From an otherwise reasonable article…

“Religious fears force off opera

A Berlin opera company cancelled a Mozart production over security fears because it features the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus.”

article here

1)The Mozart opera was not cancelled due to fear of “religion”.

2)It was not for the offence given by the (staged, obviously!) severed head of Jesus that the Mozart opera was cancelled.

3)If the cancelling of the Mozart opera had anything to do with Jesus, the artist pictured below would be living with a permanent threat of death hanging over him, like Salman Rushdie.

(if anyone says that this blog is fixated on Islam/Muslims/racist etc, bring it on say I. This blog is focussed on BBC bias, and just now the BBC is far from objective when confronted with Islamic fascism. They are fixated on truth avoidance, like rabbits in the headlights of history. So there.)

Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to From an otherwise reasonable article…

  1. GCooper says:

    ed thomas writes:

    “(if anyone says that this blog is fixated on Islam/Muslims/racist etc, bring it on say I.”

    I’m not sure I’d call it a fixation and I do agree that it is, by far, the worst of the BBC’s crimes against common sense.

    However, I also think that all the other BBC Left-liberal biases are still at work, too – and that we would be wrong to lose sight of the vast damage they do.


  2. ed says:

    My philosophy, GC, is call it as you see it.


  3. Jon says:

    Well put ed. I wonder how many times they refered to the Pope at the “head of the catholic church” – I did read however that there had been no actually stated threat to the opera – it was taken off as a precaution. It is also interesting that I read somewhere the opera in question did not originally have anything to do with severed heads of Jesus or mohamed but were put in by the director. I’m sure if he had taken one of them out (guess which one) the opera would have gone ahead with no threat either real or imagined whatsoever.


  4. Little Bulldogs says:

    How about this for BBC bias:

    Rabid Muslim hurls abuse at Home Secretary = “heckler” “interruption”.

    Jewish comedian interrupts sale of Hitler pictures = “invasion” and “storming”.

    Go figure this one out?


  5. Bijan Daneshmand says:

    Bulldog’s piece on the insidious nature of BBC reporting is far more deserving of highlighting by Ed Thomas than the innocus piece that he has chosen. It represents far better the inate pro-Islamic bias of the BBC which at every turn villifies Jews while excusing Muslims.


  6. Bijan Daneshmand says:

    Here is another piece of trash BBC “journalism” that deserves widespread condemnation for its tone … the BBC acting as judge and jury … making the victims seem as “angles … father of three children …. who put flowers in their hands to greet British troops” and the British soldiers involved as criminals dishing out “insult kicks”?? whats an insult kick ….Remember the soldiers have not yet been convicted. They may be guilty or they may be INNOCENT … until such time that verdict is reached the BBC doesnt need to take the tone that they are criminals.


  7. disillusioned_german says:

    It’s easy: in Al-Beebs world it’s not okay for a Jew to disrupt an auction of Hitler’s pictures but it’s absolutely fine is a muslim (terrorist) disrupts a speech by the Home Secretary. Go figure…

    To those who still believe Al Beeb is not biased: Please send me some of the stuff you’re having. I could do with being “stoned” (not the Iranian stoned!).


  8. Big Mouth says:

    Did al-beeb explain that the 225 year old Mozart Opera Idomoneo in the composer’s version has no severed heads? The gory bits, including Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and Poseidon, were added by present Director Hans Neuenfels, a secularist who does not believe that any relgion’s founder has brought peace to the world. The Director of the DEUTSCHE OPER, Kristen Harms, said she tried to get Neuenfels to take out his addition, but he refused.
    As usual,al-beeb gives a few wrong impressions here.


  9. Paul Robinson says:

    No story here. “Jerry Springer: The Opera” was under constant attack by far-right Christian groups who thought it a disgrace (despite admitting they had never seen the opera itself). They didn’t get it shut down, admittedly, but remember there were people getting ready to resign at the BBC after the airing of it on BBC2.

    There have also been cases of Seikhs protesting a play in Nottingham that ultimately got shut down because it was considered offensive. The BBC widely reported that, probably because they wanted more people to get their back on religious censorship.

