain type. With McVeigh and the nailbomber, the BBC can argue that terrorism in the world today is multicultural; and of course Mr Bush and his Christian fundamentalists are the ultimate terrorists, because they invaded Iraq and killed 375,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. 1.2 million, some large figure. It is in the BBC’s interest to balance our negative stereotype of terrorists with the image of George Bush.
Re the Danish cartoons, there has been no comment of the truly disgusting rabid cartoons Arab newspapers have print, over many years, about Israel and about Jews in general. Horrific ludicrous depictions of Sharon, the IDF, the Star of David, any possible way of insulting Judaism. Real incidtement to race hatred.
So suddenly there’s been some very tame representations of how others see Islam. And maybe Muslims now see what it’s like to be on the receiving end. After all, the suicide bombers are said to be motivated by the thought of 72 virgins in paradise, so isn’t a funny cartoon about supply of said virgins running out, perfectly relevant????
Saudis now don’t want to buy Danish yogurt. I absolutely never want to buy anything Saudi, the trouble is the absolutely only thing they’ve got to sell is oil, and I need to drive a car. Which is why, at long last, it’s good to hear what Bush just said about decreasing US dependence on imported oil.
And Rob, re Beards and Blame (our posts above) I agree totally, no interviewer would be so blatantly racist at an interview.
Rob – that Danish paper has NOT apologised. it merely expressed “regret”
Know the world over as the nearest the Japanese Government ever gets to “sorry”.
translated as “We regret most sincerely that you survived to comment on what the Imperial Japanese Army did to you, your family, your country……….much regret….”
Would the BBC use someone dressed up as a white skinhead to parade around after a race attack against a black person in say, Brixton? Of course not. It would be regarded as gross and insensitive.
I agree the whole thing sounds completely false and staged managed. Another publicity stunt by the BBC to ram their PC message down peoples throats.
Plenty of smiling faces according to Mike’s analysis.
Here are some other smiling faces:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
They don’t smile any more. In fact, the MSM including the BBC seems to have forgotten about them, what with all those other victims to think about.
Pounce
I’m on your side here, I don’t think anyone should appologise and more to the point ,as I am an illustrator, it begins to make me feel a burden to produce cartoons myself.
I was posting the link to the BBC message boards, and copying that particular post, as an example of the idiocy of these people rather than as a means of justifying the unjustifyable. My saying that this was one of the more coherent posters was simply meant to imply how incoherent the others must be in order to make him so.
Sorry if that wasnt clear.
BTW: How is the BBC behaving in regard to this and the how the whole “Jerry Springer: The Opera” issue was handled last year? I tend to remember that those complaining where treated as funamentalist nutters ( of a Christian bent )and, somewhat more importantly, kill joys.
The impression I get here (as I’ve no access to BBC radio and TV at the mo’) is that it’s beeing represented as the Danes picking on the poor Muslims again. Is there any defence of free speech beeing made? Are the origins of the whole issue, that of illustrators beeing afraid to illustrate a book on Mohamed and the newspaper printing the cartoons as a test of freedom of speech, beeing mentioned?
“Would the BBC use someone dressed up as a white skinhead to parade around after a race attack against a black person in say, Brixton?”
LOL, excellent point.
well, not really, as wearing a skinhead haircut is generally associated with being a member of far-right and racist (and usually violent) groups. It isn’t a generally accepted social convention outwith certain, carefully defined, circles. (yes I know there are gay skinheads, too, but, frankly, so what)
The comparison only works if you accept that all asian men with beards are potential suicide bombers. Which frankly, you would have to be a racist to do so.
Ritter,
“No one has the right not to be offended”
It seems some want the right to be offended,so they can have victim status and redress against slights.
Wonder what would happen if somebody sprinted into TV centre with a beard and a backpack on shouting Allan Akbar?
I can just see them seeing the funny side and buying them a beer.
“wearing a skinhead haircut is generally associated with being a member of far-right and racist (and usually violent) groups.”
My flatmate (black) has a skinhead haircut. My hair is cut to ‘grade 2’. I’m not quite sure what your point is.
Some British muslims blow themselves up on the Tube and the BBC sends out somebody in sunglasses, baseballcap, hoobed top and ‘overgrown’ beard to ‘guage’ the reaction of the rest of the population. Surprise, surprise, people are suspicious. Surely, if we are going to prevent terrorist attacks, people should be suspicious???
If some skinheads blew up a mosque, would the BBC send out a white skinhead into the local area to gauge peoples reaction? Of course not.
As one of the comments on the page states, its just an excuse to shout “racism”.
How many non-muslims have been suicide bombers in Europe?
