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.
David Gregory (BBC):
Biodegradables Ghost: Here’s the I word;
“Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.” It’s right there in the story.
Look further up this thread. Mr Rumfitt is quoted by other media as saying, “that Khan had been “an Islamist fanatic”
One referencc here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6355100116353825465/#381826
You yourself comment on it here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6355100116353825465/#381833
Once again the BBC is found to be editing what others say, if Mr Rumfitt says “islamist fanatic” then the BBC should bloddy well quote him as saying so, not “quoting” him as saying something less.
Thanks for the explanation. I still don’t see why you can’t mention the Muslim-on-Muslim violence up front, like the TimesOnline did, but we’ll see how this develops.
I guess it’s okay that you don’t have to eat that guide book now, as I couldn’t really recommend a good Birmingham real ale to wash it down.
evening standard tonight. a 7 word headline. loud and proud.
“MUSLIM PLOT TO BEHEAD SOLDIER IN UK”
There. It says the whole thing in 7 words.
No mention of “man”, “men”, “fanatic”, “militant”etc
what is wrong with that headline ? it does what it says on the tin.
i will now put on my tin hat and await the abuse of the beeboid dhimmi mob.
Biodegradable’s Ghost: Which it has been doing all day on TV. Who knows perhaps fanatic will become “Islamist fanatic” on the website overnight. But in the end Islamist and fanatic are all in the BBC web story.
David Presiser: Pint of Banks’ please!
Sarah-Jane you quote all the news organisations which didn’t mention the backgrounds of the men. But your beloved Guardian managed to do so:
“The Islamist “fanatic” intended to capture his victim and behead him “like a pig” in a lock-up garage, the court heard”
For the BBC posters (with the exception of Dr Gregory) your behaviour on this site is childish.
As for some of the anti-BBC posters, your behaviour is a total turn-off.
Josso (Warzaw) | 29.01.08 – 7:01 pm | #
Then Josso feel free to go away without penalty. You can choose to do that unlike us in the UK who have to pay for our BBC TV licence fee for fear of severe penalty and possibly imprisonment.
GrimlySqueamish wrote;
“But your beloved Guardian managed to do so:
Please with the digs at the Guardian.Nobody forces you to buy it never mind read it. As a matter of fact I try to buy it every day. However today the newsagents sold out and I had to buy the Times. (What a joke)
John Reith,
If the best you can do is to claim that my post are horsesh*t, I think you’ve lost the arguement, pal.
Try a little harder to focus on the substance of the topic, if you’re able. Then again, maybe it’s all a little too much for you.
David Gregory:
I say once again the phrase “Islamic Fanatic” has been used all day by BBC TV News.
Thanks again for the reply. I think we’re all agreed that reporting that Mr Khan was described in court as a muslim extremist/Islamic/Islamist Fanatic is not prevented by legal considerations.
However, I’ve just watched the 6 O’Clock news. No mention of “Islamic Fanatic”, “Fanatic” or Muslim extremist background info?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5260000/newsid_5261200/5261222.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
There’s also video of “plot details” on the website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7210000/newsid_7215100/7215113.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1
No mention of “Islamic Fanatic”, “Fanatic” or Muslim extremist background info?
I’m sure you’re right that some BBC reports mentioned Mr Khan’s Islamic extremist background. So why no mention on the 6 O’Clock news or the web video? (I may have missed a reference, correct me if I’m wrong).
On the website they use just “fanatic” but further down you find “Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.”
So why exclude pertinent information from your summary, displayed at the top of the page and on the homepage, in news feeds etc? The BBC changed the summary to include “Fanatic” but not what type of fanatic, and this is essential info to understand the case.
Unfortunately this does fit a pattern that some people perceive, perhaps wrongly, in the BBC’s news reporting.
Mr. Vance has’nt cottoned-on to fact that Reith & his/her sisters are computer anoraks, with probably the roundest shoulders on the internet.
All they seek is a response.
Post your piece, Mr. Vance and let the commenters fight amongst themselves. As the zoo notice says: ‘Do not feed the inmates’.
jimbob: Good spot. It’s a fair cop. I’d just say newspapers push things further than the Beeb legally. And the Standard is of course only for London so the jury won’t see it.
And not being in court I’ve no idea what’s been said as the day’s gone on.
dmatr: It was all over N24 but I didn’t catch the story on the Six. I’ll try and watch it.
JR- I think your work on this thread has been the only crock of horseshit going.
It is information that has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused- it is fundamentally non-sensitive, except to the politically correct fourth estate.
It is also public information, just the profession of a person might be, or the Christianity of a part time evangelist (that’s no more than a person who seeks to advance their faith, like a good muslim would).
So honestly, the only reason for not mentioning it is the desire to protect the public from themselves.
Pounce wrote:
“Please with the digs at the Guardian.Nobody forces you to buy it never mind read it. As a matter of fact I try to buy it every day.”
Give me a break will you? I did what you do – I looked up the Guardian story on their web site to back up a point I was making.
