Occasionally one gets a glimpse into the mindset of the BBC- Charles Moore (as doubtless some will have noticed) has given an excellent insight into the BBC’s workings relating to a centre-right think tank with which he is involved. You might think that a patriotic approach identifying threats to society might be at least accorded neutral treatment. In a sane media it would be welcomed. The BBC though chose merely to try and undermine the research into Islamic extremism, cavilling at methods.
It’s fascinating to see the way the wheels turn, and against whom.
This from the institution who went the extra mile, going undercover to try and incriminate a leader of a british national party.
Typical PC group-think, not unlike what happened with ‘Undercover Mosque’. If there was another 7/7, we’d now expect the BBC to suppress any news of it on the grounds of ‘scoial cohesion’ until they’d managed to dig up some dirt on the 50-plus victims
Extremist hate filled literature was being sold by ‘moderate’ mosques. I hope both right and left would condemn this, albeit for different reasons, from inciting hatred and violence, to damaging the image of Multiculturalism.
Possibly emboldened by the Undercover Mosque fiasco, Newsnight agreed to run the story that had been brought to their attention by Policy Exchange.
But wait! Like some bonkers inspector Clouseau they became more interested in the authenticity of the receipts than the hate filled extremist literature. They went to the trouble of interviewing various clerics, asking “Is this your receipt?” So satisfied were they with the denials and protestations of innocence that they completely forgot to ask if they were in fact selling the stuff. But never mind, we could see they were.
The excitement of revealing this incriminating evidence, forensics and all, overshadowed the subject of the inquiry which was forgotten altogether. The accused was declared innocent on a technicality and the case collapsed. Triumph for Paxo.
But it was not a court of law. It was a programme made by people with an agenda.
Contrast this with another bit of dubious material, the authenticity of which, this time, was not so scrupulously examined.
Yes, it’s Pallywood. Snapped up as a scoop and shown worldwide, the Al Dura hoax was responsible for countless deaths and Jihadi acts of revenge. But the man who exposed the deception failed to get the media interested, not even after court battles with France 2, and the intervention of Mr Jacques Chirac that scuttled justice.
Compare the motives and the likely fallout. The Policy Exchange was trying to reveal a very unpleasant sinister practice that was an open but unmentionable secret. Putting a stop to it would do nothing but good. The Pallywood incident was motivated by a cynical attempt to illicit sympathy and was for years used to justify numerous violent acts of revenge. Screening it was bad, covering it up was a scandal.
I have heard it said that reenactments or reconstructions are common practice,” If we think they represent something that happens, what’s the problem?”
This justifies neither case. If the receipts were faked, it undermine the case, but doesn’t destroy it altogether. Receipts were not the crucial evidence. That could easily have been ascertained by Newsnight, but they were not interested. They wanted just to discredit the research.
The Al Dura scandal was different. It did not represent what ‘happens.’ It was a deliberate fabrication. The consequences were terrible and the media was disgraced, and if they don’t report the entire story in full they will be disgraced again.
This was standard counter spin,beloved of NuLabour,and practiced by radicals the world over.Find a weakness and make that the story,thus the accuser becomes the accused.
Get your Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals out chaps,they are running the BBC.
Some questions :-
Why didn’t the BBC investigate the actual existence of the books themselves? Simply asking if the vendors were selling the material,is very sloppy journalism.
Why did the BBC order such an intensive investigation of the receipts,far in excess of its inquiry in to the actual hate material itself?
There are also details of the forensic tests which are slightly odd.The “expert” commented on the “Arabic” writing on the receipts,interesting our Muslim population is largely from the Indian sub-continent.Most cannot read arabic,any more than Europe’s Catholic could read Latin.
To see the broad range of interesting research which ‘Policy Exchange’ engages in, suggest see their website:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk
Can I please put forward a simple proposition without my comments being removed for no sensible reason?
The secret services of this country MI5 and MI6 work in very VERY clever ways. This FACT is well documented and credited to several former secret service agents.
Disinformation and sometimes mass manipulation of public opinion is the name of their game. So what better organization to propagate disinformation is there then the BBC? Who are consistently seen especially by readers of this blog for example, as friends of radicalism and Islamic radicalism especially.
