Here are four recent news reports, reproduced in full. Can you spot the relevant fact omitted from one of them:
First, BBC Views Online:
Man in court faces terror charges
A man has appeared in court accused of preparing acts of terrorism in his home town in South Yorkshire.
Nicholas Roddis, of Reedham Drive, Bramley, Rotherham, appeared at London’s Old Bailey on Friday by video link from custody.
The 22-year-old was remanded in custody for a plea and case management hearing on 21 November.
At his next court appearance, the charge of preparing acts of terrorism will be put to him.
Second, Teletext:
A Muslim convert from Rotherham has appeared at the Old Bailey accused of preparing acts of terrorism. Nicholas Roddis, 22, of Reedham Drive, Bramley, appeared for the short hearing on a video link from prison. Roddis was remanded in police custody for a plea and case management hearing on November 21, when an indictment will be put to him.
Can you guess what it is yet?
Third, The Star (from South Yorkshire):
Rotherham man faces terror trial
A WHITE Muslim convert has appeared in court accused of plotting to bomb his hometown of Rotherham.
Nicholas Roddis, aged 22, allegedly kept a list for attacking Rotherham, along with chemicals for making explosives and bomb-making recipes.Counter terrorism police claim he also kept extremist propaganda including beheadings at his then home during a two-and-a-half year period. The property was searched on May 8, this year.
He was yesterday charged with 13 offences under the 2000 and 2006 Terrorism Acts.
Roddis, of Reedham Drive, Bramley, spoke only to confirm his name and date of birth during a 10-minute hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in central London. He appeared in custody wearing a white prison-issue tracksuit and goatee beard.
District Judge Nicholas Evans declined jurisdiction and committed the case for trial at the Old Bailey. He will appear for a preliminary hearing on September 7. Judge Evans said: “This is a case in which the Terrorist Protocol applies.”
No bail application was made and there was no indication of his plea.
You must be getting close by now!
Fourth, CourtNewsUK:
A white Muslim convert accused of plotting to bomb his home town appeared at the Old Bailey today (fri). Nicholas Roddis, 22, allegedly kept a ‘To Do’ list for attacking his hometown of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, along with chemicals for making explosives and bomb-making recipes.
Got it yet?
Here’s a clue: it’s the thing that probably inspired the alleged acts.
Good old BBC. All the news, all the time (except when it’s some of the news, some of the time).
Update (Sunday):
Apologies to those who have found this Biased BBC Compare & Contrast Quiz too easy. It would have been tougher with the addition of reports from the Hawick News, the Bridlington Free Press and the Buxton Advertiser, all with this Press Association report:
Convert in court on terror charges
A Muslim convert from Rotherham has appeared at the Old Bailey accused of preparing acts of terrorism in his home town.
Nicholas Roddis, 22, of Reedham Drive, Bramley, appeared for the short hearing on a video link from prison.
He was remanded in custody for a plea and case management hearing on November 21, when an indictment will be put to him.
Thank you to pounce for the BBC and Teletext links. Good spot.
Al-BBC – whitewashing the Jihad with taxpayers money !!
What possible link could his religion have to preparing acts of Terrorism? Honestly, just give me ONE example of where Muslims have committed a terrorist act.
It’s the Buddhists who are behind it all, they are puppets of a vile Zionist conspiracy.
I could have leapt to the conclusion that he was a former member of the BNP.
will: easily.
Based on the name of the suspect, one is left wondering about why he was planning terror attacks, what group does he belong to: basic facts a news item “allegedly” should include.
Possibly, the BBC think he may be an animal rights campaigner or something.
I expect the poor hack who wrote it had the Beeb’s Head of Diversity (95K pa) leaning over his/her shoulder.
Bias by omission again. It’s what they don’t tell people!
And Reithy moans about some people calling them Al-Beeb…..! 😎
I assumed he’d be an Anglican. They can get awfully violent. Especially when you beat them in the Victoria Sponge competition or if you win main prize in the tombola.
For lord’s sake.
At some point, Al-Beeb is going to be so PeeCee, it’ll be reduced to writing sentences like, “Some people did some stuff in Rotherham. Police are investigating.”
