Sadiq Khan, the Muslim Labour MP, dominates the BBC news agenda this morning. Press reports suggest that Khan’s conversation with his constituent (and long time friend) Babar Ahmad, were recorded twice in Milton Keynes’s Woodhill Prison. The US is seeking to extradite Ahmad on suspicion of raising funds for the Taliban. The BBC fans a palpable sense of outrage that a Member of Parliament could have his conversations bugged. Personally, I would be outraged if Khan’s conversations with an alleged Taliban fund-raiser were not bugged! Surely the safety of our fellow citizens is the primary concern here, not the tender sensitivites of Khan or any other MP?
The BBC then turns to… another Muslim MP for a reaction and bang on cue Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, declares that this bugging sends out a difficult message, not just for Muslim people but for British people. (I don’t think so, the only “difficulties” remain with those who deny that a section of Muslims in Britain constitute a real and present danger to their fellow citizens) In Beeb world, the decision by anti-terrorist officers to bug Khan or indeed any other MP who seeks the release of this alleged terror-enabler Ahmad is always going to be wrong. Notice how they choose to only seek comment from a person that they know will fail to endorse the decision by our anti-terrorist police. Where’s the balance?
Islam is always going to be the offended party through the Beeb prism – as this previous report on Khan’s activities demonstrates. One year on from 7/7 Khan was declaring how “disappointed” many Muslims (ie he and his pals) were at the failure of government to engage “more constructively” with them. At the time, one year from that savage Jihad attack on our capital city, I was disappointed that more of those behind the plot had not been arrested. But hey, victimhood is not always reserved for victims, sometimes aggressors can have it bestowed upon them by a craven and gutless media which fails to understand the dangers that face our country from Islam and instead shills for the ROP.
The left-ards in al-Beeb quote two Labour MPs – Khalid Mahmood and Andrew “Chaff” McKinlay. No Conservative opinions sought.
Contrast with Sky – not funded by telly-tax payers and not charter-bound to be impartial – who do mention David Davis:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1303808,00.html
Hi X,
Islam IS a savage religion.
The majority of it’s followers are un-thinking, brainwashed nuts.
I hope this helps you to feel a little bit better. Especially as you are clearly an Islamic nut yourself and yet would deny your own religion just to make a point.
No virgins for you, you silly boy!
Incidentally, if David Vance is a born again Christian, who cares?
Personally I couldn’t give a rat’s arse about christianity, but unless he starts blowing himself up on tube trains in the name of it, I will never have any problems with his religion. Nor would I feel anything he has to say on the ROP is compromised by it.
As far as Islam goes, until I see crowds of these supposed peace loving muslims walking through the streets with placards stating “We oppose Islamic extremists”, I’m quite free to feel disgusted and dismissive of every single follower of this evil cult.
Inevitably, BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme had on Ms. S.Chakrabarti, of the part-National Lottery funded ‘Liberty’ organisation to criticise the bugging of alleged terror-enabler Ahmad. Her organisation, which apparently only criticises UK and US policies relating to national security, is particularly concerned that the MP in this case, Khan, is, as Ms. S. Chakrabarti emphasised, a MUSLIM, implying that he deserves special treatment. Significantly, the BBC ‘Today’ programme referred to
him as ‘a Muslim MP’, presumably as distinct from all the ‘Christian MPs’, which the BBC DOESN’T designate in religious terms. The BBC and ‘Liberty’ start the week with their DHIMMITUDE.
Guess what t 5 live phone in is about this morning?
McLabour must be loving this. I can’t wait to see how many phone calls are from rabid American haters.
I also bet that most of the people that the BBC allow on the air will be against this, despite their own have your say comments.
You guys should check out 5 live right now.
Victoria Derbyshire is a classic.
She like the rest of the liberal left has swallowed the story in the Sunday papers about this bugging, even though there is no evidence.
Then a caller suggested that Kahn was a personal friend of the guy in prison.
