The cliched definition of a news story is that “man bites dog!
I laughed at this BBC headline on it’s Breaking News “Man admits plot to behead soldier”. This relates to a vicious plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier. The BBC tells us that this “man” Parviz Khan (an unemployed charity worker, natch. Nice to see he had a caring sharing side) has pleaded guilty to wanting to enact his very own decapitation scene, using an unnamed Muslim British soldier as his victim. Yeah, well we already know just how barbaric the more enthusiastic adherents of the Religion of Peace can be, but what surprises me is why the BBC just cannot come out and state that Parviz himself is a devout Muslim. How about a head-line that states “Muslim admits plot to behead Muslim soldier”? Is this not pertinent to the fact that the Jihad section of the Religion of Peace is as much a threat to those many decent Muslims, some of whom serve in our armed forces, as they are to us infidels? But then again, might that spoil the BBC narrative that all of Islam is pitched against us, when in fact it is obvious that the Jihadi are a threat to every civilised person.
Or could it be that reports of court proceedings are not supposed to contain any facts or information that have not been stated in open court? And that, so far, counsel has not asked ‘are you a Muslim’?
Details such as the religion of the accused would be relevant and informative, unless like all Beeboids and Jacqui Smith there is no connection between Islam and nasty events such as decapitations. I mean, for all we know Parviz, Basiru, Mohammed and Mamid might be extremists of the Reformed Protestant Religion.
David, Abandon Ship!: Seriously. Get yourself a copy of McNaes.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/McNaes-Essential-Law-Journalists-Welsh/dp/019921154X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1201608925&sr=8-1
Reith, you are a pathetic disgrace.
Sky can do it
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1302890,00.html
BBC. Apologists for Fascism.
“But then again, might that spoil the BBC narrative that all of Islam is pitched against us, when in fact it is obvious that the Jihadi are a threat to every civilised person”
..in contrast to the real Religion of Peace, as practiced in Northern Ireland. Whoops!
On ITN:
Four men have pleaded guilty to offences linked to a plot to kidnap and behead a Muslim British soldier and supplying equipment to terrorists in Pakistan.
On Telegraph.co.uk:
Four men admit roles in plan to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and film his beheading.
The Sun:
FOUR men have pleaded guilty to offences linked to a plot to kidnap and murder a Muslim member of the British armed forces and to supply equipment to terrorists, a court heard today.
The Times:
Latest: Four men plead guilty over plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier, film the atrocity and post on web
You lot are going to be busy, this leftist dhimmi conspiracy is getting bigger.
Does that mean sky are breaking the law,or the bbc are frit
Reith defends the BBC by writing;
“Or could it be that reports of court proceedings are not supposed to contain any facts or information that have not been stated in open court? And that, so far, counsel has not asked ‘are you a Muslim’?”
Tell me oh hallowed one, if this is a court of law, how the pertinent question of “Why did you want to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and cut off his head” being asked to the 4 men in the dock didn’t get asked ? Oh do British courts no longer ask why people wish to commit a crime?
Maybe there lies the reason the BBC didn’t report the faith of the innocent man who has had his life ruined by the racist behaviour of the British and the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Philippines, Kashmir, Thailand, Saville town. And North London.
reith/gregory….How come you never answer numerous questions asked of you on this forum?You spout your sarcasm and your legalities yet seldom ever give a straight answer.Your evasiveness,in effect,makes you both impotent and only enhances our belief that BBC is biased,traiterous and a disgrace to the British people.
Anybody remember when this all kicked off, the BBC had no problem reporting of how this was all Pete Tong and how the community felt victimized. No problem in quoting the ‘M’ word then?
Ex-terror plot suspect speaks out
A man freed after he was arrested over an alleged plot to kidnap a UK Muslim soldier has criticised the police investigation. Abu Bakr, who works in the Maktabah bookshop, targeted in anti-terror raids in Birmingham, also told BBC News the UK was “a police state for Muslims”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6340935.stm
If you want to see how far the BBC will go into defending Islamic terrorism click the video and watch the masters at work.
John Reith,
Dhimmitude is ingrained across the entire useless British media when it comes to dealing with Islamofascism. In this regard the BBC is no worse than those others in the MSM who grovel to Islam lest they offend the ROP’s more ardent supporters. But that doesn’t make it right – got it?