    The fact the director of this play didn’t realise that he might be causing offence by attacking the figureheads of two religions and the BBC reported it, does not show bias in the BBC – they have a long running thread about religoius censorship – but rather how thick the director is given the number of plays that have shut down in recent years at the request of a variety of religions.

    And yes, this place has become more about Islamaphobic far-right propoganda than it has about bias from the BBC. If they hadn’t reported the above story it would show more bias – towards Christian groups, Seikh groups and other non-Muslim sensibilities.

    The fact you guys think you’re justified in what you say shows just how close you are to Germans in the 1930s… your comments are no less stereotypical or filled with contempt and hatred.


  10. Bryan says:

    Good point, Little Bulldog.


  11. Bryan says:

    Oh, come on, Paul. You started off fairly promisingly in your first post on this site but you are degenerating as I type this into a whining, blinkered Muslim apologist.

    You are an expert on what this site is or has become? I don’t think so. And since you brought up BBC bias, don’t you have anything intelligent to contribute on the subject? After all, that’s what this site is about.


  12. Bryan says:

    John Reith

    Fascinating, isn’t it, how the BBC operates. Its writers and editors, cowed into submission to Islam (or in a state of willing submission) and therefore unable to say a negative word about Muslims, fail utterly in their duty to inform the public about who is responsible for the genocide in Sudan and why the genocide is occurring – as I indicated here

    and here

    and even stoop to the level of indoctrinating children on the conflict – as pounce indicated here

    Instead, we get bleeding-heart stories, in the style of the dreadfulFrom Our Own Correspondent, about refugees trudging through forests with tiny children – with little or no indication of who these refugees are or who is responsible for their plight.

    Now that the BBC’s obfuscation and failure, yet again, to enlighten us about Sudan is under the scrutiny of the blogosphere – and even the most thick-skinned of BBC propagandists have begun to acknowledge bloggers as serious rivals for the attention of the public – the BBC is probably scratching its collective head and saying to itself, “Hmmmm, maybe we’d better do something about this, because our agenda is a little too obvious here.”

    Then, lo and behold, up pops John Reith to the rescue, triumphantly waving an article from two-and-a-half years ago that actually mentions that Arab Muslims are killing African Muslims in his effort to prove the blogs inaccurate, misguided and paranoid.:

    Funny that one has to go to the children’s page to find the link to that article.

    Sorry Reith, old chap, it just wont wash. The BBC is required, under its own steam, to bring us the facts, not distort and omit them and try to distract attention from its devious tactics with the rare article that brings us the truth. And some background info wouldn’t hurt, either. Arab racism is at the heart of the current conflict. It is a racism so vile and so profound that it even trumps the religion common to perpetrator and victim. But anyone who relies on the BBC for news of Sudan wouldn’t have a bloody clue about what is really going on there.


  13. Umbongo says:

    Paul Robinson

    The BBC shows a virulently anti-Christian musical (Jerry Springer) which,even you admit, was shown despite Christian protests.

    The BBC reports that an opera, mildly and marginally, anti religious(including Christianity and Islam) is closed down because of offence caused to Christians and Muslims. The opera was cancelled SPECIFICALLY because of possible offence to Muslims which could have sparked rather more serious manifestations than a few protests by letter/email.

    First – the BBC misreports the reason for the cancellation of the German opera: second – the BBC is happy to broadcast virulent anti-Christian entertainment but, for instance, does not display the Mo cartoons on its website.

    Now it seems to me that this is evidence of (the usual) crap journalism and gross over-sensitivity to Islam. By comparing the contributors to this blog with Germans in the 1930s you are, of course, attempting to conflate contempt for followers of a religion with racism. This conflation is the trademark of the leftie kneejerker with a weak argument and lack of more abusive ammunition. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about Moslems as individuals but I have no particular respect for Islam (or Judaism or Sikhism or Christianity or any religion). The BBC OTOH displays a cringeing sensitivity to the feelings of followers of Islam which it does not display to believers of Christianity: that is the bias which is chronicled here daily.