Derbyshire then said “well if you believe what’s in the papers he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Utter classic. Selective Beeboid bias. She believes the papers when it’s about those evil yanks bugging a suspected Muslim terrorist, but not when a Muslim MP might have been personal friends with him.
The fact the BBC themselves said that Kahn knew this guy when he was a lawyer doesn’t seem to bother Derbyshire.
A real BBC classic there.
And they sit around a table for hours you know preparing this stuff? I assume they sleep round the table or watch the tele tubbies?
It gets better with Derbyshire. A caller who clearly had knowledge of “bugging” suggested that the prisoner was being bugged all the time and that any third party that gets caught up would not have that conversation recorded.
Derbyshire literally exploded saying he didn’t know that. Of course as the caller commented she didn’t know that it had been recorded either. Derbyshire being a typical leftie Beeboid clearly has her mind set on a belief. When a female caller suggested that we are too easy in giving up our civil liberties, Ms Derbyshire gave a little grunt of approval to that caller.
Shame that the BBC is less willing to attack Mc Labour on this then? No BBC attacks on CCTV, speed cameras, number plate recognition, ID cards and the bugging of “us” by local councils.
Oh and of course the tele tax inspectors who snoop to find out if you you have a TV or not.
BBC being “selective again?”
I noticed in the 1 hour debate at NO TIME was McLabour attacked over this story.
Are we supposed to believe that if this story is true that McBean or McBig Juggs didn’t know about it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/default.stm
If a suicide bomb goes off in Central London would that be rare too?
Switched to Jon Gaunt on Talksport. Now normally you can’t keep Chami Chakrabarti off the air, but she won’t come on to Talksport. I wonder why? Could it be because Gaunt will give her a rough time and won’t take the bollocks that is given out by her organisation?
David Vance
You chose to title this post ‘Shilling for Islam’ • suggesting that is what the BBC is doing by running this story high in the news agenda.
Why single out the BBC for this attack • what about the Sunday Times, who broke the story? Are they shilling for Islam too?
Then you say the BBC ‘fans a palpable sense of outrage’. But you neglect to mention who is voicing that outrage • David Davis and the Conservative Party. As the Times makes clear:
Amid a chorus of outrage, the Conservatives said that they had warned Gordon Brown about the incident six weeks ago, and accused him of doing nothing.
They called on Mr Straw to explain to MPs what he knew about the alleged operation by Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism unit….
……..David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, released a copy of a letter that he said was sent to the Prime Minister on December 11 saying that he had “reason to believe” that the convention had been breached in the case of an unnamed MP….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3303050.ece
John Reith: The fact that the BBC is taking the same line as the Conservatives, only means it isn’t biased from a PARTY political persepctive. In no way whatsoever does it mean that it is not culturally biased. Come one, even you can do better than that.
Separately – curious headline to use to report on the suicide bombing in Israel today. “Rare Suicide bombing hits Israel”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7225775.stm
Rare? I don’t recall seeing any similar qualifiers to such outrages before, in the headline. For instance, “Common rocket attacks on Sderot” or similar.
It seems to be there to minimise the attack as if to say “Yes there has been a suicide bombing but they are awfully rare these days, so move along, nothing to see”.
Seems very partial and crucially not consistent with normal usage, even normal BBC usage. In particular, I am specifically referring to headlines here John Reith.
Noel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ default.stm
Yes, I’m not sure what the word “Rare” adds to the headline, and just seems a bit odd. Without it, it would have read:
“Suicide bombing hits Israel
A suicide bomber has killed a woman in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, the first such attack in over a year.” Works for me.
For an organisation that – whatever you believe about its reporting from Israel – is acutely aware that they’re prone to accusations of bias, they do make some odd choices.
The reason the BBC calls the latest suicide attack “rare” is so that if and when Israel takes some action to prevent further attacks it can spin the story to show Israel’s actions as “disproportionate”.