SAlso spare me your pseudo-legal trash apologia for the wannabe Jihadi. Had the guy been a devout Christian would there be any doubt it would have made headlines????
“Dhimmitude is ingrained across the entire useless British media when it comes to dealing with Islamofascism”
There must be some version of Godwin’s law that precludes anyone claiming to be an objective judge of media bias from being taken seriously when they write something like this.
p and a tale of one chip | 29.01.08 – 12:56 pm
There must be some version of Godwin’s law that precludes anyone claiming to be an objective judge of media bias from being taken seriously when they write something like this.
There is. But it doesn’t require explicit formulation. We all know it in our bones.
Dhimmitude is ingrained across the entire useless British media when it comes to dealing with Islamofascism. In this regard the BBC is no worse than those others in the MSM who grovel to Islam lest they offend the ROP’s more ardent supporters. But that doesn’t make it right – got it?
David Vance | Homepage | 29.01.08 – 12:52 pm | #
LOL
David – have you ever considered that your own perspective may be a bit distorted? No, I thought not.
Andrew well done on getting this guy in – he is hilarious.
The secret lovechild of Ian Paisley and Melanie Phillips 🙂
David, I want to agree with you but unfortunately the drones are right.
You sound like a nutter.
What the hell happened to Andrew anyway? Is he ill?
One of the greatest deceptions promulgated by leftwing bigots like Reith and co. is that the British media is diverse and vibrant. It isn’t. It’s sickeningly homogeneous, cliquey, and in the grip of the bigoted Left.
The news journalists on the Telegraph and Mail are just as liberal in outlook as those on the Guardian. The only difference between the conservative press and the liberal press in this country is that the Tory papers employ conservative columnists and editorial staff – who can only comment and focus on the news that’s in the mainstream public domain i.e. as it is driven by the Left.
Not only is this my own experience, with respect to my censored investigation into the ‘Neil Hamilton cash for questions’ affair, it was also the stated opinion of the Daily Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard during a conversation with me in mid-1998.
I sound like a nutter because I query why the BBC refuses to make it clear that the wannabe Jihadi was…gulp..a Muslim? Tell you what, some of YOU sound like dhimmis to me – either too stupid or too cowardly to understand whatt a section of the ROP would like to do to us. September 10th children -and a bore.
Happily others can clearly discern the issues.
David, maybe it is simply the case that the average Brit sees that someone is called Khan and is able to work out the rest for his or herself?
But that would be too simple…
Oh dear, someone has woken Boyd-Hunt up, at least you will seem reasonable now 🙂
Reith et al
There is an obvious ommission in this story and that is the religeon of the three men. It’s obviously Islam so why not state it – frightened are we? Too PC for our own good? Incompetant? Your excuses so far are pathetic.
Why else did these vile scroats want to kill a Muslim soldier? Ooh they weren’t members of the BNP (spit) were they? No, they were a different sort of fascist.
“The secret lovechild of Ian Paisley and Melanie Phillips”
What is it with Sarah-Jane and her fantasy that people from different walks of life may have some sort of sexual relationship? Perhaps she could enlighten us on this. And add the much needed smiley to show us she is right up to date with this intenet thingy.
Anyway, while she is pondering a witty answer (or emailing JR for permission to use one of his feeble witticisms) it might be worth pointing out to her that in their own way, both Ian Paisley and Melaine Phillips were concerned about their culture being squeezed out by an alien and even perhaps downright violent culture.
Er, a bit like a lot of us in fact.
But then the beeb likes that lefty idea because it makes them feel wet and warm if someone else could take over the running of our society. After all, their own efforts at social engineering and redirection of minds just doesn’t seem to work very well.
jeffd: Ask me a question then.
it might be worth pointing out to her that in their own way, both Ian Paisley and Melaine Phillips were concerned about their culture being squeezed out by an alien and even perhaps downright violent culture.
Er, a bit like a lot of us in fact.
Bluebirds Over | 29.01.08 – 1:37 pm | #
So you think I just plucked those two names out of the air at random?
David is a very interesting ‘signing’ – whether he will work to the BBC or B-BBC’s advantage remains to be seen 😉
Sarah-Jane: “On Telegraph.co.uk:
Four men admit roles in plan to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and film his beheading…You lot are going to be busy, this leftist dhimmi conspiracy is getting bigger.”
David Gregory: “Get yourself a copy of McNaes.”