I contend the BBC are friends of no one but themselves and the establishment of this country. A contention that is surely self apparent.
Former and actual MI5 operatives are well known as being employed as BBC governors. So how many are positioned in other important departments of the BBC, can only be guessed at. That there must be several at least is to me completely obvious.
So a thinking person should ask themselves WHY the BBC does what it does given this ABSOLUTE FACT of life?
This is not a conspiracy theory this is a conspiracy FACT. Don’t believe me on this one, ask any former member of MI5, its not even an official secret.
MI5 and 6 uses the BBC and the worlds MSM continually as simple tools of their trade.
Its not so much what the BBC does or says. Its what the BBC does not do or say EVER that really counts.
I make no judgment as to whether this is a good or bad thing. It may well be essential to the well being of the nation and our personal security.
Thats for the individual to decide or speculate on for themselves.
However it would be better, if people started thinking a little deeper about what is clearly to me at least, highly clever establishment mind control propaganda.
Instead of following the BBCs controlled dishonest manipulations, like brain dead lambs to the slaughter. It only encourages them to take the piss more then ever.
Peter Barron’s side of the story:
In October Newsnight had been due to run an exclusive report on the findings and Policy Exchange had given us the receipts to corroborate their claim that a quarter of the 100 mosques their researchers had visited were selling hate literature.
On the planned day of broadcast our reporter Richard Watson came to me and said he had a problem. He had put the claim and shown a receipt to one of the mosques mentioned in the report – The Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre in London. They had immediately denied selling the book and said the receipt was not theirs.
We decided to look at the rest of the receipts and quickly identified five of the 25 which looked suspicious. They appeared to have been created on a home computer, rather than printed professionally as you would expect. The printed names and addresses of some of the mosques contained simple errors and two of the receipts purportedly from different mosques appeared to have been written by the same hand.
I spoke to Policy Exchange to try to clear up these discrepancies but in the end I decided not to run the report. This is not because I “bottled” it as Mr Godson suggests, but because I did not have the necessary level of confidence in the evidence presented.
In the days that followed we focused further on the five receipts about which we had concerns and eventually asked a forensic scientist to analyse them. This is what we found.
1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.
2. The expert analysis showed that all five had been printed on an inkjet printer – suggesting they were created on a PC.
3. The analysis found “strong evidence” that two of the receipts were written by the same person.
4. The analysis found that one of the receipts had been written out while resting on another receipt said to be from a mosque 40 miles away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
JR
And the other 80%?
Just so we’re clear.. you criticise the BBC for poor standards of journalism – apart from when we’re dealing with a right-wing think tank, it which case you expect it to run material without asking questions?
Biased BBC – you are really showing your own weaknesses with this post. You should at least be consistent with your criticisms of the BBC.
“1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.”
Of course the BBC wouldn’t want to commit journalism by going into the premises and actually checking out that the racist hate books were not on sale themselves.
Social cohesion or brown trousers?
Or as Steve seems to believe to believe because the information came from a “Right Wing Think Tank”.So that places the BBC on the left?
The question is are these vile publications being sold in British Mosques?
A issue of public interest for the the British Broadcasting Corporation to investigate.
Steve | 16.12.07 – 6:13 pm |
the charles moore piece is pretty precise with its criticisms,
try reading it.
Before some overpaid myrmidon of the BBC gets smart arsed on the taxpayer’s money.
“Or as Steve seems to believe because the information came from a “Right Wing Think Tank”.So that places the BBC on the left?”
Yes I know it is “An” issue.
If only we all had Lord Wraith’s typing pool.
If the BBC had published a report using forged evidence I can just imagine the total and utter shock and outrage on this blog. So I don’t think you can apply a different set of standards to other organisations if they are found to be using apparently dodgy practices.
Using faked evidence is unacceptable (whoever does it) and if you don’t apply the same high standards to all organisations you are in danger of becoming ‘Biased Biased BBC’.
Had PE stuck to the facts that they uncovered we would be debating the substance of the report and not the methodology.