Violent plumber syndrome breaks out in the UK again, obviously. You really ought to do something about your plumbers over there.
as (now officially mad) david shayler apparently told jon ronson.. ” it’s racist to say the 7/7 bombers were muslims, jon, racist”
This kind of stuff does the BBC no credit at all. How do they think thay can get away with it ?
“as (now officially mad) david shayler apparently told jon ronson.. ” it’s racist to say the 7/7 bombers were muslims, jon, racist””
You know what else? It’s okay to commit mass murder, just so long as it is indiscriminate.
So laugh up the sarcasm Rob, they have these double standards because they want to destroy us.
And not even a mention of the Riyadh ul-Haq controversy on Al-Beeb’s website. Move along, nothing to see here…
Doesnt he therefore a have a muslim name to go with his conversion?
If so does that mean we can go backing to calling Cat Stevens by his real name, and Cassius Clay as well?
“Some people did some stuff in Rotherham. Police are investigating.”
No, that really won’t do at all. Are you trying to foment anti-Yorkshire sentiment here? I think it’ll have to be: “Some people did something somewhere. Police are investigating.”
“Some people did something somewhere. The Police, which some reports have called institutionally racist, are reassuring the community.”
Is it:
– What religion this poor chap converted from? Was he once a Catholic? (Always a Catholic)
– His inspiration fom “Bob Cottage” and the BNP?
– The fact that Rotherham can be very dull indeed of a weekend?
Perhaps he was once a member of the “Papal Shock Troops” aka the Jesuits…?
“Some people did something somewhere, due to social factors beyond their control and George Bush’s “war on terrorism.” The Police, which some reports have called institutionally racist, are reassuring the community. Have your say: should the Police be disbanded?”
“Some people did something somewhere, due to social factors beyond their control and George Bush’s “war on terrorism.” The Police, which some reports have called institutionally racist, are reassuring the community from which the alleged culprits come. The community from which the victims come is thought by some to be on the verge of a racist over-reaction. Have your say: should the Police be disbanded?”
Heh.
You guys should submit your CV to al-Beeb immediately. You really have got their “style” down cold.
But the BBC is never reluctant to air the views of those who believe that Islamic terrorism is caused by the West. On last night’s episode of BBC World’s ridiculous Doha Debates (aka “Blame-it- all-on-the-West-and-Israel debates”) Terry Waite ingratiated himself with the largely Arab and Muslim audience by saying that “the West was responsible for Al-Qaeda because of Guantanomo Bay etc…”. He also said that the Islamic world’s desire to implement Islamic values devoid of western influences was “laudable”. Clearly, the time this gentleman spent chained to a radiator whilst being held captive in Beirut by Islamist thugs (who were very keen to implement “Islamic values”) has had an effect on his moral compass; namely, it has been re-magnetized with the wrong polarity. I bet the BBC loves him.
Would someone please tell me the answer to a question that’s been puzzling me since I started reading this thread?
Would the fact that someone was identified as a convert to Islam make you more or lesslikely to think he was planning to blow up Rotherham?
Or would it make no difference?
“John Reith:
Would someone please tell me the answer to a question that’s been puzzling me since I started reading this thread?
Would the fact that someone was identified as a convert to Islam make you more or lesslikely to think he was planning to blow up Rotherham?
Or would it make no difference?”
Personally I’m too busy to worry about some random convert to Islam. Might I harbor suspicians on occasion? Yeah maybe…I’m only human and Islam’s track record isn’t very good.
But that still doesn’t excuse a news staff to only report half the story. Motivation and possible terrorist connections are important for context. If the BBC can’t provide the basics of reporting they shouldn’t be playing at it.
I am gobsmacked by some of JR’s comments.
Paid by Pravda to come here and defend the indefensible.
“Would someone please tell me the answer to a question that’s been puzzling me since I started reading this thread?
Would the fact that someone was identified as a convert to Islam make you more or lesslikely to think he was planning to blow up Rotherham?
Or would it make no difference?”
Yes, actually it would, if he was BNP for example we might think in the context of previous stories about the BNP that he wasn’t much of a threat, however, we all understand that Muslim fundamentalists are willing to blow themselves up along with men, women and children.
Secondly the BBC is supposed to be a NEWS organisation dealing in FACTS.
Good grief.
Get back to work you idle apparatchik.