Just as they try to make us believe that anything that Israel does to protect itself against rocket attacks is heavy handed because, after all, they are only “crude, home made rockets that rarely cause casualties”. See? There’s the world “rare”.
There’s the world “rare” should read There’s the word “rare”
BG wrote;
“Just as they try to make us believe that anything that Israel does to protect itself against rocket attacks is heavy handed because, after all, they are only “crude, home made rockets that rarely cause casualties”.”
The BBC likes to promote this image of a sticks and stones popular rebellion against a rabid racist nation armed with the most modern weapons available.
What the BBC never mentions is the state of the art weapons that Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest use in which to kill the Jew. If the BBc reported this;
Antitank missile fired at IDF force near Gaza
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3501596,00.html
Palestinians fired at anti tank missile at an IDF force
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/updates/2007/09/2008.htm
Yup Hamas has been using anti-tank missiles for a while in Gaza. Even the attack in 2006 in which Gilad Shalit was kidnapped from Israel saw the use of a couple of modern Anti-tank missiles.
Click to access kerem_shalom_e.pdf
But hey the BBC won’t tell you that as it removes the veneer of a rag-tag citizen’s army which is fighting oppression.
And guess what, the IDF know for a fact that the recent breech in the Gaza wall was more to allow terrorists recently trained in Iran, Syria etc..
To get back into the country. (Remember the BBC article about how nasty Israel wasn’t allowing pilgrims from Mecca to return through Egypt) as well as to stock up with a bevy of modern weapon systems.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202064574272&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Yup the BBC does like to promote this image of sticks and stones against the F16 angle.
As a former Tooting resident I can confirm that Sadique Khan is far more interested in looking after the interests of ‘his people’ than his constituants.
I never even got a reply from him when I contacted him.
Alan | 04.02.08 – 12:45 am |
It is if you like a breach of Star-Trek “prime directive”. They are given technology without first reaching warp-drive capability and the social changes a highly developed cooperative society brings.
Careful with that analogy. While you’re right about this, also remember that in those Star Trek scenarios, every time they did have to handle less advanced societies dealing with technology and social changes, they always left some Star Fleet guys to gently guide them into developing good societies and governments.
Star Trek was created by a bleeding-heart liberal, and nowadays this idea is considered to be the most vile form of right-wing imperialism. And you’re a racist if you suggest they might not be as advanced as the Star Fleet guys.
The BBC, bugging an MP and their take on the story.
Police ‘took MP bugging decision’
A decision to bug a conversation between a Labour MP and his constituent was taken by a Thames Valley Police officer, the BBC understands.
It follows claims counter-terrorism officers secretly recorded discussions between Tooting MP Sadiq Khan and a constituent he was visiting in jail. Jack Straw told MPs ministers were not consulted about the alleged bugging. Chief Surveillance Commissioner Sir Christopher Rose is to head an inquiry into the allegations, Mr Straw said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7225556.stm
Anybody read the BBCs take on the story. Understand any of it other than “How dare they bug a Muslim” Now read the Register version. A site I frequent for tech news and surprisingly they give a somewhat clearer view of the picture ,reference the right Honourable Muslim for Tooting. (Wolfy Smith will be so please)
Straw: Police can bug MPs without asking Cabinet
The UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, told MPs today that the alleged bugging of a prominent Muslim MP’s conversations with a constituent had not been authorised by the cabinet. But Straw also said the alleged snooping would not have breached the Wilson doctrine banning the security services from bugging MPs, if it emerged any operation had been carried out by police.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/04/straw_police_prison_bugging_surveillance_powers_statement/
In two sentences the register imparts all you need to know about the subject something the BBC can’t achieve in a whole page.
The BBC, bugging an MP and their take on the story.
Perhaps the wankers at the BBC should take a look at this before throwing accusations around about harassment and “bugging” people.
