says the Sunday Times.
THE BBC is to be forced to promote British citizenship and a sense of community under a new royal charter to be unveiled this week.It will redefine the purpose of the BBC, entrusting it with a far wider brief than its established mission to “inform, educate and entertain”.
You might think that I’d be cheering. I don’t know what the opinion of my co-bloggers will be on this issue, but speaking for myself, I think this new charter is a bad move. We shall be doing well if nothing worse happens as a result of it than it being ignored and laughed at; a slightly more probable result is that the BBC will become more PC.
Don’t think that I don’t see the problem this new Charter is trying to overcome. In September 2004, after the BBC had displayed its usual reluctance to call anyone a terrorist even after the slaughter of children at Beslan, I wrote:
… unlike Reuters et al the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax on the British people. It goes out under the name of my country. Come charter renewal time, the domestic BBC justifies the license fee by saying that we, the British people, are getting a public good (“The public interest must remain at the heart of all the BBC does.” – Michael Grade, Chairman.) Likewise the BBC World Service, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the same Vote as the British Council, explicitly presents itself as bringing a benefit to Britain and the world.
But there is no more rock-bottom public good or benefit than not being randomly murdered. The BBC is obliged by its Charter and accompanying agreement to show “due impartiality” between political opinions but this is specifically stated not to mean “detachment from fundamental democratic principles.” The BBC has no more right to be impartial between a victim of terrorism and a terrorist than it has the right to be impartial between a rape victim and a rapist. (Although it must be careful to respect the right to a fair trial of those accused of rape, terrorism or any other crime.)
This website is devoted to uncovering cases where the BBC expresses an improper partiality between parties and ideologies within the covenant, so to speak, and cases where it displays an improper impartiality between those within and those without.
And in January 2005, after the BBC pandered to conspiracy theories about the tsunami, I wrote:
No media service, not even a privately-funded one, should be indifferent to these kind of values. A tax-funded media service in a democracy cannot be, unless it wishes to deny its own justification for existence…..
…if the maintenance of liberal values in Britain and the world matters, that objective being what the BBC claims it is for, then you don’t play neutral to the most basic liberal value of all, the right to continue living without being blown up at random. If neutrality is possible or desirable, why is the BBC not neutral about ordinary British murders?
…
Because, and never mind the name of this blog, in that sense it has no business being unbiased.
So why do I think this well-intentioned new Charter is a bad idea? Because I remember the National Curriculum. It was one of the most instructive episodes in modern British politics. Forgive me for quoting myself yet again; this family of issues is something I’ve thought about many times and I haven’t the time to keep thinking up new ways to say the same thing. Last November I wrote about why you should never, ever have a national curriculum:
She [Margaret Thatcher] was enraged by excessively trendy schools churning out PC semi-literates who knew about whale song but not Waterloo. “I’m not having this,” she said to her officials, “Get out there and make me a national curriculum.” She imagined it as being written on one side of a piece of paper: reading, writing, ‘rithmetic. A key point was always to include major kings-n-battles. Stories of spectacular historical ignorance on the part of schoolchildren were a major factor motivating supporters of the national curriculum.
Inevitably, this mildly repressive tool turned in her hand. Sure as eggs is eggs the national curriculum was taken over by the educational establishment, made monstrously detailed, and suffused with its values. Thatcher herself later admitted that the nationalisation of the curriculum was one of her biggest mistakes.
And sure as eggs is eggs the BBC establishment will take over all these new “purposes for the BBC” listed in the new Charter. The Sunday Times article lists these new objectives as including:
promoting education, “stimulating creativity”, “representing the UK, its nations and regions”, and “bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK”.
Amuse yourself in thinking up ways to make these rather nebulous objectives into tools for expanding the BBC bubble.
Personally, I think the BBC ought to be privatised tomorrow. (Don’t worry, lurking Beebfolk, this needn’t mean melting down all the master tapes of the David Attenborough wildlife documentaries, like you always hint it will. You could even keep the name “BBC”, like they kept the names “British Gas” and “British Airways.”) If, for some strange reason, it is thought best not to feature the immediate launch of a “Tell Sid” advertising campaign for shares in BBC Plc as the centrepiece of tomorrow’s White Paper, the next best thing would be to persuade the BBC to act in the the spirit of the Charter it already has.