As for buying the NuLabour rag, I would rather read blank sheets of toilet paper.
I agree with you about the Times though.
Fleur,
Thanks for the advice. I’m still learning here! Also can I express my thanks to all those who have made some great sensible contributions to my initial posts, much appreciated. This site has a great number of informed commentators, and of course, some Beeboid moonbats.
In its reporting on Islamic terrorists, the BBC is more reticent than a pimpled adolescent at a party who’s unable to bring himself to ask a girl to dance.
So cut the crap, Reith and Gregory.
I nearly choked on my sandwich when I heard on the World Service this afternoon that a man was in court for plotting to kidnap and behead a Muslim soldier. My immediate thought was that a Muslim was being victimised by a non-Muslim group, perhaps as revenge against Muslims for their own evil practices. Then I remembered that I was listening to the BBC.
Stop obfuscating and minimising and covering up Islamic terror, BBC, and you may regain some of the respect you have lost.
David Gregory:
Or you could watch the 10 O’Clock news – no mention.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5350000/newsid_5351100/5351140.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
(Again I may have missed a mention, I’ve only listened, not compiled a transcript, so correct me if I’m wrong).
BBC reporter Daniel Sandford, 10 O’Clock News:
“This is Parvis Khan, described in court as a violent fanatic and the head of a Birmingham terrorist cell…” !
This is getting silly. I think it’s clear that BBC news reports are deliberately playing down or omitting altogether Mr Khan’s Islamic extremist background. I really would like to know why.
Biodegradable’s Ghost: Which it has been doing all day on TV. Who knows perhaps fanatic will become “Islamist fanatic” on the website overnight. But in the end Islamist and fanatic are all in the BBC web story.
David Gregory (BBC) | 29.01.08 – 8:38 pm
You’re evading my point that the BBC are deliberately mis-quoting what is said in court!
The prosecution said, verbatim, “Islamic fanatic”. Why does the BBC deliberately chop out the “Islamic” bit and put it somewhere else, to describe the group instead of the man, if not to obfuscate the fact?
If I tell the BBC that I have a black and white dog is the BBC right in quoting me as saying I have a greyhound?
BBC reporter Daniel Sandford, 10 O’Clock News:
“This is Parvis Khan, described in court as a violent fanatic and the head of a Birmingham terrorist cell…” !
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 11:36 pm
BBC; stop lying and deliberately mis-quoting!
Parvis Khan was described in court, by the prosecution as an Islamic fanatic.
Anonymous | 30.01.08 – 12:23 am was me
Rather it was me 😆
Alan – as always, well said.
Annonymous with the Fox posting – thanks
David Gregory (BBC) – O`Reilly would call you a “Stand up guy”, so would I. (thats a good thing!).
Sarah Jane – judging by your smug pomposity, I would say that you are probably Rebecca Fox from the Chris Evans Show on Radio 2.
Ok, for a finish, the “man” of unknown affiliation has admitted guilt.
No more legality mumbo jumbo excuses JR, DG.
Here is how the article begins as of this post:
Man admits plot to behead soldier Parviz Khan
A man described as a “fanatic” has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier.
It sounds as if it was a Christian fanatic trying to kill a British Muslim soldier.
Victim Muslim = doubleplusgood
Perpetrator Muslim = doubleplusungood
Up until a third way through the article do we finally find out that it is an Islamist terrorist.
The Beeboids on this thread have mounted a valiant defense along the line that it was a rolling court news case.
It is now over, the man admitted, and the article still stinks to high heavens, exactly as David Vance predicted.
David Gregory (BBC) | 29.01.08 – 8:38 pm |
Pint of Banks’ please!
Close enough.
Consider the following phrase from the BBC article under discussion: “Mr Iqbal, of Perry Barr, Birmingham, denies possessing a computer disc called Encyclopaedia Jihad, which would be likely to be useful to a terrorist.”
Note how the BBC uses the supposedly “emotive” term “terrorist”, without attribution, making a very strong negative judgment about who might use said computer disc.
Would the BBC have used the term quite so judgmentally with respect to similar discs found by Israeli forces during the 2nd intifida, when real live terrorism was being unleashed daily on buses, in restaurants, discos and passover seders? I don’t think so. The BBC never once, in 4 years and 175 successfully executed suicide bombings, used the term “terrorism” or “terrorist”, unattributed, to describe the actions of these folks. But it’s okay to make the presumption that a wayward CD might be useful to a “terrorist” when the threat is to a British subject? What’s more, the object of the threat was a soldier, and the militants who threatened him likely justified it by saying British forces are “occupying” a Muslim land, Iraq, and thus it is an act of “resistance”. Certainly, this is what Ayman Al Zawahiri has said regarding 7/7 ( http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081F5547-A5A6-429B-A53D-080568E5
2A5A.htm
). So for all intents and purposes, the BBC is more willing to use the term “terrorist” unattributed, to characterize the threat to a British soldier than to an Israeli civilian. Sounds like a double standard to me.