Mr Reith, would you like to explain why the BBC put the life of these men at risk by revealing sufficient iformation about them for them to be identified?
PaulS
No this is a basic diversion,the BBC betrayed the names of the undercover investigators.These people have been threatened on extremist sites – have you no decency?
@JR
1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.
Why did Newsnight not seek to confirm this by using similar techniques employed by PE to test whether this is true or not?
2. The expert analysis showed that all five had been printed on an inkjet printer – suggesting they were created on a PC.
Is this unusual? Were the receipts from book stalls or book shops? Why did Newsnight not seek to replicate this part of the research by using their own researchers to, covertly, purchase the same material purportedly collected by PE and then compare the receipts issued?
3. The analysis found “strong evidence” that two of the receipts were written by the same person.
This is by far the strongest evidence presented, but the expert also stated the sample was far too small to form a conclusive opinion. Should Newsnight not have mentioned that as well?
4. The analysis found that one of the receipts had been written out while resting on another receipt said to be from a mosque 40 miles away.
And Paxman used this to assert the two had been written at the same time. But this is not what was stated. If I sign a piece of paper now, and then tomorrow go to work and have someone sign a paper on top of this one I’ve just signed, there will – obviously – be evidence that one was signed while placed on top of the other…so? As the two mosques were fairly close (you’ve said 40 miles, the report mentioned 10 miles apart) it doesn’t seem so unreasonable that one would have been under the other when it was signed…how is this evidence of the two being written at the same time?
Newsnight sought to discredit the entire report (and various like minded individuals are carrying the torch at the Guardian as well) by making the most of some extremely weak evidence, coupled with 17 minutes of conjecture. If Newsnight, and by extension the BBC, are truly interested in uncovering the validity of the report and its methods, why not replicate the study? This is the accepted approach in the natural and social sciences. Why did they not task their own researchers to approach the same institutions, in the same way, and see if their results vary significantly from those compiled by Policy Exchange?
John Reith:
Peter Barron’s side of the story:….
I think it’s quite telling, JR, that you quoted the party line (Barron’s arrogant self justifying blog post) without adding a comment.
You’re not usually tongue tied in defending the beeb – quite the opposite. Paxman was visibly embarrassed – is it possible you are too?
I watched the piece and thought it was about the lowest I’ve ever seen the BBC sink.
The usual leftish bias that we’ve come to expect was actually eclipsed by the sheer incompetence. illogicality and obvious malice that shone from it.
The premise of the PE report was that disgusting hate literature was being routinely sold in mosques – and when the journalist visited the mosque book shop, there it was, sitting on the shelf – “Women Who Should Be In Hell” as I recall.
Meanwhile your intrepid investigative was prompting the bookseller to deny the receipt.
Is hard for Barron or you to understand that, to an unbiased observer, the presence of the book on the shelf proved the PE claim completely and rendered any doubts about the receipt irrelevant?
All the convoluted somokescreen about whether books were sold from independent stalls in the mosques or sold in a bookshop two doors away, which just happens to be run by the same people (who also wrote the bloody book anyway), just made the Barron’s anti PE agenda pathetically obvious.
Coming after “Power of Nightmares” and “Don’t Panic” this piece makes it quite obvious that BBC current affairs programming has been handed over to a bunch of immature and incompetent agitprop merchants who’s political and intellectual development petered out about half way through their second year at university.
There is also, as some others have commented, a much more serious issue at stake here.
Most intelligent people have realised that the only way of re-establishing a peaceful coherent society in this country is to encourage moderate muslims to declare themselves and work within their own community for a more modern an inclusive interpretation of their religion.
Some Sufi muslims have responded to this approach and it appears it was fron this group that PE found their researchers.
The superannuated student radicals who pass for journalists in your organisation, and can never resist a grievance cause with a bit of violence attached, have actually aligned themselves with the most intolerant elements of Islam and turned their backs on the most promising moderate movement.
When you read this witch hunt by MPAC don’t you feel ashamed?
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4245/34/
More likely the editors have been targetted and/ or bought .
Well said David S and LRSIHG
“1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.”
This to my mind is the clincher,Newsnight was out to discredit PE.