UPDATE: Stephen Pollard looks at the other theme of the White Paper, the replacement of the BBC Governors with a “BBC Trust”, promoted by Tessa Jowell as “the voice of the licence-fee payer.” Pollard writes:
Forgive me for spoiling the party in White City, but I have an alternative suggestion — a more direct means by which my views and interests can be expressed.
It’s as hard not to agree with Ms. Solent’s sense of foreboding as it was to read the Sunday Times article without seeing the words ‘Government Plant’ dancing before one’s eyes. Is there such a thing as subliminal printing?
I have long since come to the conclusion that the BBC is beyond reform – and as events unfold, I’ve even come to the view that privatisation will not solve the problem, either. After all, the Guardian is privately owned, and even Sky News betrays the reflex Left-liberal kneejerks which we all grumble about here.
Perhaps if there were no dominant player at all, then some balance might emerge?
As a consequence, I’m now inclined to think the Corporation should be shot, dismembered and its components buried at the four corners of the earth, lest it simply reassemble itself and return to haunt us, whatever measures we might take to rid ourselves of it.
No charter will force the BBC to back Britain, or force it to do anything. The BBC is unaccountable and always will be until we only need to pay for it if we want its services. Any new charter is a waste of taxpayers money, and of benefit only to those who will be paid to dream it up.
OT
After last week’s kid-gloves treatment of Moazzim Begg and the Tipton Traitors, here’s a reminder of the style of behaviour of their Taleban buddies :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4802052.stm
The BBC constantly accuses British and American troops of “torture”, and Marr spouted an outright lie yesterday in suggesting that many detainees have been killed at Gitmo – but fails to raise the reality of REAL brutality with the lying Gitmo detainees.
OT:
What’s the difference between a campaigner and a lobbyist ? The side of the issue they’re on, of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4798690.stm
Note that we hear a lot about what ‘campaigners’ say, but the only reference to what the ‘lobbyists’ say is from one of the Cindy McSheehan’s saying what the ‘lobbyists’ would say (if the BBC had interviewed any, of course).
… “representing the UK, its nations and regions” …
Well there’s an EU agenda, as clear as day, even after the idea od regional assemblies was voted down by 78% of voters in the north east. Jeez am I glad I won’t be paying for this propaganda.
It serves the BBC lobbyists right !
They sold themselves to the New Labour regime by pressing their hot-buttons and tried to justify their existence much as the Church of England once did when re-established after 1660.
That our doctrine may not be pure, it is not pure because it seeks to unite all men and not to divide, that it seeks to build a community of people rather than an identifiable group distinct from the many.
In short, the BBC sold itself as the great unifying force in a disintegrating country, able to unite all in their diversity around a commonality. If you watch Woody Allen’s “RAdio DayS” you will get a sense of what the BBC is trying to sell.
By selling this notion of being the sole organisation capable of catering to diverse groups by creating a “British” identity it has justified itself in New Labour terms as the means to halt the balkanisation of British society, and it is now hoist with its own petard.
It will have no effect but it is the price they have paid for Charter renewal.
Brilliant, Rick!
HBO in the states seems to do quite well. commercial free. good quality. and people are prepared to pay a subscription for it.
because its operating in a hyper competitive market, it *HAS* to compete on quality of output to make it stand out.
market forces have made it create HBO On Demand, where YOU are in charge
http://www.hbo.com/hboondemand/faq.html
in light of that privatisation could well be the best thing thats ever happened to the BBC. one can easily imagine say BBC 2 doing a HBO , while BBC1 goes commercial.
i’d like that – i dont watch BBC1 anyway. why should i subsidise “Eastenders” or brain crap like the “Six O’Clock News”, when I’d rather fork out for the rather excellent Mr Attenborough or Michael Palin?
typo: that should read “brain dead crap like the Six O’Clock News”
Archduke, you ae not getting it, Socialists want to put thier worldview across but know that no market exists for it. A BBC where YOU are in charge leaves no space for Socialism. THEY must be in charge, YOU just have to PAY.
