included an appeal for help with the so-called ‘honour’ killing of Naziat Khan by her husband, Zafar Iqbal, who is thought to be on the run in Pakistan.
Part of the appeal included a background piece about the nature of so-called ‘honour’ crimes in Britain’s minority communities, explaining that such backward attitudes pervade all ages, which was demonstrated with several vox pop clips of younger Asian British males expressing their views on family honour.
One of the men shown was particularly forthright in the lengths he would go to in this regard, and said, I recall, words to the effect that ‘and you can quote me’ on that. Strangely, in his case, the Beeboids blurred out his face, so he managed to spread his evil views without of course being able to be held responsible for what he said, either by his family, community or the local constabulary.
Probably specified that they didn’t show his face though. Would you rather they demonstrated the abhorrent views in that context or whitewashed the whole thing?
Unusually, no reason was specified Cockney. The chap in question seemed quite unabashed and proud of his views, so I think it unlikely that he asked for anonymity. Perhaps some of our lurking Beeboids can secure an explanation for this curious anonymity.
Would a white person get away with it? Would the BBC protect John Smiths identity if he wasnt an ethnic minority. I doubt it.
Would the police be visiting John Smiths house for a quiet chat about political correctness afterwards. Hell yeah.
Have you tried asking the programme?
Why not ask JR? He is the BBC’s man on this site.
Come on John, you’re always giving us your opinion so let’s have your opinion on this.
Why do YOU think the BBC protected the identity of a man who was basically spreading a message of hate.
Part of the appeal included a background piece about the nature of so-called ‘honour’ crimes in Britain’s minority communities, explaining that such backward attitudes pervade all ages, which was demonstrated with several vox pop clips of younger Asian British males expressing their views on family honour.
The reason for the general liberal omerta on the subject of honour killings is that it’s difficult to pin the same crime on 98.5% of the British population. Back in the day when black crime raised by some, liberals would pin the same things on ol’whitey. The aim was usually to forestall any discussion of numbers, relevence and motivation for crimes but, strictly speaking, they were right in that the nature of crimes committed by blacks and whites is the same.
Liberals have since gone off beyond the limits of sanity by often talking of ‘Christian fundamentalists’. They’ve had to subject themselves to ridicule by sensible people but it’s a price worth paying in their eyes to pin the tag ‘fundamentalists’ to Christians, as if opposing abortion equates to repeated acts of mass murder. Then again, it might do in liberals’ eyes.
any half keen BBC-watcher will know that honour killings are much more prevalent in GB than was thought the case. The silence is due to nothing more than the culprits are male muslims. Or plumbers, if you like.
Pete_London,
the culture of the area that people come from is a far higherprediction of their criminality than skin colour.
Jamaican Immigrants have a massive excess of criminality over the average.
Next is Plumbers.
Next is Whitey.
Last is Hindu and Sikhs.
Also economically and educationally it’s the inverse. You’d think this would demonstrate, even to fact blind lefties, that if the UK was racist this ordering would be impossible.
Why do YOU think the BBC protected the identity of a man who was basically spreading a message of hate.
JimBob | 03.11.06 – 5:39 pm
Several possibilities occur to me (I didn’t see the item).
First, the speaker may not have given consent, signed a release form etc.
Second, the person may have been too young to give informed consent. Special rules apply to young people and vulnerable adults.
Third, the item may have involved secret recording. The remark ‘you can quote me on that’ would be an odd one for someone who knew he was on camera to make.
The guidelines on secret recording on subjects like this are:
Social Research
• In a narrow range of cases, there may be justification for carrying out secret recording even though there is no prime facie evidence of wrong-doing by the people concerned. Such cases are normally limited to social research items, where the intention is to capture attitudes or behaviour which would not occur is the subject knew they were being recorded, for example capturing the reactions of people to a beggar in the street. As in all instances of secret recording, there needs to be a public interest in showing such behaviour.
If transmission of the material is approved, any individual who is clearly identifiable in the recording, unless merely incidental to it, should give permission for use of the material. If permission is denied the individual’s identity should be effectively obscured.
“In a narrow range of cases, there may be justification for carrying out secret recording even though there is no prime facie evidence of wrong-doing by the people concerned……If transmission of the material is approved, any individual who is clearly identifiable in the recording, unless merely incidental to it, should give permission for use of the material. If permission is denied the individual’s identity should be effectively obscured.”
Now there’s an interesting thought.
And Nick Griffin et al gave their permissions for the material used in that famous documentary did they? After all the “prime facie evidence of wrong-doing” is what the current and a previous trial are all about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40385000/rm/_40385453_bnp_14jul_vi.ram
For un-obscured faces
Well mentioned, PJ. Given that JR clearly has his finger on the pulse at the BBC, would he respond to PJ’s point above?
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=73375
One in 10 young British Asians believes that the so-called “honour killings” can be justified, according to a new poll on Monday.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=73375
“Most of the Asians who are in Britain today come from very tribal communities. Honour is a big deal, it’s kind of caught up with your property, it’s caught up with your women and if anybody comes close to threatening you, you have to avenge your honour.”
PJ | 04.11.06 – 7:15 pm |
No, they would have had prima facie evidence of wrongdoing before filming Griffin.
“After all the “prime facie evidence of wrong-doing” is what the current and a previous trial are all about.”
Don’t be silly. Trials are not about prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is a pre-condition of holding a trial.