Reith: “Or could it be that reports of court proceedings are not supposed to contain any facts or information that have not been stated in open court?”
But from Telegraph.co.uk: “Nigel Rumfitt QC, prosecuting, told the jury…Khan, of Alum Rock, Birmingham, was ‘a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views'”
Yes! The smiley from Sarah-Jane!
Now, what’s the dhimmi symbol instead of the grinning, self-satisfied one, Sarah-Jane?
Sarah-Jane:
David, maybe it is simply the case that the average Brit sees that someone is called Khan and is able to work out the rest for his or herself?
Is it a guessing game then?
Whats my line?
Who would bomb a house like this?
Are you saying that we ought to think Kahn > Pakistani > Muslim > Terrorist ?
Is that what you believe?
Gosh, I`m shocked! Shocked!
Yes! The smiley from Sarah-Jane!
Bluebirds Over | 29.01.08 – 1:56 pm |
they dont do an over educated smug cow symbol then ?
Hugh: That’s fair enough. The word “Islamist” is mentioned by a couple of the news reports from others including the Guardian and The Mail. Obviously because it was mentioned in court. Others don’t mention the word, including the BBC.
“Happily others can clearly discern the issues.”
1) Beeb not reporting pertinent fact of important case despite others managing it and it being raised in court.
2) Widespread media reluctance to touch on Islamic issues.
3) Driving out of British culture by mass invasion of alien influences.
4) Vast leftist media conspiracy infecting Mail and Telegraph.
5) Neil f***ing Hamilton in 2008.
‘Issues’ seem to be degenerating into nuttiness somewhere around the middle of that list.
“Or could it be that reports of court proceedings are not supposed to contain any facts or information that have not been stated in open court? And that, so far, counsel has not asked ‘are you a Muslim’?
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 12:11 pm”
What! Are you for real JR?
The BBC tells us the soldier was a muslim, but not the perpetrator.
Are you saying counsel asked the soldier if he was muslim but not Parviz Khan?
Actually it was said in open court he was a muslim, unless you are accusing the other news corporations of lying, so what are you talking about anyway?
Or are you just doing contortions to avoid the conclusion that the BBC is banned from saying a perpetrator is muslim but no one else is in a horrendously bias way.
SKY
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1302890,00.html
YAHOO
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/wl_nm/britain_trial_soldier_dc
REUTERS
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2008-01-29T114941Z_01_L14126396_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-TRIAL.xml
GUARDIAN (Yes, even the Guardian!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2248677,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Clearly it is important to the understanding of the story to acknowledge that Khan and his fellow conspirators are muslims, yes warped and deviant from a lot of other muslims, but only understandable because of there islamist viewpoint.
Wriggle all you like, this one is undodgeable.
Rockall | 29.01.08 – 1:22 pm
Yes, I agree.
Much as I like the idea of a wayne rooney on the team, this one is hogging the ball. I would add a smiley if I didn’t think they were repulsive.
Read what you like into it Bluebirds, the smilies are merely to indicate my good nature and love for all license-fee payers.
BaggieJ: Well “Islamist Fanatic” is a phrase that’s obviously been used in court. It’s also a phrase all over BBC News 24 at the moment.
But there are defendants pleading not guilty here. If the implication of the original post is that the word “Muslim” isn’t mentioned because that’s obviously the reason for this plot, well that’s when it becomes problematic.
The only time the one report (Yahoo) you’ve linked to makes it clear the defendants are Muslim is here “Prosecutor Nigel Rumfitt told the jury to ignore what they had heard. While Khan and the other defendants were Muslims, “this is not a prosecution of the Islamic faith,” he said.”
In other words even the prosecution makes it clear that being Muslim isn’t a sign of guilt.
David Gregory (BBC) 29.01.08 – 2:05 pm.
“That’s fair enough. The word “Islamist” is mentioned by a couple of the news reports from others…”
It’s good of you to acknowledge it. However, without wanting to be ungracious, I would add that it is (as pointed out in a post above) more than a couple.
The point is that if you are reporting a plot to cut someone’s head off it is entirely unnatural to avoid stating the plotters’ motivation. Just expecting the reader to figure it out themselves is not, as far as I can tell, standard practice in news journalism. So why here?