OT
More for the Marr files – he’s married to Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley (I think we get the picture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Ashley
Appologies if this has been covered but the BBC have posted a link on the “1001 Islamic” inventions on the Religious message boards muslim topic with a link to a BBC page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/03/09/1001_muslim_inventions_event_feature.shtml
The page contains this statement in bold:
“The exhibition is non-religious and non-political but is aimed at dispelling negative perceptions of Muslims”
“Non religious” and “Non political”, really?
It should also be noted that on the same message boards a topic already existed for this subject where the inventions where debunked. The journalists who wrote the piece obviously hadnt bothered to fact check anything. Cant they even access Wikipedia at the BBC?
Or is this just the press release from the organisers office? If so does someone get payed for reprinting others work without any attempt to check the stories inherent veracity? Can anyone get free publicity like that.
The good thing in all this is that there is always someone around (you know these amateurs) with facts to use against propoganda.
re: epi-me’s post above
Slashdot have picked up on that one today – read the comments. a lot of that “exhibition” is downright inaccurate historically.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/03/13/1255202.shtml
digg.com covered it a few days ago too
http://digg.com/science/20_Islamic_inventors_inventions_that_changed_the_world
again read the comments. some folks have fisked the claims being made as being historically inaccurate.
and yeah – it’s staggering that bbc journalists dont even know how to do a wiki or google search.
Epi-Me
Thanks for the link to the page about the ‘non-religious’ exhibition entitled 1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in our World.
A brief flick of the eyes across the page reveals that the muslim world is responsible for giving us public baths. Being an anorak when it comes to Roman history, that does come as something of a surprise to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/03/09/1001_muslim_inventions_event_feature.shtml
bottom of that article :
Newspeak doubleplusgoodwise alert!!
“The exhibition is non-religious and non-political but is aimed at dispelling negative perceptions of Muslims”
so there you have it – its promoting Islam, but it’s not really about religion
2+2=5 Winston.
Because the party says so.
Drinking from Home has a wonderfully detailed fisk of this, with lotsa links:
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslim-heritage-exhibition.html#links
“astronomy, algebra and architecture”
huh? none of that has anything to do with the “muslim” world. in fact, its got bugger all to do with religion.
that stuff originated in classical Greece, was refined in Rome, and then was imported, refined again by the pre-islamic Arabs and Persians with influences coming in from India and the Chinese. The Middle East was a crossroads. This “muslim” tagging , also negates the influence of the Byzantine Empire – itself formerly, the Eastern Roman Empire – which continued into the 1400s.
that area of the middle east was melting pot of ideas primariy because of the trade routes going through there. no one “religion” can make a claim on scientific progress.
i wonder what Richard Dawkins has to say about this hijacking of science for religious ends?
Funny, you’d think the Bee Bee Cee would have covered this story below about Jean Charles de Menezes, considering their obsession with the man.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=375182006
BBC TV ratings last week were apparently their lowest on record. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.
BBC News 24 at 17.07 hours. “Tape recording of phone calls by Police Commissioner wholly unacceptable”
Wheel on Chakrabati “He is not acting like a quiet old fashioned policeman”
If he was that old fashioned copper, most cheeky upstarts would get a clip around the ear.
17.13 and still on the same subject.
It is not an offence to tape record a phone conversation with or without consent. An offence may be committed if the information is passed to a third party. Strange then that many want the security services to produce phone evidence into court proceedings.
Some may think the BBC hypocritical to bang on about this when they regularly tape up undercover reporters with secret cameras and audio, at public expense.
More for the Marr files – he’s married to Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley (I think we get the picture)
Oscar you are behind the times – Mrs Andrew Marr is the dauighter of former Labour MP, Jack Lord Ashley…….she was a Channel 4 TV producer of a programme called Power House – I think Gordon Brown’s brother was involved in that one too……………she is now an occasional Guardian writer
Sir Ian Blair appears to be getting the “BBC treatment”. While reporting on the tape recording incident they dragged up the “accidental” shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Why use one stick to beat somebody with when two will do?