The obvious question that any journalist worthy of the name would ask is,”Do you allow books with this kind of content to be sold on your premises?”
2. The expert analysis showed that all five had been printed on an inkjet printer – suggesting they were created on a PC.”
Not an inkjet printer? Surely mosques do not have inkjet printers.
There is something rather racist and patronising in the BBC’s assumption that Muslims don’t use modern technology.
From the link above
“MPAC now wants to find out exactly who these Sufis are, who are working for the Zio-Con think tank. There were 8 Sufis who worked for them, and all apparently have gone abroad to hide while the storm is raging. They worked, according to Policy Exchange for over a year on the project, so some Muslim out there must have come into contact with them.”
If any harm befalls any of these people I hope the BBC is pilloried and its Charter revoked.
Surely most receipts arising from the use of modern tills are produced using ink-jet printing. the devices may look small but they sure as hell don’t use daisy wheels
Surely most receipts arising from the use of modern tills are produced using ink-jet printing. the devices may look small but they sure as hell don’t use daisy wheels
Arthur Dent | 16.12.07 – 10:27 pm | #
I think they were trying to imply that a mosque would have proper high volume litho printed receipts.
Rubbish of course.
I happen to run a small property business from home and, since I don’t need many invoices, I just print them off as needed on the PC – I’m sure many small businesses and charities do the same.
You have to remember that not many beeboids have experience of running anything useful – so these practical details tend to pass them by.
1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.
Policeman: Is this your smoking gun?
Man: No sir not mine, I’ve never owned a gun.
Policeman: Ok then, thank you, you can go.
I haven’t seen an old fashioned ready printed receipt in a bookshop for years.Most shops use tills with printers.
The question remains,why did they ask about the receipts but not the books?
What Al Beeb could have done was to get copies of the books in the receipts and then go back to the bookshops in question, using the receipts they had, and asked for a refund.
Just wonder how that one would have gone?
I watched the show and was disappointed…well actually probably more “wasnt surprised” at what the beeb was getting up to.
Paxmans final arguement, that the report wasnt run because of social cohesion concerns was about as hollow as al beebs reputation.
Where was al beebs social cohesion concerns when they ran the fake US marines pissing on korans in Gitmo story?
Where was albeebs social cohesion concerns when they mirrored the story run by the mail of british soldiers abusing iraqis (only problem was, the photos presented were faked by TA soldiers who had returned home)?
Of course, someone else pointed out that al beebs only concern was the veracity of a couple of the receipts. So on that flimsy, at best, evidence al beeb decided NOT to run the story even though the other media outlets had.
This in turn is censorship, al beeb is now actively deciding what is and isnt newsworthy…and unfortunately that means everyone will be losers!
Mailman
I think it’s quite telling, JR, that you quoted the party line (Barron’s arrogant self justifying blog post) without adding a comment.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 16.12.07 – 9:59 pm
Yes, one thing nobody can accuse Reith of is letting someone else argue the case. Why now?
Is hard for Barron or you to understand that, to an unbiased observer, the presence of the book on the shelf proved the PE claim completely and rendered any doubts about the receipt irrelevant?
It’s like a Monty Python or Woody Allen sketch. If it were not so tragic it would be hilarious. There they are debating about receipts while the camera lingers on one of the vile books. For me, Newsnight lost all credibility right there and then.
Can’t find the a link for this, but I recall that Paxman was quite impressive earlier this year interrogating the head teacher of the London Saudi-funded school that had textbooks containing similar crap describing Jews and Christians as monkeys and pigs. He wouldn’t let her get away with a thing.
But it really does seem that Paxman and Barron have now been intimidated into dhimmitude or have sunk into dhimmitude of their own free will.
from The Telegraph
BBC should not decide how society develops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/17/do1701.xml
“Can’t find the a link for this, but I recall that Paxman was quite impressive earlier this year interrogating the head teacher of the London Saudi-funded school that had textbooks containing similar crap describing Jews and Christians as monkeys and pigs. He wouldn’t let her get away with a thing.”