  14. D Burbage says:

    It’s Sikh not Seikh.

    It was Birmingham not Nottingham.

    “rather how thick the director is” clearly a rallying cry for artistic freedoms

    “shows just how close you are to Germans in the 1930s” you what? baseless and emotive generalisations will convince nobody that you have any idea of the issues here. Unless you are saying we’re close to a certain minority population in Germany in the 30s who merely wanted freedom of movement and expression … ?

    “contempt and hate” I think your comments show rather more contempt (“thick director” “far-right propaganda”) and vitriol than most of the regular commentators here.

    you’re welcome!


  15. Little Bulldogs says:

    Bryan (and others) -> I know this is going to sound strange but I’ll ask anyway. If you have gone to my blog and looked at a story and appreciated it, could you leave some feedback?

    This is for two reasons.

    1) So I know that people are actually reading the articles and thinking about them, and that I am making a difference

    2) So I know what kind of things people are thinking about and can focus my blog better.

    I think all bloggers appreciate comments and they are almost as important as the blog itself.

    Hope you guys don’t find that rude or imperinent.

    Little Bulldogs


  16. AntiCitizenOne says:

    “shows just how close you are to Germans in the 1930s”

    What a joke! It’s islam that follows the nazi ideology, and Islam was the first religion to tie up with the National Socialist regime.

    read the link lefty fools


  17. Biodegradable says:

    Better still watch this:
    Hitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism


  18. john says:

    “shows just how close you are to Germans in the 1930s”

    Much more apposite in this case would be the wish to be close to the Germans in the 21st century.
    What a refreshing position from an SDP mayor(The German version of New Labour) imagine Ken Livingstone adopting a similar position!

    “But Berlin’s mayor, Klaus Wowereit, said the director had made the wrong decision to scrap the production.
    “Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived out on the offensive,” he told the Associated Press.
    “Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them.”

    So too Germany’s interior minister who called the cancellation “unacceptable”. John Reid, despite his aura of being a Scottish hardman, would have played the Dhimmi, raised the subject of “respect” and inevitably kissed MCB arses.

    So not the 1930s my friend , but the present! The BBC will adopt a typical smug pose applaud the Germans for what has been done/prevented, but refrain from providing any news on the critial reaction to this, or for that matter, address the intellectual implications of it. Remember their stance on the Mohammed cartoons? It is the BBC that adopts a Stalinist pose here.

    German newspapers are today quoting Churchill’s phrase on the crocodile and the dangers of appeasement. In the current war on terror, that is the dramatic irony of 2007 and the fate of the BBC. The BBC right now in some rspects resembles Lord Haw Haw- just look at its presentation of Iran.


  19. hippiepooter says:

    Ed wrote:

    “They [the BBC] are fixated on truth avoidance, like rabbits in the headlights of history.”

    Some of them, well, quite a few, are just out and out traitors as well.


  20. hippiepooter says:

    Paul Robinson | Homepage | 27.09.06 – 11:44 am |

    “The fact you guys think you’re justified in what you say shows just how close you are to Germans in the 1930s… your comments are no less stereotypical or filled with contempt and hatred.”

    Keep posting Paul, your entertainment value is high! You’ll find that the Germans you have in mind like Nietzche and Hitler found the Muslim religion deeply admirable. Indeed, the SS had its own Muslim Brigades.


  21. mangrove says:

    Little Bulldogs | Homepage | 27.09.06 – 1:16 pm

    Although you say anyone can leave a comment on your blog – when I tried it said comments were restricted to ‘team members’.


  22. matermis says:

    Umbongo | 27.09.06 – 12:25 pm

    but the BBC – to its credit – did scrap the appalling Popetown.


  23. John Reith says:

    Bijan Daneshmand | 27.09.06 – 1:13 am

    The BBC story you link to is an absolutely straightforward court report. There are strict rules and conventions governing the reporting of trials in progress. This story obeys the lot.