President Bush shares his pain.
Jackie Ashley, British journalist and television presenter.
Jackie Ashley is the daughter of Jack Ashley, Baron Ashley of Stoke, the Life Peer and former Labour MP. She was educated at Rosebery Grammar School, Epsom, Surrey and St Anne’s College, Oxford where she studied PPE and was a member of the Oxford University Broadcasting Society.
Since then, she has been a television news reporter and newspaper journalist, writing for the New Statesman and The Guardian. She specializes in the Labour Party, the media, politics, public services, trade unions and women’s issues.
Ashley is married to fellow journalist Andrew Marr, lives in west London and has three children.
[edit]
Career
* 1979•1981 • BBC trainee
* 1981•1984 • Producer and newsreader on Newsnight
* 1984•1986 • Reporter on TVam, producer and reporter on Channel 4
* 1986•1999 • political correspondent with ITN
* 2000•2002 • Political editor, New Statesman
* 2002•present • Columnist and political interviewer, The Guardian
http://www.webershandwick.com/newsroom/newsrelease.cfm/contentid,9581.html
June 4, 2003 • Andrew Brown, editor of Channel 4’s political programme, “Powerhouse,” is the latest senior journalist to be recruited by Weber Shandwick, Britain’s number one PR agency*. He will join the team led by Michael Prescott, former political editor at the Sunday Times, and Peter Morgan, formerly senior business correspondent at BBC TV News.
Brown leaves ITN after seven years as editor of “Powerhouse.”. Before that he worked as a chief sub and output editor of Channel 4 News. He was also Economics and Business producer for Channel 4 News. After leaving Edinburgh University, where he was President of the University Students’ Association, Brown worked for the BBC and as a House of Commons researcher.
Rick – you’re right. I’m obviously behind the times when it comes to Jackie Ashley’s illustrious career. But I think we still get the picture ….
She specialises in the Labour Party, the media, politics, public services, trade unions and women’s issues.
I hope this is not too personal (or I’ll get smacked) but is that a CV or a lesson in how to climb the greasy pole in broadcasting and journalism?
Thanks Oscar and Rick, now I know why I get that uneasy feeling when watching or listening to Andrew Marr.
That 1001 Muslim inventions bizz kind of reminds me of how the old Soviet Union used to try to claim the credit for inventing major inventions already credited to some western inventor – you know, TVs, rockets, computers, knives and forks: it was childish and silly then, and it’s childish and silly now.
But supposing it WERE true, supposing the Muslims really DID come up with everything from sliced bread to the vacuum cleaner centuries before anyone else, it begs a number of questions, like, why did their society go into such a sharp decline, and, why haven’t they climbed out of it?
Cheers.
I’ll second Kulibar Tree on the “1001 things done with…oops.. BY a dead Muslim” thread. I can remember going to some ‘scientific’ exhibition where they were claiming Soviet responsibility for everything from the wheel to Mickey Mouse. Point is, where would you find a bunch of unreconstructed Marxists stupid enough to try the same scam again?
Oh..sorry I asked
I just want the BBC to go away.
I’m sick of being told what to think by a bunch of know-nothings whose closest encounter with journalism should be delivering the morning paper.
“Funny, you’d think the Bee Bee Cee would have covered this story below about Jean Charles de Menezes, considering their obsession with the man”
in fairness, i think thats pretty irrelevant to how he got killed, and a diversion from what was a cock-up of the highest order – for which Sir Ian Blair should have done the decent thing and resigned.
in this case, i’d agree with the bbc editorial decision NOT to carry that story.
What are the BBC guidelines on secret filming and tape recording members of the public, without prior consent, and then broadcasting to the nation, at public expense?
I personally find it an invasion of privacy to door step some unwitting mug and then broadcast his/her replies before he/she has time to think.
All this at my expense, why should I pay for something I don’t agree with and find unethical (being bandied about at the moment).
Was it the BBC who some time ago sent out black reporters on the pretence of looking for digs in order to make a programme on racial issues?