On Newnight the following day Paxman announced that the blogoshere had been buzzing with the fact that the phrase ‘apes and pigs’ applied to Jews and Christians was in the Qu’ran (which it is: sura 5: 59-60).
Having got in an Arabic expert to confirm this the discussion concluded that even if it was in the Qu’ran there were similarly horrendous things in the Bible.
This calls into question the basic competence of Paxman ( and of his researchers) to say anything at all about Islam. The Qu’ran is seen by Muslims as the verbatim word of God as dictated by an arc-angel to Mohammed: it has co-existed with god from the beginning of time and is valid for all time. The Bible is not regarded with anything coming close to this degree of fetishism, by Jews and Christians (the actual words of Jesus may be but efforts by Muslims to prove these contain hate speech have always looked extremely forced and feeble).
The principle of the school, therefore, could not possibly scrap the books on the grounds they repeated these insults. She didn’t and Newsnight let the matter drop.
I also remember the time that Ayaan Hersi Ali was temporarily stripped of her Dutch citizenship because she had been found to have lied in her original application.
Paxman announced the news with a highly amused air and almost chuckled as he said: ‘How the mighty are fallen.’
Daily Mail
People love the Queen… and the BBC hates us for it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=502506&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=224&in_check=N
“Mark:
1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.
Policeman: Is this your smoking gun?
Man: No sir not mine, I’ve never owned a gun.
Policeman: Ok then, thank you, you can go.
Mark | 16.12.07 – 10:56 pm | #”
Which gives me an idea. I’m going to start planting receipts on people I don’t like.
The BBC, its pro terrorist mindset and half the story.
Zawahiri says UK ‘fleeing Basra’
The deputy leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said the decision of UK forces to “flee” Basra shows that Iraqi insurgents are gaining strength. In a videotaped interview released on an Islamist website, Zawahiri said the US-led coalition was “defeated and looking for a way out” of the country.
………………………..
“Reports from Iraq point to the increasing power of the mujahideen and the deteriorating condition of the Americans. The decision of the British to flee is sufficient [proof of this],” he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7147354.stm
So the BBC promotes the story that the Americans are losing , that Al Q are gaining in strength and the British are running away with their tails between their legs. (Well I’ll give them the last one)
What is strange is that since the surge the Americas it appears aren’t losing which means Iraq isn’t either. But a little snippet the BBC leaves out of the propaganda spot. Is that it is Al Q who are losing support in Iraq, it is they who are on the run and they who are defeated. But hey allow me to let Al-Jazeera tell you what the BBC isn’t.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0135731D-D628-4A85-887B-32ABAB700DBF.htm
Strange how a Islamic news agency known for its learning towards radical Islam can report the news a lot more accurate than a wannabe Islamic news site.
The BBC, its pro terrorist mindset and half the story.
The BBC, how it loves to berate the police for Islam and half a story.
Stop and search ‘not overzealous’
Until the afternoon of Saturday 30 June, 2007, Scotland seemed to have little to fear from terrorism – but the attack on Glasgow Airport’s main terminal building changed that forever. Before then, invoking special powers to stop and search under the Terrorism Act was rare. From July, Scotland’s eight police forces and the British Transport Police applied for and were granted the powers in Scotland.
Between them, the Scottish forces stopped and searched a total of 135 people and vehicles. None of the Scottish forces reapplied for the rights after they expired 28 days later. The British Transport Police have continued to use them in Scotland and, since July, they stopped and searched a total of 14,620 people and vehicles
………………
Osama Saeed, of the Muslim Association of Britain, claimed the number of stop-searches carried out on black and Asian people had increased in recent years – but Scottish transport officers said they had not received any complaints related to these concerns. Mr Saeed said: “Since the Glasgow Airport attack, in Scotland, the same thing is being seen here. It’s bound to lead to tensions between police and the Muslim community.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7147180.stm
The BBC yet again drags out a dissenting voice when ever it debates security which may offend the faithful. So here are a few things the BBC doesn’t tell you about Osama Saeed.