The BBC chose not to comment on the fact that the wannabe Jihadist was a Muslim. But it did point out that his intended victim was a Muslim! Is it therefore OK to confer victimhood on Muslims but not attach the fact that some of them, as in this case, are perpetrators of violence? Might the BBC still be struggling with the idea that a section within the ROP is profoundly committed to our destruction, as London commuters on 7/7 found out to their horror? Surely not!
Hugh. The ONLY time any of the reports linked to mention the religion of the accused is when the prosecution say it is not relevant. If you want to see the word Muslim in a report, well so far (and there are months to go in this case) you have to use it in that context. Which is why no one else mentions the religion of these men.
As for “more than a couple” of reports mentioning this “Islamist Fanatic” quote well that would include BBC News 24.
David Gregory
you give well reasoned & considerate replies to some of the issues raised here.
My question is this:
Is it ever accaptable for the BBC (or any other outlet) to make a positive decision to withhold facts pertinent to a story?
In this case, someone has information about Khans religious motivation and has chosen not to tell us.
What else, one is led to ask is the BBC NOT TELLING US?
Its not difficult and its certainly not the Law as the loathesome Reith would have us believe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511048&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
no obfuscation in this headline.
From my post above, just to clarify it was not “one or two”
SKY
“Islamist fanatic Parviz Khan.”
YAHOO
“Khan and the other defendants were Muslims.”
REUTERS
“Khan was “a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views”.”
GUARDIAN
“Parviz Khan, 37, the ringleader of the group, earlier this month admitted a series of charges including the beheading plot, a court heard today. The Islamist “fanatic”…”
And of course there are plenty of others, its just the BBC that had the tumbleweed.
All this given the new directive to the BBC about better context and they give the worst, that was effective then wasn’t it.
Sarah-Jane, David Gregory, JR
Please, provide an honest answer to this:
What is it, that makes you see that BNP, Vlaams Belang, Le Pen and other euro-racist are fascist, but precludes you from admitting loud and clear the same about Al-Sudais, Hizb ut-Tahir, Al-Qaeda and other jihadis?
What is it in you that allows Europe far-right to be correctly branded as racist lunatics, but precludes Muslim far-right from being called by what they are – Islamic supremacists.
Is it the urge to protect the Muslim minority from stereotyping – I can understand that? What else?
David Gregory (BBC):
“The ONLY time any of the reports linked to mention the religion of the accused is when the prosecution say it is not relevant.”
David, I’m not sure I get your point. You seem to be nitpicking. Yes, the religion of the accused isn’t mentioned above, except in one to say it’s not a prosecution of Islam. However, in each of the reports linked to, the fact that Parviz Khan – the group’s ringleader – was motivated by extreme islamist views is stated clearly. Readers therefore have the benefit of knowing why a group of people (which may or may not end up including the two denying involvement) decided it wanted to chop some bloke’s head off. Readers of the BBC website report do not.
I am glad to hear News 24 is not making the same mistake.
To continue the question. What is it that correctly saw Radovan Karadzic as a butcher and ethnic cleanser in the Balkans, but doesn’t want to admit as clearly and vocally that al-Zarqawi is the butcher and ethnic cleanser in Iraq?
Is it the anti-Americanism? Is it the Left’s Euro-centrism, where bad ideologies can only rise in the West, while the non-Western peoples are only ever capable of “responding to provocation”? A violent Nazi like ideology can rise in Europe, but not the Middle-East, even though it bares a striking resemblance and symbols to what we’ve seen in the past in Europe?
Is it a suicidal Fiskian post-colonial guilt?
What combination of these is it?
Any references to Europe’s/Christian violent past are not acceptable – they are irrelevant. All large civilizations go through horrific periods. The question is what is happening now?
BaggieJ: First of all the phrase is all over BBC News 24. So the BBC is using it. It hasn’t been used in our website story, but then it’s not been used by
Ch 4; http://www.channel4.com/news/art…soldier/ 1430747
Yorkshire Evening Post (via PA)
http:// http://www.yorkshireeveningpost….rder.3720889.jp
The Sun
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ home…ticle738655.ece
ITN
http://itn.co.uk/news/ 56f17b3c7c…264675d61a.html
(These are just the links provided by Pounce earlier which is why I’m using them)
Why the Guardian used the term “Islamist Fanatic” and the Sun didn’t I’ve no idea, but given the diverse ends of the political spectrum these two papers represent I think we can agree there’s obviously no liberal media plot here.