Don’t suppose Andrew Gilligan would have had a thing to worry about if he had taken a tape recorder to his meeting with David kelly
“WEAPONS expert David Kelly told a BBC reporter that Alistair Campbell was behind “unreliable” information being inserted into the government’s Iraqi weapons dossier at the last minute to make it “sexier”, an inquiry heard today.”
OT, and not really an example of *bias* as such, but I believe the recent news thread about Dunblane is a good example of how the BBC can repeatedly cover things it is interested in (whereas other things are dropped like a stone after a single, perfunctory story).
In particular there is a recurring thread about a nation gun register. There was an editorial last week, along the lines of “Anger over failure to implement national gun register”, and then there was a “Top policeman explains why there isn’t a national gun register” story and now there are six stories about various aspects of Dunblane in the last few days.
I note that the “Anger at Dunblane gun list delay” story of 02 March is a repeat(!) of a story from last October. It brings me to this, which is about a man who was suspended from his job for being too right-wing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4063305.stm
I have no opinion as to whether the BBC is biased to dwell on Dunblane. It was and remains a huge story. But it is interesting to see how the BBC can repeatedly cover things – with opinion pieces, reactions to the opinion pieces, related news stories, polls, follow-ups and so forth, the full monty, the big package – when it feels the need.
I have nothing to do with Jackie Ashley.
interesting point Ashley. i wonder if you could do a statistical analysis via Google, to identify what the Beeb “drops like a stone”
The 1001 Muslim Inventions roadshow claims have been debunked over at FFI. All top twenty claims have been proved as incorrect attributation to Muslims. An 86 page PDF file is available for anyone to download & pass on.
The PDF file is available on page 7 of the thread, Ajax’s posting.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18360&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
British journalism is now amoungst the worse in the world. What sad times we live in!
John Simpson must go.
At least Al-Independent allowed the following letter to be published today:
Is that a god idea?
Sir: So, now we have faith-based inventions, do we? (“How Islamic inventors changed the world”, 11 March). Coffee is a Muslim discovery, we are told, and surgical instruments are all due to Islam. I suppose on that basis television is a Christian invention and curry a Hindu one.
TERRY SANDERSON
VICE-PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY, LONDON WC1
hey – thanks for that link Barker John. a very thorough fisking indeed.
i dont know who to complain to though – the Home Office? my local Tory MP?
All top twenty claims have been proved as incorrect attributation to Muslims.
Make that ‘all claims have been falsely attributed to’
DOH!
i dont know who to complain to though – the Home Office? my local Tory MP?
Archduke, I wondered whether ‘The Telegraph’ might delight in exposing the lack of depth in reporting by their broadsheet adversaries coverage of this roadshow?
O/T
And not a good day when you find out:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19612_British_Press_Shuts_Out_Mark_Steyn
waving a fin in the direction of LGF
I assume the touring exhibition was paid for by public funds ? If so, and if all the claims are false, isn’t there some FRAUD here ?
Is this a case for the National Audit Office to look into ? Does anyone know where the funding came from ?
“bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK”
Past experience of listening to them has made me cynical.Remmember that Sunday afternoon show where people from other European countries were asked to analyse Britain and the British?We seemed to be a duplicitous,humourless,thuggish,reactionary,pompous,stupid lot according to the correspondents,although they did find us unwittingly funny.
I fear they will target their audiences about bringing UK to the world..etc.To the EU we will be shown as stubborn and stupid.To the third world welcoming and multicultural.The EU will be shown to us as enlightened and caring.The USA will be shown as it always has.
The BBC World Service is running a series on the Angry Young Muslims of Europe.
The first episode was slow and anodyne. Mostly it is the fault of the French that the muslims are not assimilated. It contained none of the really serious stuff referred to in this detailed article. The BBC is glossing over the huge increase in anti-semitism in our next-door neighbour.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/03/13/anti_semitism_seen_rising_among_frances_muslims/
News or puff?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4790000/newsid_4793900/4793910.stm
Head of BBC News Horrocks pops up again to respond to complaints about plugs for BBC programmes regularly featuring as ‘news’ items on piss-poor BBC news. His response can be summed up thus:
“Yeah, you caught us blatantly broadcasting ‘covert’ programme adverts masquerading as ‘news’ items, but so what? who cares? what you gonna do about it?”
licence fee increases all round! ten more years!