Dundee Muslims urged not to help police unit
DUNDEE’S MUSLIM community was last night urged not to co-operate with Tayside Police’s Special Branch community contact unit. Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain told a packed meeting at Dundee University last night that members of the Muslim community should not interact with officers from the SBCCU.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/11/07/newsstory8939138t0.asp
Here read a little more about this terrorist apologist from this Scottish blog by Martin Kelly
http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/11/has-osama-saeed-incited-perversion-of.html
Strange how most people who the BBC drags out in which to defend Islam in the Uk kind of supports terrorism. Must be why they did a hatchet job on Newsnight the othernight.I mean lets be serious how many Mosques in that report are suing for slander. I mean if George the Kittycat can sue and win why aren’t the mosques?
The BBC, how it loves to berate the police for Islam and half a story.
” Accused jihadist: we were hunting
Loch Ness Monster.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019184.php#comments
wally greeninker | 17.12.07 – 12:22 am
Interesting. I’m not a frequent viewer of Newsnight so I don’t know much about how Paxman has handled the Muslim issue over time. But I recall that he kept on insisting that the head teacher answer his question as to whether or not she intended to remove the offending books, while she tried to maintain that they contained many good chapters despite the “pigs and monkeys” content. I’ve also noticed Paxman’s no-nonsense approach in other areas, like his observation that the BBC is partisan in its approach to global warming.
Given your comments and his current blustering defence of radical Islam I’m beginning to wonder if it was all an act.
It’s been clear for years that the BBC privileges Islam. Just this morning, Monday 17th December, BBC Radio FiveLive News enthusiastically announced the start of the Haj [Great Pilgrimage to Mecca] “first performed by the Prophet Muhammad” (They can’t even get their facts right: the pilgrimage to Mecca and the circumambulation of the Kaabah were a pagan arab practice long before the birth of Muhammad. All he did was commandeer them and then forbid non-muslims to enter Mecca on pain of death, a situation that still holds).
We are presently in Advent. BBC News has at no point announced this, nor have they announced Hannukah, Diwali, or any other non-muslim religious festival.
Tonight we can look forward to an edition of Panorama that explains how the Allied toppling of the tyrant Saddam Hussein has resulted in women being murdered for not wearing the burqa etc. Not the slightest consideration that these murders are down to islam and its barbarous Sharia.
Al-Beebzirah indeed.
The BBC in putting the safety of those courageous Sufis at risk and in attempting to destroy the reputation of the Policy Exchange are little more than banal, modern-day Judases.
We all know what happened to Judas…
Sorry John Reith, Steve and other Beeboids, but I fail to understand what makes the fact that a think-tank may or may not have forged 5 out of 25 receipts so newsworthy that it would take precedence over what were some pretty big news stories that day.
I can understand that the discoveries over the receipts might have compromised PE’s work, but if that was the case the correct solution would have been to drop the story, rather than run a half-baked piece attacking a think-tank that’s scarcely on the public radar. You have to wonder what the BBC’s motives are here.
Despite the receipts, there seems to be enough evidence to prove that supposedly moderate mosques are selling “hate” literature – in at least 20 of the 25 cases here. That is a big story. The receipts give some circumstantial evidence – though not proof – that PE may have bent the rules a bit with their research. That, as Pounce would say, is the BBC, the Policy Exchange, and not a story at all.
While I have little sympathy for Charles Moore if they did forge receipts, there are some seriously unanswered questions about the BBC’s priorities that need answering.
It might be worthwhile reading this quote from the side bar again.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”, Andrew Marr, the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.
The BBC has been penetrated.
There was a programme on the World Service last week about a British woman who lives in hiding because she changed religion from Islam to Christianity 15 years ago. The programme certainly did not condone the threats the woman receives, but much emphasis was placed on the view that Islam does not insist on such criminal threats to those who leave it. The BBC is determined to that we all believe that Islam is a fluffy, nice, peaceful religion despite much evidence to the contrary. Why?
Thirty pieces of silver, today’s TV licence fee
It’s yet another long, long weekend at The Editors. The last comment on Barron’s defence of Newsnight over the receipts was at 12:15 on Friday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/disastrous__misjudgement.html#commentsanchor
So I thought I’d pop over there in the unlikely event that they had published any of the flood of comments they must surely have received in the past three days. Nope, true to form none have appeared. They should advise the public that the blog only functions for half the week.