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 11:36 pm |
This is getting silly. I think it’s clear that BBC news reports are deliberately playing down or omitting altogether Mr Khan’s Islamic extremist background. I really would like to know why.
Several possible reasons.
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is an Arts graduate, who was fed post-colonialist theory at university and uncritically absorbed Edward Said’s Orientalism. Consequently avoids guilt at pointing out Muslim faults by not mentioning them.
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is a leftist who believes in the Red-Green alliance (Green being both environmentalist and Muslim) as the way forward to bringing down capitalism, Uncle Sam and Daddy. Would not betray an ally.
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is a pragmatist/appeaser. Avoids having to report on violence resulting from the report by not reporting.
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is Muslim and/or looking to a well-paid job at al-Jazeera. Looking to keep resume clean.
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor has received instructions from someone he knows in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Metropolitan Police to play down the Muslim angle. Printing cartoons in a virtually unknown Danish newspaper led to attacks on Danish property. Avoids attacks on British property, in Britain and abroad, by avoiding use of words Muslim/Islam in any non complimentary fashion
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is none of the above. Well aware of BBC culture and mindful of the future of his employment
:-: BBC journalist/sub-editor is a junior, lowest on the totem-pole. He plays it strictly by the rules of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists which lies well-thumbed on his shelf next to Gary Hudson The Broadcast Journalism Handbook How many smilies do I need before someone recognises satire ❓
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hello David,
I was disappointed to read your post. The snarky comment about “The Religion of Peace” detracts from the point you are trying to make. It makes B-BBC feel like one of the more shrill right-wing blogs, say Devil’s Kitchen.
B-BBC does an invaluable service in exposing the left-wing groupthink in the BBC and in railing against the ridiculous poll tax that funds it.
But you have to be careful. You have to expose the bias in the BBC without showing bias yourself. Otherwise you will lose people who would otherwise agree with you. It doesn’t matter how mad the agenda pushed by the BBC makes you, you need to expose it dispassionately.
When one of them writes: ‘my line of work has taught me to correctly recognize patterns’, I’m tempted to plump for paranoia.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 5:13 pm | #
Too true. Although usually when they say things like that they end up in the Larouche Youth Movement rather than here.
“As for some of the anti-BBC posters, your behaviour is a total turn-off.
Josso (Warzaw) | 29.01.08 – 7:01 pm”
Really? Then turn off and goodbye.
Josso (Warzaw) is that really your name? Or are you faked up by the BBC?
I find hard to believe as its Warsaw in English or Warszawa in Polish and this name is neither!
However if you really are Polish then you have the good fortune that we in the UK do not share – that is you do not have to pay the compulsory poll tax (aka licence fee) on pain of criminal record, fine and then possible incarceration.
Sarah Jane – didn’t you once depart this blog for a long drawn out sulk because a few people insulted your oh so delicate Beeboid sensibilities?
Question – when will you be sodding off again?
Too true. Although usually when they say things like that they end up in the Larouche Youth Movement rather than here.
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 12:37 pm |
SJ, JR, if you knew anything about natural sciences, math and statistics, you would see how stupid your comments are.
Recognizing patterns and general rules and proving them is what science is about. When apple falls on your head, together with other things that keep falling, it took Newton to see that there is a pattern to it.
You should hide a bit better how ignorant you really are.
The fact that sentences like “correctly recognizing patterns and proving them” brings Lyndon LaRouche before Newton, should be very disturbing to BBC’s HR department. It is in itself a proof of bias. A bias towards total scientific blackout at the corporation.
PaulT, if you don’t like references to the ‘Religion of Peace’ then perhaps you ought to ask the mass murderers who use this term as a figleaf to stop using it also.
PaulT,
Thanks for that comment and I do follow your point. That said, I think Religion of Peace is quite acceptable. Religion of Pieces might be a bit more edgy. I do agree that we need to maintain a civil and polite standard, and I will endeavour to do so, but Islamic savages of the sort that killed dozens in London and thousands will not get a pass from me. If the BBC won’t tell the truth through its dismal euphemistic evasions, I will.
Lurker in a Burqua: I think Bill would probably call me a pinhead 😉
David Gregory:
Any explanation for why the BBC deliberately played down or omitted altogether Mr Khan’s Islamic extremist background?
Just to re-iterate here’s how the story was reported by Daniel Sandford, BBC 10 O’Clock News, 29/01/2008:
“This is Parvis Khan, described in court as a violent fanatic and the head of a Birmingham terrorist cell…”
You assured me above that the term “Islamist Fanatic” was being used on BBC TV news. I checked the website video of “Plot Details”, the 6 O’Clock News and 10 O’Clock News and none of them even mentioned Mr Khan’s Islamist extremist background as described in court.
What is the reasoning behind the BBC’s decision to leave out such a pertinent piece of information? Any other Beeber care to explain?