    Nowhere here is the BBC editorialising.
    The only time you ever hear a ‘BBC voice’ is in short factual points such as “It is the first time British military personnel have been prosecuted under the act. ”

    That’s if it’s a BBC voice at all – many court reports are provided by agencies.

    The passages you object to were verbatim reports of evidence given in court. Prosecution evidence. To allege bias is ridiculous.


  24. Anon says:

    Allegations of ridiculous bias? Here? Never.

    It’s notable that pretty much the only poster here currently is B-BBC’s resident weakest link, Ed.

    And while the quality of the regular commenters was never that great, it’s now basically LGF-lite. No wonder the sane ones like Cockney have headed for the hills.


  25. Umbongo says:


    “No wonder the sane ones like Cockney have headed for the hills.”

    But you stick around . . .


  26. Umbongo says:


    Oh and what’s this on another B-BBC thread earlier today?

    “Aside from stating the bleeding obvious the BBC has also given air time to Bush’s own response and other passages in the report suggesting that terrorists might become disheartened if we can stick it out. The ‘failure’ but is entirely your own words.
    Cockney | 27.09.06 – 8:44 am | ”

    And guess who commented next?

    Yes – you!


  27. Anon says:

    Indeed. It’s er.. educational. However, I refrain from elaborating on my dead cert theories of BBC fifth columnism and conspiratorial activities in a nefarious league of islamofascists, die hard commies and other malefactors.


  28. hippiepooter says:

    “B-BBC’s resident weakest link”

    Strewth, an Anne Robinson fan – it shows!

    I know what you mean by light-weight though. After your spat with Pete_London trying to convince us all .385% American contribution to Saddam’s armaments made the US his main supplier we were all overawed at your intellectual prowess.

    By the way, if you’re still stuck for a nic, my offer of ‘sophist’ still stands??


  29. Little Bulldogs says:

    Mangrove -> 100 apologies. I had accidentally clicked the wrong option. Should be OK now.


  30. Rob says:

    It is ironic that a BBC employee should accuse others of being embryonic Nazis when his own organisation refuses to report the true nature of Islamic regimes, e.g. Hisbollah with their Nazi salutes at rallies, the relentless portrayal of Jews as “descendents of pigs and apes” in the Arab media and a true, real-life Hitler growing in power in Iran.

    Whether the BBC are just shit-scared of reporting the truth, or whether they are closet Islamofascist sympathisers is open to question.


  31. disillusioned_german says:

    Whenever I see a leftie typing (the obvious) crap I think of Bill Clinton during the Fox News interview. As Newt Gingrich (I love the guy) just put it: “…phony…”

    They try to come across as serious but they’re just simple jokers who want to peeve people with a conservative mindset off. The best thing you can do when dealing with a leftie is: Laugh at them!


  32. Cockney says:

    “And while the quality of the regular commenters was never that great, it’s now basically LGF-lite. No wonder the sane ones like Cockney have headed for the hills.”

    Hey, I’m still here (and sane). Other than thinking that the BBC gives Islam/Muslim issues far more importance and sympathy than they deserve in the UK but that all this Islamisation of Britain stuff is b*llocks I haven’t really got anything further to contribute that I haven’t already.

    It is turning into a bit of a one trick pony though. Surely the Labour conference, and the implications of BBC bias in the leadership struggle on everyone’s mortgage rate are far more important than the infintessimally small chance of being blown up on the tube?? Yet nothing??


  33. AntiCitizenOne says:


    Interest rates are going to continue going up, the Chinese Deflator effect is coming to an end (through commodity price inflation, caused by massive M4).

    I wonder will the BBC do a show on the lack of faith in the official inflation figures (which is really about 8% bmr).


  34. Cockney says:

    Now thats a bit more interesting – I’ve got a feeling they did do something on the inflation goods basket, but it might have been someone else. Probably a moot point in the light of license fee demands…

    Where’s your 8% from?


  35. Mark says:

    A bit of maths here…

    If the mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 5.25%, then you will not be paying an extra 0.25% at all, but really an extra 5%!

    If you were paying £500 per month before, you’ll be paying £525 per month or £25 extra after. £25 is 5% of £500.