At first i thought he was a radicalised Mormon missionary or a Buddist fundamentalist.
JR, the fact omitted by the BBC, quite deliberately, is relevant to the story, comprising as it does the thing that most likely inspired the alleged acts.
All those other news providers, the ones that we’re free to buy or not (unlike your employer’s output), seem to think this individual’s conversion to islam is of some relevance too.
Why does the BBC, alone, think it is irrelevant? (And if you’re going to try and find another example of this case being reported without mentioning the guy’s religion please do the decent thing and tell us how many search results you also find where it is mentioned. Thank you!).
Lastly, if the guy was a BNP supporter I’d bet my shirt that the BBC would have mentioned it.
P.S. Not just mentioned it, but much higher up in the running order too – e.g. front page, rather than buried down under South Yorkshire local news. You can bet that had the guy’s alleged plans come off they would have made the top of the news.
Andrew
You might want to update your post to reflect the fact that the STAR has now removed the Muslim reference from its report.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Local-man-on-terror-charges.3186036.jp
You might also note that despite this story having been on the wires since 8th Sept… no national newspaper appears to have picked it up.
I wonder why not.
Perhaps you’d also answer my question above, if you have a mo? Thanks in anticipation.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5471987397298706055/#369502
Wrong again JR. The Star would appear to have published another report in the meantime that omits the detail in question. The report that I linked to has not been changed.
Quite why it has been omitted this time I don’t know. Perhaps they’ve had complaints from ‘the community’, perhaps it’s a bruvva that wrote the new story up or perhaps it’s just someone so PC that they fancy their chances at a job (well, employment) in the BBC Viewsroom.
But that is just one source of news. Teletext and the Press Association certainly saw fit to mention all the facts.
As for newspapers that didn’t pick it up, they are more constrained for space than BBC Views Online is, and, more to the point, are free to choose and not choose what they cover, as is their customers wont, unlike the BBC, where, because of the unique way the BBC is funded, you are obliged to cover the news comprehensively and impartially, even though this seems to be difficult for you.
And don’t try to say that it’s not news – it’s not every day that you get an Old Bailey terror trial!
P.S. Supposing the story had been picked up by the national newspapers (and I expect they will once the trial gets under way), which of them would have omitted the person’s religion from their coverage and why?
Andrew | Homepage | 10.09.07 – 11:47 am
But you haven’t said whether the information would make you more likely to consider the man guilty or less likely to do so.
(Or whether it would make no difference.)
If you think the question too personal, perhaps you would tell me which of the three options a ‘notional stranger’ might plump for in your considered view?
John Reith.
I answered your question, but no reply. . .
Andrew
The report that I linked to has not been changed.
Yes, I see now that the one you linked to isn’t even a report of the same event at all. It’s a report of a magistrate’s court hearing back in August.
Foolishly I had assumed that your ‘compare & contrasts’ would be examining different reports of the same event.
Silly me.
When we do, in fact, compare the Star’s reporting of the Old Bailey hearing with the BBC report, we find there is no significant difference!
Now any chance of a straight answer to my Q?
It’s a fairly pointless question JR.
Any thinking person couldn’t and wouldn’t make a judgment on a person’s guilt on the basis of the scant facts we know so far, regardless of the man’s religion, before the trial has even started. Even following comprehensive press coverage it may not be possible to determine likely guilt or not before the jury gives a verdict. It really depends on the evidence, of which we have seen none so far.
But, when someone is charged with terror offences, the obvious question a thinking person would ask is what was their likely motivation – political, criminal, religious, animal rights, what is their background etc. etc.
Most news organisations would seek to provide such background information as a matter of course, even if it isn’t presented to them on a plate. They know it’s a question their audience will, quite reasonably, ask.
The BBC purposely omitted this detail. Why?
And since you’re in a mood for asking me questions, don’t forget to answer the question above, and my earlier question about which of the national newspapers would have omitted the person’s religion from their coverage if they had covered the court appearance and why?
And thirdly, if the accused were, for example, a BNP activist, do you think the BBC would have omitted that detail from their coverage of the story?
Andrew | 10.09.07 – 12:12 pm
if the accused were, for example, a BNP activist, do you think the BBC would have omitted that detail from their coverage of the story?
