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.
No, I wouldn’t censor the name. It’s a name. It doesn’t necessarily define or describe anybody and doesn’t qualify in my book as “an interesting piece of background about the accused.”
Would you want to see all court reports specify race and/or religion on the basis they might provide a clue? If not, what criteria would you use to include info on race/religion before the trial had commenced.
Andrew
Let’s cut to the chase.
Some people on this blog think the BBC especially favours Muslim defendants.
It doesn’t.
Most of the confusion stems from the case of Kazi Nurur Rahman – the original ‘plumber’ of the Religion of Plumbers, the source and fountainhead of lots of jokes.
I can certainly see why this article caused people to scratch their heads:
Plumber faces five terror charges
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4499480.stm
Did you know that some of the toughest reporting restrictions ever applied to this case?
Did you know that they weren’t lifted until May 2007? That’s 2 years after the trial!
And there were very good reasons why.
….correction:
It was the end of April 2007 and no, that isn’t 2 years….but you get my point.
In fact, Rahman’s entire 2006 trial and conviction were covered up – with the MSM not breathing a word and only B-BBC breaching security by banging on about the ‘plumber’.
Meanwhile you’ve been smearing the BBC – and the BBC wasn’t even able to answer back.
You should think these things through more and not jump to conclusions.
Gosh JR you seem to be writing so many posts that you are getting confused.
Perhaps they have a room at work where you can lie down for a while before resuming your blogging.
fnu snu | 10.09.07 – 6:15 pm
No work today. I’m sitting on my terrace with a bottle of Augusto Pinochet 1973 Reserva and my trusty laptop.
Just trying to get you guys onto a more sensible track.
He was a convert to the “religion of peace”, eh!
Well I hope you concentrate more than the earlier shift, your comments are all over the place.
David B. Wildgoose | 10.09.07 – 2:20 pm
That is a very important fact about this whole story. All we were told by the World Service is that the accused were alleged to have canisters of bomb materials (which we were at least shown on video), that they had been under surveillance for months, and that they were merely in the last part of the planning stage when busted.
If they planted a bomb on a bus, that is a giant leap from being in the last stages of planning. How in the world can Jacob (BBC?) think it sufficient to issue a DA notice, and that a bomb planted on a bus in the UK is not newsworthy?
John Reith,
RE: Who thinks a convert to Islam would be more likely or less likely to blow people up in Rotherham?
I, for one, would think a convert to Islam would be more likely to blow people up in Rotherham, depending on where the convert lived and at what Mosque did he do his training, er, conversion. It would be the same as someone born into it, I think. If they have been influenced by an imam who preaches hate and violence, then they would be more likely to bomb their neighbors.
This applies to the latest terrorists arrested in Germany. Two of them were converts, and obviously did not convert because they thought Islam was so beautiful and placed so much emphasis on charity and peace.
Having said that, it seems that converts these days are, in fact, more likely to want to bomb their neighbors, especially those who live in areas with easy access to imams or religious students who encourage and support such acts. I think you know what I’m talking about here.
“How in the world can Jacob (BBC?) think it sufficient to issue a DA notice, and that a bomb planted on a bus in the UK is not newsworthy?”
David, you seem to be mistaking me for the person that actually issues DA Notices. For the record, I can assure you I don’t.
I also don’t work for the BBC.
I expressed doubt that an event so significant would be ignored by not just the BBC but all media. If you have an alternative explanation, please feel free to share it.
Jacob,
At 3:15 you said:
“I doubt there’s a big conspiracy to not report a town centre blowing up.
Sounds more likely a DA Notice was put out”
I did not assume you were responsible for any such thing. I do question that a DA notice would have been issued about the bus bomb now, while the arrests and the preceding investigation are allowed to be reported as much as they have been.
If your guess is correct, though, why would the BBC have been allowed to report it in May, but not now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6645603.stm
Someone else didn’t get the memo:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Local-man-on-terror-charges.3186036.jp
Amazing! You people appear to have lost any ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood.
e.g.
Check out this sequence of comments:
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.
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.
Bob | 10.09.07 – 2:34 pm
David, thank you for the information about the incident you refer to. … the BBC will have been well aware of the incident. It is you and I and the rest of the tellytaxpayers who aren’t.
