Interesting report carried by the BBC today on the news that Muslim police officers are being prevented from playing a role in fighting terrorism, according to a senior Muslim Officer. Supt Dal Babu was speaking at the first annual conference of the National Association of Muslim Police Officers. (Looking forward to the first conference of the National Association of Born again Christian Police Officers) Tony McNulty, the supernaturally inept Home Office Minister who attended this delightful exercise in victimhood naturally agreed with the views expressed by the Superintendent. Once again, the BBC delights in reporting how unfair our institutions are to followers of the Religion of Peace. But why is effective policing to be determined on a racial or religious head count? Shouldn’t it be a question of ensuring the most able officers be promoted to ensure that the Islamic Jihadists are tracked down before they can repeat what happened on 7/7? Are we really to believe that some sort of institutional bias is holding back all these intrepid Muslim officers? Why is is that this entire article pushes the one view – namely that Muslim police officers are being discriminated against? Isn’t this just more instance of the promotion of victimhood through the obliging BBC prism?
MORE VICTIMHOOD?
Bookmark the permalink.
David your article is so tendentious it makes any discussion of bias meaningless.
‘being biased’ and ‘not agreeing with my view of the world’ are not the same thing.
Still, I note with interest you are pushing a few of the regulars in the beeb’s direction – so keep ’em coming.
I disagree. The BBC’s reporting of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan shows which side the BBC is on – and it isn’t Britain’s as we know it (but the BBC is working very hard to change Britain). Now, the BBC pushes for the adherents of the very ideology which has shown itself to be utterly incompatible with reason to be allowed freer entry into the police for no other reason than that they are muslim. That’s not just bias: it’s a betrayal.
Er, call me old-fashioned, but a white or otherwise ‘non-Muslim’ officer trying to infiltrate a bunch of islamists or jihadists, might just make things a bit too easy for the bad guys?
There are some people in this country (do you live here?) who can at least entertain the idea that not ALL Muslims want to see the destruction of Britain or introduction of sharia. While at the same time seeing the need to get the undesirable and fringe elements safely under lock and key.
But then again, muslim and islamist and jihadist, seem interchangeable terms on this forum these days…
‘Muslim police are being prevented from playing a part in fighting terrorism, a senior Muslim officer has pointed out.’
That makes it sound as though it’s a fact (which this fellow is merely referencing) rather than somebody’s belief.
Surely it’d be altogether less BBC-ish if it read, ‘Muslim police are being prevented from playing a part in fighting terrorism, a senior Muslim officer believes.’
The article then goes on to…not mention how Muslims are being prevented from joining counter-terrorism units.
Er, call me old-fashioned, but a white or otherwise ‘non-Muslim’ officer trying to infiltrate a bunch of islamists or jihadists, might just make things a bit too easy for the bad guys?
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 5:42 pm
I seem to recall that argument being made at the time of 9/11, only to discover later that the camps in Afghanistan contained a number of radical white Muslims. Being white and Muslim are not mutually exclusive.
The minister says vetting is slower than he would like, but essential because security is paramount. What’s to disagree with there?
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 5:16 pm |
Maybe the whole population is shifting to the “right” on the issues related to Jihadis, Sarah-Jane…
The term “Religion of Peace” is catching like wildfire and becoming mainstream, meaning that the irony related to it is not escaping the wider population.
Maybe it is a doubleplusungood term within the BBC, but not in the general population.
Tell me if you think that the following clip (from another thread) would not induce an ironic smile in the majority of Western audiences:
In order not to alienate some people from this board, I wouldn’t use it, but there is no doubt it is mainstream now.
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 5:16 pm |
It seems that the Left dogma as presented by the BBC is now the ideology of the old boring establishment. Nothing avant-garde about it whatsoever.
That is one of the reasons why a contrarian like Martin Amis has switched sides.
Did the Beeb refer to this report perchance?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1794446,00.html
Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt
Fury over internal Met study which says Asians need special training
I see the BBC has adopted the tactics of the past in which to try and discredit anything they disagree with?
“Shout, shout and shout some more”
Sarah-Jane you remind me somewhat of the two CND twats who in the 80s tried to get me to sign a petition protesting about the American invasion of Grenada. When I refused and carried on walking I was made into a public scapegoat by these two who had no problem calling me a fascist the problem for them was I stopped and turned round and walked back to which these two brave champions of free speech and democracy legged it down the Bus station letting fly with the usual abuse.. Yup heroes the lot of them.