OT – Looks like a good read….
Londonistan
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an alarming network of Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London became the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism – so much so that it has been mockingly dubbed ‘Londonistan’. In this ground-breaking book, Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of British self-confidence and national identity and its resulting paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. The result is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.
Will she get an invite onto BBC R4 “Start the Socialist Week with Marr”? Unlikely. Much more likely is a complaint to Scotland Yard from Sacranie’s MCB followed by a knock on Melanie’s door from PC Blair for a chat about her “Islamaphobic” thoughts……
It’s been a sad day for free speech in the UK (re Steyn/Telegraph).
Do try not to laugh.
BBC Complaints Unit: Sarah Kennedy, Radio 2, 2005
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2006/03/03/30045.shtml
Complaint
A listener complained that Sarah Kennedy’s review of the daily papers (Radio 2, 3 August 2005) drew disproportionately on the right-of-centre press, and that she had expressed views of her own on controversial issues.
BBC Editorial Complaints Unit’s ruling:
There was no political bias in the selection of stories for comment, but Sarah Kennedy’s comment that a “Sun” article headlined “Lawless Britain” reflected what “most right-minded people are thinking” was an inappropriate expression of her own view on a controversial matter.
Further action:
To highlight the seriousness of the issue, the Controller of Radio 2 will personally discuss the finding with Sarah Kennedy and emphasise the need for her to remain impartial when discussing controversial issues.
ohhh pulleeeaase!
“most right-minded people are thinking”
she said “right minded” not “right-wing minded”
Are the BBC completely stupid? If you cast the same test over most of BBC news output, the ‘Comptrollers’ (for there are surely many of them) would be very busy running from studio to studio shouting “stop being so bloody left-wing!” Marr’s “Start the Socialist Week” would be pulled for a start, and ‘Today’, and all R4 ‘comedy’ and News24 ‘Dateline London’ and……
OT
More duff info on BBC Ten O’Clock news.
“Finding water to fill these vast lagoons is getting week by week”
Tosh mate see
http://www.southeastwater.co.uk/develop01.asp
The pipeline is now complete and a living willow memorial in place in Robertsbridge village.
The BBC News goes to spout abot “Government drought orders”
You are having a laugh mate.
just finished watching the Nicholas Cage flick Lord of War – all about the international freelance arms trade, with a focus on the west Africa conflict. good film.thought provoking.
learned more of this murky side of affairs in one and a half hours, than a whole years output from the BBC. but then again, Gitmo terrorists are more important to the Al Beeb agenda than Africans killing each other. says it all really.
it also made me realise that the simplistic “forgive the debt” stance of the Live8 crowd & Brownstuff equals just one thing = more money for AK47s and ammo. again, an aspect that you dont get on the “poor poor Africa – its all our fault” agenda-news from Al Beeb.
The film is good – get it out. not overtly moralising -it just trys to present the story as factually and as amorally as it can , from the viewpoint of the arms dealer ( played by Nicholas Cage).
Typos in above post – “getting harder” and “goes on”
It appears the BBC right hand doesn’t know what the BBC left hand is doing see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4756824.stm
“It marks the completion of a £25m pipe transferring water through the village. Southern Water and South East Water made the garden after completion of the pipeline between Kent and Sussex.”
Well, Katya and company will do their best to turn us into good Europeans. 🙂
“Katya loves sunshine, snow and sea. She is a self-confessed and happily incurable Europhile.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/weekend/team.shtml
“The BBC World Service is running a series on the Angry Young Muslims of Europe”
Jihadist infiltrate working class areas and agitate the Muslim sections = “angry young muslims”
no mention of the angry white or west African folks from those same communities. if you ask me its just a class thing – the underclass. and its a big problem in France. no doubt about it.
of course, the BBC would have to push their agenda and turn it into a “angry muslim” thing – which is just what the jihadist agitators want