Andrew | Homepage | 10.09.07 – 3:36 pm
Then David Preiser links to this BBC story, which says:
Bomb disposal experts were called to Broom Road on Tuesday night after reports that a suspicious package had been found on a First bus.
The object was examined and was confirmed to be a hoax device.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6645603.stm
So no ‘exploding bus’ unreported by the media.
Yet no-one sees fit to acknowledge that the story B-BBC has been punting is a crock of sh**t.
Er,
I thought the story that B-BBC were punting was that the BBC didn’t mention the religious persuasion of the misguided young man who carried out the hoax/terrorist threat whereas others thought it was newsworthy.
John Reith,
The reason I posted the link to a BBC report about the bus was to support my position of doubt that there had been a DA report about the incident.
Let me be very clear about this: If the BBC had reported on it the past, why can’t they mention it now, when it is the single most important act the bastard in the dock has (allegedly) committed? If he’s on trial now, the most damning piece of evidence would surely be the sodding bomb – even if it’s fake – from which they traced back to him. Judging from whatever else they found on him, this was most likely a trial run.
Try this: Let’s say that the authorities had believed the reports from passengers and airline crew of the trial runs done by the monsters who hijacked the planes six years ago today. They commit no crime, but are practicing to commit one. Just like your Nicholas Roddis. Security images of the terrorists going about their business would lead the cops to arrest them. As the fake bomb led to Roddis. Flight training records and plans diagrams of the World Trade Center are found on them. Just like Roddis. The BBC reports at the time include the trial run, as it led to the arrest. Same for Roddis. When they appear in court, the BBC don’t report about the trial run, only the plans, etc.?
Please explain what journalistic standards allow that.
The masses have a short memory, and the BBC knows it. Leaving out the trial run – even if you don’t want to label it explicitly as such – makes the defendant appear less likely to be guilty in the public eye. So it’s just sloppy then that the BBC forgets to include the smoking gun now?
JR: “I don’t think the PA are fast and loose”.
Thank you. So, by extension, may we take it that you do not believe the PA are in, or near in, contempt of court with their version of the story?
JR: “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”.
They publish ready-to-use stories for their customers/owners to use as-is, both locally and nationally. As the authors of their stories they are equally liable to being in contempt of court. I am sure their lawyers are just as careful and dedicated as the BBC’s lawyers. Their journalists more so in my estimation.
JR: “Some people on this blog think the BBC especially favours Muslim defendants”.
Some of our readers/commenters may well think that. My own view, and I imagine that of my colleagues, is that the BBC is soft on multiculturalism in general (and has as good as said so), manifested through the omission or downplaying of aspects of stories perceived as being negative to multicultural Britain, whilst accentuating the positive. This often includes stories that relate to islam and muslims amongst others. That is not to say that good programmes are not produced (e.g. John Ware, Question of Leadership, etc. – but these programmes are the exception, and are not put on in prime time – and we all know what became of John Ware and Panorama – now struggling to even be a ‘Tonight with Trevor MacDonald Lite’) – though I look forward to the programmes you have hinted at recently.
JR: “Most of the confusion stems from the case of Kazi Nurur Rahman – the original ‘plumber’ of the Religion of Plumbers, the source and fountainhead of lots of jokes… Plumber faces five terror charges. Did you know that some of the toughest reporting restrictions ever applied to this case? Did you know that they weren’t lifted until [April] 2007? That’s [some time] after the trial! And there were very good reasons why.”
That’s as may be JR. Even you must see how ridiculous it was to mention nothing about the individual other than his plumbing connection – and in the headline too: Plumber faces five terror charges – as if plumbers are known for their ‘militancy’. With reporting restrictions as tight as you claim you’d have have served everyone better by just giving the man’s basic details.
JR: “only B-BBC breaching security by banging on about the ‘plumber'”
Tosh JR. Utter tosh. A blog with a readership of 1,500 to 2,000 wouldn’t have publicised the plumber anything like even just one mention on BBC Views Online did – and if it’s legal on BBC Online it’s legal to mention it here too. And if the DA Notice Committee was at all concerned about B-BBC they’d have found us (not too difficult) and issued us with the notice too.