But I digress, tell me is terrorism in the Uk inclusive to Muslims only? Using this BBC promoted showcase for the National Association of Muslim Police Officers. (Is there a Christian Police officers Association?) Should we only have animal lovers on the Animal rights extremists case, how about only Irish officers for the Irish problem. Or even only right wing bigots in keeping an eye on the BNP?.
But hang on Islam has two camps should we make sure that only Sunni officers have Pakistani cases and that Shia officers look into Iraqi and Iranian cases. Can you see how silly this is becoming?
If the National Association of Muslim Police officer’s feels left out in the fight against terrorism surely the responsible thing to have done is to have privately made contact with the powers that be and offered their services. By airing their washing in public I get the impression this subject is more about political wrangling and less about fighting Terrorism. Strange how the responsible BBC cannot see what I have written above yet instead continues to peddle “We are victims” again for a minority part of the British people.
There is one problem with the article: the intro –
“Muslim police are being prevented from playing a part in fighting terrorism, a senior Muslim officer has pointed out.”
You only “point out” things that are unarguably true. Otherwise you “claim” them. Even if McNulty agrees that’s hardly conclusive. Supt Babu only goes so far as to say he “believes” the vetting system is putting obstacles in the way of recruiting BME officers.
I don’t really understand why this doesn’t just lead with the government’s promise to look again at its vetting procedures following the comments.
Just wanted to say how impressed I am with most of you guys – you really do get the bias that lies and lies at the heart of BBC reporting.
Allan,
Great to hear from you over here!
But then again, muslim and islamist and jihadist, seem interchangeable terms on this forum these days…
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 5:42 pm |
If you want to claim discrimination provide numbers.
If the total population of Muslim police officers is significantly underrepresented in contrast to the percentage of Muslims in general population, it would be clear that there is discrimination.
Anything else is a grievance theater.
Sarah-Jane:
“Er, call me old-fashioned”
you’re old fashioed and your views reflect that
To finish my point:
300 Muslim officers in London – less than 1% – an examination of this, borough by borough to see the causes if and is the number underrepresented, including age statistics.
Muslim population is on average younger. Maybe the bulk is coming through the Police Academies.
Also indicative would be the number of applicants. Do all minority groups apply equally?
If there is discrimination it is probably at the gates – Applicants to Police Academies. Is there a discrimination there?
A good investigative journalism would expose and prove discrimination beyond reasonable doubt.
As simple as that.
I don’t see this as an example of bias, just laziness.
The bias might only be in the fact that we don’t hear very much about other groups that might be underrepresented as well.
Sarah-Jane:
“Er, call me old-fashioned”
Well, not to overreact, but you are a bit old fashined. You see skin color as an indication of something it is not related to. Islamic supremacism doesn’t have anything to do with skin color. Half the man surrounding Bin-Laden are “white”. Wasn’t it MI5 that recently posted a warning that 1500 white jihadi’s are in the pipeline to carry out terror attacks.
Is that the reason BBC never mentions the religious affiliation of Islamists? Because it is obvious from their names and skin color?
If anyone is prevented from achieving their goals in life because of discrimination it is evil and should be fought with determination, and as far as the BBC goes – with professionalism. If there is a charge of discrimination, investigate it properly and prove it. Isn’t that what a publicly funded media is all about?
“If the total population of Muslim police officers is significantly underrepresented in contrast to the percentage of Muslims in general population, it would be clear that there is discrimination” –
Nothing of the kind. There could be lots of other reasons. Off the top of my head:
1. Muslims are discouraged by their religion from being police officers.
2. On average, the Muslim population has not been in the UK long enough to acquire a positive image of the police and a desire to be officers.
Nothing of the kind. There could be lots of other reasons. Off the top of my head:
1. Muslims are discouraged by their religion from being police officers.
2. On average, the Muslim population has not been in the UK long enough to acquire a positive image of the police and a desire to be officers.
Nearly Oxfordian | 30.01.08 – 7:14 pm |
This would be my guess as well.
A simple statistical examination of the number of Muslim applicants vs. the number of people accepted, would be a better indication.
The Muslim population are immigrants or second or third generation immigrant.One advantage of those who come here to better themselves is to be able to observe which jobs are crap and which are not.
On a slightly different topic.My son used to be in the forces and at his passing-out parade it was noticed by many that only one or two Asians were present in the ranks (around 0.2% of a total of 1000),although other ethnic minorities were well represented.After the parade I was introduced to a recruiting officer who told me that Asian youths are deterred from joining up by their respective Imams as it is classed as ‘fighting for the Infidel’.