I think I’m right in saying that between the time of Robert Cottage’s arrest at the end of September 2006 and the start of his trial in February 2007, the BBC did not report his BNP links or, if it did, pretty quickly removed any mention of them.
There was certainly comment on blogs at the time to the effect that the MSM were hiding this info. This was true: there were pretty stringent reporting restrictions, as I recall.
So the answer to one of your questions is: yes.
Before I address the others, could you please have a stab at mine.? Your last remarks didn’t really answer it. I wasn’t asking whether you’d find the guy guilty beyond reasonable doubt, just whether the info would make you more or less inclined to think him guilty.
Such prevarication JR!
I answered what you asked, not the question that you suppose that I answered!
To make it crystal clear, knowing that he’s a Muslim convert doesn’t change my view of his likely guilt or otherwise. But it does answer the question of what is the case about – an obvious question to ask of anyone who ends up at the Old Bailey on terror charges – they usually have some kind of political or ideological motivation for their alleged actions in their background, as appears to be the case here. Except at BBC Views Online.
Now, why does the Press Association et al think its relevant and legal (i.e. not in contempt of court) to mention this detail, and why does the BBC see fit to omit it?
Is the PA known for playing fast and loose with the news? No, far from it.
Looking around, I see no one complaining about the PA being persistently biased to the left (or at all for that matter).
You can’t say the same of the BBC.
P.S. Don’t forget my other question, the one about which of the national newspapers, had they run the story, would have omitted the mention of religion, and why?
“Or would it make no difference?”
Yes, actually it would, if he was BNP for example we might think in the context of previous stories about the BNP that he wasn’t much of a threat, however, we all understand that Muslim fundamentalists are willing to blow themselves up along with men, women and children.
Secondly the BBC is supposed to be a NEWS organisation dealing in FACTS.
Yet more futile questions and mind-f***ing games. You are well and truly stuck on the same merry-go-round.
The British licence fee payer is entitled to a much bigger picture than what they are currently getting from this wretchedly biased organization.
We want detached, clinical reporting of ALL the facts – not opinions – and then let us make our own minds up.
Andrew,
You demand to know “the facts”: how do you know which facts are relevant to know and which aren’t? Should we know, for example, if he’s a wife beating drug addict with a debt problem, for example?
You write “Any thinking person couldn’t and wouldn’t make a judgment on a person’s guilt on the basis of the scant facts we know so far, regardless of the man’s religion, before the trial has even started” and yet you consider the fact that he’s a muslim convert relevant before the trial and on the basis of the scant facts you’ve read so far.
You may well be right that the muslim angle is relevant. It probably is. But you’re still second guessing that his conversion to islam is a relevant fact and as an editorial policy that has to be farmed out to regional offices and junior subs it doesn’t offer much scope for consistency.
Seriously, how would you draw up a set of guidelines to make sure that your court reports only mentioned the relevant facts about race and religion before the trial?
There’s actually a bit more to this story that never got reported at all.
He planted a bomb on a bus, which was spotted. Passengers informed the driver who checked whether it looked suspicious, agreed, and got everybody off the bus.
Broom Road (a major road into Rotherham town centre) was closed off, the bus blown up and the whole mess cleaned up.
And nothing appeared in the media.
The only reason why I know is because a friend’s house was close by the bus and he was temporarily evacuated.
Would we have ever learned of any of this if they hadn’t caught the bomber?
David B. Wildgoose 10.09.07 – 2:20 pm
That sounds like news! I wonder if the BBC could do some proper jounalism and see if they can verify it, and then report it?
Doubt it.
I doubt there’s a big conspiracy to not report a town centre blowing up.
Sounds more likely a DA Notice was put out.
Andrew
What journalists in all media are encouraged to avoid is letting some terrorist go free by putting information into the public domain that allows him to claim he cannot get a fair trial – and thus gets off scot free.
Any defence council worth his money will try on the ‘prejudicial media reports’ angle on the slightest pretext.
Sometimes the Courts themselves issue tight restrictions. You may remember that in the Kriss Donald case the media were not only unable to report the ethnicity/religion of the suspects for a long time • but were also barred from reporting that any such ban was in place.
Different media face different considerations. A local newspaper published in Hawick and with few, if any, London readers is unlikely to prejudice an Old Bailey trial, whatever it says.