And I say once again, it may not appear on the BBC website but it is being used on BBC TV. So no “orders” have been sent out to be “pro-muslim” or whatever.
Hugh: The important fact is this is court reporting. And a complex case at that. The only quote I’ve seen identifying the religion of the defendants directly is the one from the Yahoo story. And so far you have to use it in that context when reporting.
Find me one website that says “Muslim man admits beheading plot” and I’ll eat my McNaes.
Hugh: Sorry I didn’t quite address you point about nitpicking directly.
I am indeed nitpicking, because it’s a court case. You have to be careful and restrict yourself to what is said in court. Someone may be an “Islamist Fanatic” according to the prosecution but they also said “this isn’t a prosecution of Islam and Muslims”. That’s what they’re saying and that’s why all the reports are like they are. As the case goes on it may change. I think it’s going to go on for months.
You (and many many many many others!) may think it’s screamingly obvious what’s gone on here and why… but we have to wait for the courts to decide.
David Gregory,
Find me one website that says “Muslim man admits beheading plot” and I’ll eat my McNaes.
While waiting for google to index all the sites on this current story, you might want to look at this relatively recent article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NATION/673817768/1001
While police refused to discuss a possible motive for the crimes, family and friends told reporters that the girls’ Westernized lifestyle caused conflict with their Muslim father, who immigrated from Egypt in the 1980s.
Not everyone in the world has their heads up in their collective butts. Some journalists are protecting the children that want to integrate, and not only the reactionary forces within the society.
Lurker in a Burqua: Well plenty has been withheld about this case so far, of course. The guilty pleas a few weeks ago for example.
I don’t think it’s ever ethical for journalists to withhold information. If you do we’re not doing our job. But with court reporting the Judges word is final. Although the BBC will often challenge rulings from the Judge to get more information out there.
“The only quote I’ve seen identifying the religion of the defendants directly is the one from the Yahoo story… Find me one website that says “Muslim man admits beheading plot” and I’ll eat my McNaes.”
David, I still don’t understand your argument. It is court reporting and in court it was made clear Khan was an Islamist – a point the Telegraph, Sky, Reuters and Guardian all reflected, some by using direct quotation from the prosecution, (“a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views”) others by just stating it themselves (“islamist fanatic”). Do these not count or should I pass you the salt?
Alan: I’m sorry I don’t understand your point.
PS Sorry for all the posts. Off sick in my death bed! But I do think this is an interesting point about court reporting.
Hugh: Well if the charge is that the BBC isn’t using the phrase “Islamist Fanatic” that’s obviously not true because it’s all over News 24
It isn’t used in our web report, but then it isn’t used by others either including The Sun.
The original post wondered why the word “Muslim” isn’t being used in the BBC’s web report (or indeed ANY other report except in a certain context) and I’ve explained why, it’s because of the court reporting.
The BBC could use the word Muslim, but only to use the prosecution quote that this isn’t “a prosecution of Islam or Muslims”
Can you imagine the reaction on here to that?!
Are all “Islamic Facists” Muslims? I’d guess so. Are all Muslims “Islamic Facists”? Well with several not guilty please in this case the prosecution isn’t saying that and that’s why nobody else is either.
This may change as the case goes on, I don’t know what evidence is going to be introduced of course.
Alan | 29.01.08 – 2:55 pm
Please, provide an honest answer to this:
What is it, that makes you see that BNP, Vlaams Belang, Le Pen and other euro-racist are fascist, but precludes you from admitting loud and clear the same about Al-Sudais, Hizb ut-Tahir, Al-Qaeda and other jihadis?
Well, I’m not sure that technically the Muslim groups are fascist. But that aside, I’m perfectly happy to say they’re ‘as bad as fascists’ or ‘possibly even worse than fascists’ and I have no problem whatsoever in saying ‘they have a lot in common with fascists’. Will this do?
What is it in you that allows Europe far-right to be correctly branded as racist lunatics, but precludes Muslim far-right from being called by what they are – Islamic supremacists.
Nothing whatsoever. I am very happy to call them Islamic supremacists.
As for ‘stereotyping’ – I really don’t care what names you call the foam-flecked jihadis so long as you don’t try to demonize along the way guys like this:
http://www.syedkamall.com/biography.jsp
He’s a decent bloke – and, as it happens, one of only two devout, mosque-going muslims I know in this country.