Loads of potential reasons for not joining the Police
1. they don’t want to
2. peer pressure
3. the job’s crap
4. pay and condutions are crap
5. they aspire to greater things
6. family pressure to join the professions
7. too busy being trained as a Jihadi
just off the top of my head
Why is it a valid assumption that there should be the same proportion of any minority group in the police as in the general population?
Somehow this reminds me of the British Muslim’s boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day. By the way, whatever happened to the BBC’s coverage of that this year?
German Far-right party boycotts moment of silence for Nazi victims
Why is it a valid assumption that there should be the same proportion of any minority group in the police as in the general population?
starfish | 30.01.08 – 8:12 pm |
You are right. I made a mistake before – not general population but the populations of applicants. The number of applicants per group vs. the number of accepted per same group.
The general population has nothing to do with it.
Anonymous | 30.01.08 – 8:25 pm | was me (wrong board…)
Having been through the vetting system at a high level (as have most military and ex military here) it is obvious that the problem arises because some Muslim officers are unhappy at the kid of questions that are asked (are you a homosexual, drunk, etc) and the depth to which things including finances and family background are examined. The immediately obvious problem is the sheer number of relatives of these same officers who will live abroad ie in the Asian subcontinent or Middle East and the difficulty in confirming identities and whether or not they are (or not) involved in unsuitable activities shall we say….presumably we will have the same problem although obviously easier to resolve due to shorter distance and smaller family groups when we start vetting hundreds of Polish or East European officers?
So some Muslims want us to stop the deep checks – I wonder why that might be and why they want something that is not allowed for security reasons to non Muslims? I’d rather we rejected hundreds to ensure that the ones that are left ARE not security risks and suitable for employment as Police officers. After all the non Muslims have to do it and they don’t whine.
BBC – not asking the questions we should be asking – yet again.
There was a Muslim armed diplomatic protection officer who did not want to protect the Israeli embassy
Quite so. And should have been sacked pronto.
After the parade I was introduced to a recruiting officer who told me that Asian youths are deterred from joining up by their respective Imams as it is classed as ‘fighting for the Infidel’.
jeffD
Because all Asians are, of course, Muslims
Look, this is just a report of one man’s opinion given in a speech. The BBC article merely reports his opinion, and an appeasing statement by the Super and McNulty. The featured quote from the anonymous delegate supports the contention that Muslims are discouraged when they can’t join the counter-terrorist unit.
Considering the actual Islamic terrorist acts that have been carried out in the UK, not to mention the ongoing string of arrests for plotting same, one must accept that this is an important issue.
The immediate excuse is that this is just a news brief and is not therefore required to go in depth or provide contrasting views or anything else.
Fine.
Either this is a drive-by propaganda piece (Muslims are good – stop discriminating against them), or there will be a follow up or expansion of the report.
If so, will the BBC do any further investigation into these claims? How many Muslims have actually applied? How many are turned away? Have Muslim officers been rejected for any known reason, legitimate or no? How, exactly, are they being discouraged? Will the BBC interview Muslim officers and ask if they are, for example, afraid to join for fear of their own safety or that of their families? Will the BBC ask how many Muslim officers apply for counter-terrorism assignments? Will the BBC go to Muslim communities and ask the owners of those hearts and minds how they would respond to Muslim officers in counter-terrorist roles? Will the BBC ask about the real factional obstacles pounce has mentioned about Muslim officers serving Muslim communities?
If none of these questions are asked by the BBC, then you deserve the accusations of bias.
David Gregory…All those that are directed by Imams are!Nit picking I see.Now,the Balen report…..Oh and what about that question you asked for.Still no answer I see.
jeffD: Tell you what, Jeff. You call a Sikh a Muslim. See how far you get.
David, as a BBC employee I wouldn’t be too hard on those who write “Asian” when they mean “Muslim”.
I hope you’re feeling better, though.
I would. It’s a sign of profound ignorance.
If the total population of Muslim police officers is significantly underrepresented in contrast to the percentage of Muslims in general population, it would be clear that there is discrimination.
Alan | 30.01.08 – 6:45 pm | #
Your later posts indicate that you did manage to read the whole article, but I thought someone skilled at finding patterns would have done that before making an untenable point.
😉
pounce there I was thinking the article clearly implied that the Old Bill needs a few more well-motivated lads like yourself in it (yes I know you are CoE) to help catch the plumbers.
And instead I get called Pippi Longstocking of the CND. LOL.