The BBC • a frequent news source for more than 80% of the population • is a different matter.
The easiest way of avoiding the risk is not to publish at all. Which is what all national newspapers did this time. After all, there was no really important development • a court appearance was deferred a few weeks, nothing actually happened.
The only person to give a straight answer to my question was fnu snu:
Yes, actually it would
{…make him think it more likely the man was guilty.}
If the BBC are on notice that many people would have the same reaction • then their duty would be to withhold.
You tried to have it both ways: saying the information wasn’t prejudicial…. yet went to the heart of the important question of motivation.
Mmmm. Wouldn’t the information that a man charged with murdering his wife had insured her life for ten million quid be likely to affect your calculation of his likely guilt? Would you publish it before trial?
David, thank you for the information about the incident you refer to. It’s reassuring that someone has been charged and will face a trial before a jury to determine guilt or otherwise.
Bob, the BBC will have been well aware of the incident. It is you and I and the rest of the tellytaxpayers who aren’t.
Jacob: “You may well be right that the muslim angle is relevant. It probably is.”
Do you really think so, really, really? If it weren’t relevant, wouldn’t you expect a reasonable reporter to give some other clue as to the accused’s cause or motivation? Even if it’s not related at all, don’t you think it’s an interesting piece of background about the accused? It’s hardly the sort of stuff that would prejudice a trial as JR suggests, and it won’t be kept from the court in any event, so there’s no reason not to mention it, other than PC censorship.
P.S.: Still waiting to hear back from you JR about the Press Association risking being in contempt of court (ho ho!) and other questions you’ve avoided so far. I note you’ve been active on another thread at 1.52, 2.06 and 3.02. Have you ‘forgotten’ about this thread?
Oh, I see you have been back in the meantime JR. Must just have been taking your time!
Tell me, do you think a phrase like “…gets off scot free” is acceptable these days? Somehow I don’t think that would make it onto the Six O’Clock news… and rightly so.
Now, tell us about the PA being ‘in contempt’, and about which of the national newspapers wouldn’t have mentioned the detail in question if they had covered the court appearance…
P.S. Contrary to your assertion, my previous answer was perfectly straight. I don’t know if the guy is guilty or not, and can’t form a view on that at this stage. But I would wonder what it is about someone’s background that led to such an accusation – people don’t just wake up in the morning and think “Eeh, ah fancy a change. ‘Appens I’ll go and try some terrorism, just for a laugh”.
“wouldn’t you expect a reasonable reporter to give some other clue as to the accused’s cause or motivation”
If they knew cause or motivation, they might, but that’s not what’s happened here. We haven’t learnt that the man is a frothing jihadi. We’ve learnt he’s a muslim convert. I believe there is a difference between the two.
“Even if it’s not related at all, don’t you think it’s an interesting piece of background about the accused?”
No, I don’t. It reminds me of some of the more dubious comments on B-BBC that criticise why we haven’t found out that such and such mugger or wife murderer is muslim or black.
I doubt the BBC can afford to be chucking titbits about sensitive issues like race and religion into reports on the basis someone might find it interesting.
Jacob, there are no blog posts here like that. Though it is quite possible that the odd such comment might have slipped by among the 83,000+ reader comments we have had since Biased BBC started.
Now, while we’re at it JR and Jacob, supposing the accused’s name, in this case, were, say, Mohammed Islam, would you expect the press to withold (or be asked to withold) his name then for the same reasons you advance?
Still waiting to hear your view on the fast and loose PA etc.
Andrew
I don’t think the PA are fast and loose. But as they do not publish direct to a mass public, they don’t face the same risk or have to make the same judgment calls as the BBC does.
John Reith you really do twist things, you have completely misrepresented what I said to justify the BBC witholding ‘facts’ for the ‘public good’ (i.e. what the BBC believes is good for the public).
How very BBC.
“{…make him think it more likely the man was guilty.}
If the BBC are on notice that many people would have the same reaction • then their duty would be to withhold.”
What I said was, that I would have a different view on the story if I had known the man was BNP vs Muslim, not guilty vs non guilty.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of a smear.
I never did see your reply on the BBC regular who wants to dance in Trafalgar Square as Tel Aviv glows.