JR: “Meanwhile you’ve been smearing the BBC – and the BBC wasn’t even able to answer back.”
Oh my heart bleeds. The BBC has never smeared anyone has it? The point at issue is the ridiculousness of highlighting the accused’s involvement with plumbing and nothing else, as if plumbing was relevant to the story. If the BBC cares to write stories in a ridiculous manner (as it so often does, even without reporting restrictions) then the BBC deserves to be ridiculed.
And if it’s so unfair and/or Biased BBC is acting contrary to the wishes of the security services then it’s not beyond the wit of you or the security services to get in touch, anonymously and in privately if necessary. We are not stupid or unreasonable – desperate though you are to paint us as such.
Perhaps, in the interests of debate, you will be kind enough to provide a copy of the restrictions that existed in the ‘plumber’ case, so that we can see for ourselves the extent of the restrictions that you claim.
Getting back to the case in point are there reporting restrictions in this case? There are two answers you can give: 1) You are not allowed to say; 2) No there aren’t.
I very much doubt that there are reporting restrictions in this case that prevent you mentioning that the accused is a muslim convert – as you have said above, the PA is not a disreputable agency, but it has clearly not seen the need to cover up details in the way that you at the BBC have.
While you’re considering this, perhaps you will also be kind enough to address these points that seem to have slipped your mind in all the excitement:
1) Tell me, do you think a phrase like “…gets off scot free” (as used by you above) is acceptable these days? Somehow I don’t think that would make it onto the Six O’Clock news… and rightly so.
2) Tell us about the PA being ‘in contempt’ in this case, unlike the BBC.
3) Which of the national newspapers wouldn’t have mentioned the detail in question if they had covered the court appearance?
Next up, one of JR’s disappearing acts for the next few days until things have moved along… or is that too cynical of me?
David Preiser
If the BBC had reported on it the past, why can’t they mention it now..
Because the law of Contempt forbids the publication of any facts that might prejudice a jury trial from the time that the case is ‘active’ (roughly from when the suspect is charged or charges are contemplated) until the facts in question appear in evidence during a trial.
If he’s on trial now…
He isn’t. And won’t be ’til December at the earliest.
Andrew | 11.09.07 – 9:09 pm
Tell me, do you think a phrase like “…gets off scot free” (as used by you above) is acceptable these days? Somehow I don’t think that would make it onto the Six O’Clock news… and rightly so.
Oh dear, Andrew. I suppose you think ‘niggardly’ is a racial slur too.
Scot free has no connection with Scotsmen, frugal or otherwise…..The expression scot free derives from a medieval municipal tax levied in proportional shares on inhabitants, often for poor relief. This tax was called a scot…… (This tax lasted a long time, in some places such as Westminster down to the electoral reforms of 1832…..So somebody who avoided paying his share of the town’s expenses for some reason got off scot free.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sco1.htm
Hello JR. I’ve deleted your duplicate comment. I’m well aware of the provenance of niggardly. The origin of ‘scot free’ is a new one on me – as I suspect it was on you until you looked it up (and got lucky!). I doubt though that we’ll be hearing either term on the Six O’Clock News any time soon.
That just leaves the other questions you’ve avoided so far, plus my suggestion that, in the interests of education and debate, you share the terms of the ‘plumber’ case reporting restrictions with us.
John Reith,
Then they shouldn’t be reporting anything at all. Seems to be a rule that is applied rather arbitrarily, in any event.
I can’t hear you JR. Where have you gone? Is it something I said?
Andrew; So are you saying the fact this man is a muslim convert should be reported because it would be an obvious explanation for his actions? Well surely that’s the explanation for why the BBC hasn’t reported it. It could prejudice his trial. At this stage in proceedings it’s a case of “the accused was wearing… blah blah… spoke only to confirm his name and address.. blah blah” and that’s it.
Now you can point at other sources reporting his new religion, but contempt is a funny thing. As a BBC reporter it can be frustrating to be told you can’t say what others are freely reporting. But we have legal advice, as do they.
I doubt any poster here would appreciated if this trial was abandoned because of something the BBC did.