What is Nick Griffin’s crime, according to the BBC? The reason as to why I’m curious is that Griffin’s crime was filmed by the BBC, and the evidence was then handed by the BBC to the police. The BBC then publicised that Griffin had committed a crime, that the evidence had been collected by the BBC, and handed to the police – the strong inference being that if the case isn’t prosecuted, then the BBC is going to tar someone (a bit like they did with the Met).
I didn’t see Crimewatch because I rarely watch the BBC but I am stumped as to why the young ‘Asian’ (was he an adherent of the religion of peace?) had his face blurred when expressing his views. JR’s ‘explanations’ have left me none the wiser, which is probably what was intended.
John Reith: the question is quite simple. When an adult who speaks English says “and you can quote me”, s/he means, with my name and face showing. So why did the BBC not take this apologist for murder (and public apology for crime is a crime) at his word? Obviously, because he is a m*sl*m. Or do you have another credible reason to refuse to treat a person according to his own wishes?
Incidentally, one can see the superiority of the American system in this sort of cases to Britain’s. If an American citizen of whatever creed had gone on TV to publicly advocate murder, you can bet your life that very soon some DA or other would have subpoenaed the tapes and sent the individual in question before the Grand Jury. Because there is only one, nationwide prosecution authority in this country, no such independence of judgment among prosecutors is possible. At present the public prosecution is one of several nationwide Muslim Protection Services.
“Don’t be silly. Trials are not about prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is a pre-condition of holding a trial.”
Er, not so silly because in this case the prosecution has to prove that an offence was committed.
From: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm
“Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.”
However, I find your interpretation of the the law interesting because it sets a precedent that will no doubt be welcomed by many readers of this site. According to the Rethian Principle* it is sufficient for an ‘uninterested party’, in this case BBCBias, to alledge bias by the Corporation and we can skip all this irritating argument about whether such bias does or does not exist and go directly to excoriating the culprits.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
*Now it is established, perhaps correspondents might like to quote the ‘Reithian Principle’ as an appropriate rebuttal to any of JR’s future sallies.
Fabio P.Barbieri | 05.11.06 – 2:25 pm |
As I understand it there were a number of interviewees – all or most being Muslim. Only one had his face pixellated.
So I think we have to look for a reason other than adherence to Islam to explain the decision to obscure his identity.
The reasons I suggested still seem to me to be among the most likely ones.
PJ | 05.11.06 – 3:54 pm
‘because in this case the prosecution has to prove that an offence was committed.’
The prosecution always has to prove an offence was committed.
As for the principle you wrongly ascribe to me – I recognize it as precisely the animating principle and standard operating procedure of this blog.
Afterthought: what about this forthcoming trial?
A former British National Party (BNP) candidate and a dentist have appeared in court on explosives charges.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6080278.stm
I wonder what the prima facie evidence of wrongdoing there was?
aha:
Two men were arrested in Lancashire last week in the biggest explosives haul ever found at a house in the UK…
Chemicals, a rocket launcher, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit were found …
http://libcom.org/news/bnp-election-candidate-arrested-in-biggest-explosives-haul-ever-11102006
http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.947927.0.exbnp_man_held_in_bomb_swoop.php
However Superintendent Neil Smith moved to reassure residents and stressed: “It is not a bomb making factory” and added that it was not related to terrorism.
“He’s not a terrorist and it’s not a bomb factory but we are interested in what we have seized from his house. It will take expert advice to establish exactly what he has got.
“He was arrested under the Explosives Act on suspicion of possessing chemical substances that aren’t in themselves an offence to possess but if combined may be capable of making an explosion.”
Interesting site to get your information from JR, does it reflect your political beliefs?
Libcom is an anarchist group of libertarian communists based in London, United Kingdom, which was created on May 1st, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libcom
They are also influenced by the specific theoretical and practical traditions of anarchist-communism, social ecology/communalism, anarcho-syndicalism, the situationists, autonomist-marxism, council communism.
You are an extremist JR. BTW I don’t believe your old man fought in WW2 or Korea. What regiment was he in??
JR
WTF has the arrest of two BNP members(disputed)on possible explosives charges got to do with the Griffin trial?
Or are we pleading a guilty by association line?
On that basis – I can think of a BBC employee who has had his collar felt in a matter relating to under-age sex. Are we to deduce therefore that John Reith gets his jollies interfering with little boys?
Oh, and you still haven’t dealt with the pixellation issue. Your quotes seem to indicate that the faces should have been obscured.
PJ
I have dealt pretty fully with the pixellation issue. To recap the possibilities:
1. The subject refused to sign a release or withdrew consent.
2. The subject was underage and parents/legal guardians were either not present or refused to sign a release.
3. Secret recording may have been involved…if so, the special rules above apply.
You airily dismiss these reasons and claim it was because he was a Muslim. So how come the other Muslims weren’t pixellated?
joe | 06.11.06 – 9:52 pm
“Interesting site to get your information from JR, does it reflect your political beliefs?”
Nothing. It’s what came up when I googled.
Last week I cited the BNP website and stormfront.
I wasn’t a Fascist then and I’m not an anarchist now.
You must be new here. Over the months my political affiliation has come up a number of times. I am a Conservative supporter.
Then keep it quiet at work because ….the BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
Also be careful what you wear…
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: ‘You can’t do that, that’s like the National Front!’
JR
“You airily dismiss these reasons and claim it was because he was a Muslim.”
If you check above you’ll find I haven’t said a dicky bird on the subject, airily or otherwise.
My interest is that the BBC Secret Policeman footage seem to fulfil: ‘3. Secret recording may have been involved…if so, the special rules above apply.’
So why didn’t they?
You appear remarkably reticent on the catamite front…..