David Gregory….’Tell you what, Jeff. ‘You call a Sikh a Muslim. See how far you get.’
What the hell has that got to do with anything!In my initial post I stated that….’who told me that Asian youths are deterred from joining up by their respective Imams’.Now if they are Asian and their religious leaders are Imams,it doesn’t take much brainpower to know that I was talking about Muslims .Does it?
Back to the question …The Balen Report????
Sorry was that the question? I thought the question was you thinking the words “Asian” and “Muslim” are interchangeable. They’re not.
As for the Balen Report. Way outside my remit but I’ll tell you what I think once again. The BBC has a right to keep internal documents secret for reasons I have outlined before. When it comes to the Balen report I think the BBC is correct to defend that legal right.
If only because the thought of it’s 200 pages being combed through in fine detail on here doesn’t bear thinking about. Can you imagine how tedious that would be?
I’m joking, well a bit.
But if the Balen Report really contained a “smoking gun” do you not think it might have leaked out by now?
“The BBC has a right to keep internal documents secret for reasons I have outlined before” – well, no, it doesn’t, and I am afraid this blog is not the place where beeboids will be allowed to get away with this crap. The taxpayer owns you, mate.
Nearly Oxfordian: Really? Ok. Do you want to see my personnel file? Do you have a right to that?
As I said before the Balen report is an internal study of our journalism which the BBC says is exempt from the FOI.
Imagine my bosses compile a list of our best video journalists. Surely they have a right to keep that private (using the same exemption as used for the Balen Report)? Otherwise the Telegraph could just bung in an FOI request get the list and poach our best VJs for Telegraph TV.
Yes, David, I believe I do have that right. Not your personal data such as salary, state of health etc, but certainly your professional qualifications and experience that entitle you to draw a salary out of MY money. The BBC can SAY it’s exempt – that doesn’t make it so, although I suppose that distinction is difficult for the inhabitants of Planet Beeb to grasp.
On reflection: I believe I have a right to know how much you earn out of my taxes also.
David Gregory (BBC):
If the Telegraph, or anybody else wished to poach beeboids I’m sure they wouldn’t need BBC personnel files to determine who was the best candidate(s)… the output of said beeboids should be enough on which to base a job offer.
That’s just a straw man you’ve dragged into the debate as you clutch at, well straws.
None of us know the contents of the Balen report but I’m pretty damn sure the reason for the BBC’s determination to keep it out of the public domain has nothing to do with your personnel file or salary levels – after all Jonafon Woss’s salary is no secret.
Just briefly (and mods, please do delete this if it’s too far off-topic!)
Pounce,
There is a Christian Police Association (website http://www.cpauk.net/)
All the best!
“Nearly Oxfordian” is a parody planted here to undermine the credibility of the blog, right?
That’s the effect.
But if the Balen Report really contained a “smoking gun” do you not think it might have leaked out by now?
David Gregory (BBC) | 31.01.08 – 1:20 pm | #
As usual, the BBC trying to have it both ways.
On the one hand, the report is considered considered some sort of official state secret, yet we are invited to draw certain inferences (favorable to the BBC, naturally) based on the very secrecy surrounding it.
What do you suppose the BBC’s reaction would be if any other public agency (especially one supported by government-imposed fees) attempted to make such an argument?
” “Nearly Oxfordian” is a parody planted here to undermine the credibility of the blog, right?”
Well, you should know – you certainly are one hell of a parody of a H. sapiens.
Mugwump: I’m not speaking for the BBC, just myself when it comes to the Balen report. But as I’ve said there are perfectly legitimate reasons for the BBC to keep stuff private.
As a journalist I’m well aware it’s newsworthy and surely all sorts of newspaper journalists must have tried to get hold of it by now. But nothing, not a whiff.
david-
The bbc have used on thousands of occasions the term asians when referring to just muslims. I didn’t hear you criticize this when it was reported by the bbc.
Do you think that the bbc should always refer to muslims instead of asians when they mean muslims.
“But as I’ve said there are perfectly legitimate reasons for the BBC to keep stuff private”
Perhaps ‘claimed’ is a more accurate word than ‘said’, eh? That statement is flatly rejected by many posters as being nothing but flim-flam, don’t you know,
“Do you think that the bbc should always refer to muslims instead of asians when they mean muslims”
That would be … how shall I put it … factually the only correct way to refer to them, wouldn’t you say?
And just because one can’t keep up with every single instance of ignorant BBC nonsense, that’s no reason to refrain from pointing it out when one does have the time.