“wearing a skinhead haircut is generally associated with being a member of far-right and racist (and usually violent) groups.”
My flatmate (black) has a skinhead haircut. My hair is cut to ‘grade 2’. I’m not quite sure what your point is.
Don’t be so ridiculous. You know very well that neither of us was talking about black people with very short hair.
You walk into a pub and find yourself in a room filled with (white) skinheads (I can recommend one venue in SE London where you might be likely to find this, should you care to try the experiment) – that almost always only means one thing (unless you are on Old Compton Street, when it means another – but either case, the point is the same: adopting an extreme hairstyle completely alien to English or British convention is a way of conveying a message about the sort of person you are, who you like, and who you dislike). Thank God you aren’t black, or worse (in their eyes), Asian. (I grew up in an area with quite a lot of skinhead activity; and several Asian and Caribbean friends would not visit the neighbourhood because of its reputation, and I think quite understandably, even rightly so.)
“adopting an extreme hairstyle completely alien to English or British convention is a way of conveying a message about the sort of person you are, who you like, and who you dislike”
Does that apply to beards?
people are misguided on the beard thing – doesnt anyone realise that suicide bombers shave off their beards on the eve of an attack as part of a “cleansing” ritual?
Does that apply to beards?
Without wishing to go wildly off topic. (…)
In these isles beards tend to suggest things like “liberal, guardian reader, sandal wearer, quasi-intellectual”, right?
They aren’t in themselves extreme (if they were touching the ground – that would be different. But i’ve no idea that that would signify anything major other than eccentricity. It isn”t a symbol of a political idealogy like a skinhead is.
Now, moving on to some (south) Asian cultures (including Islamic and Sikh ones)- – where beards are more commonplace – – -and as such are a conventional part of hirsute attire, not extreme. Point being that an Asian man wearing a beard around London is looking conventional – not extreme, not making a point. Same can not be said of an English (or Russian, German, polish..) skinhead, surely.
Sleepless in Gaza
By Orla Guerin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4660000/newsid_4667100/4667174.stm
Orla sheds a tear as she moves on.
Anyway, the BBC guys self-styled ‘beard’ is crap.
It should look like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4650000.stm
“Same can not be said of an English (or Russian, German, polish..) skinhead, surely.”
I presume you mean ‘white skinhead’, not English skinhead (I refer you to my early comment about my flatmate).
I live in London, I know a few white skinheads. They’re not the knuckle dragging, National Front, psycho kind of skinheads. Generally, they’re going bald and have decided to shave it all off and retain some dignity.
However, whether you like it or not, beards are worn by Hamza, Osama, Zakari and their ilk. You then take somebody of the same ethnicity as the July bombers, dress him in shades, baseball cap, hoody, rucksack and send him on the Tube. Of coure he’s going to get funny looks.
If there was a racist attack in Elephant and Castle by a bunch of National Front skinheads and I wet-shaved my head, dressed me in steel toe-capped boots and went for a wander, I’d probably get a lot more than a ‘funny look’. I seriously doubt the BBC would bother writing an article about how ‘racist’ the residents of Elephant and Castle were, either.
Basically, the article on the BBC tells us nothing about the ‘racist’ attitudes of Londoners.
Ritter : note, no mention of the “I” or “M” word in that report.
so, they’re sending Orla from one shithole to another shithole.
no posting in Hollywood or Paris for her , eh?
“and the team of Gaza producers, Hamada Abuqammar, Ibrahim Adwan, Tamer Al Mishal, and Rushdi Abualouf”
hmmm… i wonder if the BBC has a team of Tel Aviv producers with Jewish sounding names?
i learned this week that “orla” is, apparently, hebrew for “foreskin”.
can’t imagine she would take to hollywood or paris, somehow, she’s a tough lass…
Islam ‘decade’ continues on the BBC…..
How Islamic firms can secure backing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4653352.stm
Isn’t sharia law great? More please!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4653352.stm
so now they’re encouraging the development of a shadow economy, funded by Islamist banks with dodgy links to terrorism and money laundering?
how very helpful BBC. thanks.
How about we get some reality into this Beards/skinhead discussion?
If you were unwise enough to adopt the shaved head, DM, Union Jack T-shirt mode and wander around some areas of our northern towns (and places in London and other parts of the country too) you’d get more than a few nasty looks. You’d likely get seriously hurt or maybe dead. For that matter just being white could get you in trouble, let alone your dress sense.
Play the game of “rewriting the BBC headline”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668690.stm
Original: “Vigils to mark 100th Iraq death”
Reality: “Anti-War Groups exploit 100th Iraq Death”