But lo and behold, Barron evidently regards the situation as serious enough to post another article on it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/a_published_response.html#commentsanchor
indicating that the telegraph has published a letter from Barron defending Newsnight:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=M4YCTLVEOOALDQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0#head2
That letter simply proves how good the BBC is at ducking the important issues when it comes to criticism of radical Islam.
Roop Holz – how wrong you are. The BBC website homepage currently a banner promoting the Christian festival of Christmas – featuring those well-known Christian figures “Pedro and Frankensheep”. I look forward to a similarly disrespectful, dumbed-down, secularised mockery of prominent islamic religious feasts over the coming year. Unless bias or cowardice forces them to take a more serious and respectful tone with islamic holy days.
BBC on the A. Hassan murder and yet more “Malikisms”- the equivalent of Bushisms by the lingustically incorrect MP
“Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik spoke (sic) of his shock at Ahmed’s death.
He said [or should that be “He is saying” BBC?]: “This is (sic) a model pupil… He’s (sic) doing his A levels. He’s (sic) very (sic) popular, very (sic) likeable, no history of anything untoward, a very very (sic) bright future ahead of him and (sic) callously cut short.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7146455.stm
Notice how the Guardian already crying racism (not following suit BBC?) correct any Malikisms, and they give him the benefit of a “should have had”, clearly a grammatical construction that he did not say
“The dead teenager should have had a bright future, the MP said.
Oh why not “very very bright future”? Is the BBC misreporting him?
“This was a complete innocent, a young man who has (sic) no history of trouble. He was(sic) a model pupil and a model citizen and he encountered(sic) people that have(sic) evil intent.”
OT
Janet Daley has a rather good piece on the BBC in the Telegraph today. Read it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/17/do1701.xml
In Malik’s neighbouring constituency the BBC appear to have lost interest since reporting this
A man has been charged with the rape of a five-year-old girl in Batley, West Yorkshire, police have said.
Friday, 22 September 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5371216.stm
as no report of the trial or verdict
MANAF Hussain has been found guilty of kidnapping a five-year-old girl in Batley and raping her.
http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Rape-trial-verdict.3597130.jp
I have asked Barron 1) where he thinks the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers got their hate literature from and 2) did Newsnight cover the events of 7/7 and 21/7 (or was there a bigger story such as somebody frowning at a woman in a burqa)?
Well, whilst I naturally condemn the Al BBC for this latest outrage what were Policy Exchange thinking off co-operating with these people?
Surely they should have known the Al BBC would fit them up?
“Surely they should have known the Al BBC would fit them up?”
No they didn’t, for Homo Sapiens have evolved no evolutionary protection against the BBC.
Does the BBC do irony?
6PM News. The usual crappy story about climate change (don’t these pillocks realise we are totally bored with this story now?) THEN the BBC switches to the weather in the USA and reports on the Winter weather and how cold it is and all the Snow! Oh yes, clearly a sign of climate change and global warming.
Of course the vegetable eating loons of the green lobby will actually tell you that we can expect colder weather as part of climate change! DUH!!!!
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The BBC 6PM news mentions the girl raped in Saudi Arabia. But guess what? No mention of her original punishment, just how wonderful that King prat has decided to give her a pardon. Oh how lucky. Not to be punished for getting gang raped.
Oh and the ONLY quote the BBC gave was a comment from an unnamed US source.
Is this the BBC being politically correct again? Couldn’t the BRITISH BROADCASTING Muppets find a quote from Gordon Broon or one of those other Nu Labour dickheads at Westminster?
I’Ve wondered, as many others surely have, what i would do, where would i go, should i be stuck in London at a time when an Islamic terror attack was imminent.
I’m now convinced reading this excellent site (Bravo nigh on evryone) that the safest place to head to in London, would be the BBC offices in Central London.
Surely the Islamist terrorists would not bite the hand that feeds them.
And then again perhaps they might, as they must know that the surviving BBC journos would be only to pleased to spin the awful slaughter as the work of Mossad or the CIA.