Click to access collecting_the_tv_licence_fee.pdf
If the Labour MP Sadiq Khan has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear. Isn’t that what the government and Sadiq told us about ID cards, CCTVing, finger-printing, phone-tapping, DNA swabbing, and database building? Too late to get all civil libertarian now they have come for him…
http://www.order-order.com/2008/02/its-only-little-bug.html
When yesterday, Ms.S. Chakrabarti, of the part National Lottery funded ‘Liberty’ organisation appeared on the BBC ‘Today’ programme to support the Labour MP, S.Khan, he was described as a ‘MUSLIM’ MP,
someone, whom S.Chakrabarti suggested was worthy of special consideration. There was no mention that S. Khan is also a legal adviser to the worthy body, the Muslim Council of Britain, nor that he is CHAIRMAN of ‘LIBERTY’.
Coincidence or connections?:-
S.Khan – Labour Party – Muslim Council of Britain – ‘Liberty’ – S.Chakrabarti – BBC.
For the record, THIS is the man whom the police were understandably ‘bugging’:-
“Barbar Ahmad: The civil servant’s son they say was plotting to murder Americans.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512326&in_page_id=1770
The BBC, sensational news head lines and a disregard for human life?
Bug row officer fears for safety
The ex-police officer who claims he bugged an MP’s visit to a jailed constituent says his life is “at risk” after the case was leaked to the media.
Mark Kearney, a former police intelligence officer at Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes, says he did not think it was right to bug MP Sadiq Khan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7227546.stm
So the BBC which when it reports from Gaza will black out the face of a terrorist, not only tells you the name of the policeman who bugged a Muslim MP they show his face. Yup Nice going BBC…
P.S
Care to tell us who would want him dead?
The BBC, sensational news head lines and a disregard for human life?
Unlike the BBC, David Conway asks here:-
..”.What laws SHOULD govern cases of this kind?” (caps. added).
“The MP, The Terror Suspect and the Prison Bug”
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/02/the_mp_the_terror_suspect_and.html#more
Now we know the direction that BBC-Bias has gone with David Vance: solidly fascist, racist and sectarian.
Let’s get the actual story here. A British subject with no criminal history is accused by a foreign government of assisting terrorism. The foreign government demand that the British subject be extradited, and under an extraordinarily one-sided extradition treaty signed by Tony Blair, the person is locked up pending the extradition for an unlimited length of time, denied any chance to refute the allegations because the foreign government under said extradition treaty is under no obligation to produce any. A foreign citizen of that country similarly accused by Britain, of course, cannot be jailed pending extradition because under that foreign country’s constitution, that person has rights.
Unlike the British subject.
Rough justice?
So this British subject has his every conversation bugged and recorded, even that with his MP.
A secret police state? Of course it is. But Vance and a few others think this is a good thing, because you can’t secure freedom without giving it all away, can you David?
And what does Vance tell us in evidence? That the man is a Moslem? That he has a brown skin?
Yes, of course. The man is a Moslem and has brown skin, therefore Vance has no problem at all with villifying the man and encouraging others to do so based on exactly no evidence at all.
And Vance isn’t the only one. Various talking heads on this thread have called this British subject “scum” and have been quite happy that this person accused has had his civil rights taken away on the say-so of a foreign government because under the fascist beliefs of David Vance and quite few others on this thread, the man is guilty of whatever he is accused of – never mind habeas corpus, or the right to produce evidence, or a jury of his peers or any of that namby-pamby paraphenalia of democratic societies.
He’s guilty because Vance needs no stinkin’ evidence to know that he’s guilty because he’s a Moslem and has brown skin and a foreign government has accused him of being aider of terrorism without showing a scintilla of evidence.
Sectarianism? Racism? An illiberal rant for lynchmob justice? Yes. This is what this blog has become while Vance grinds his violently fascist axe on this formerly interesting and thought-provoking blog.
It makes the BBC look like paragons of virtue compared to what has gone on since Andrew disappeared and David Vance steered this blog to the extreme right.
This is what this blog has become while Vance grinds his violently fascist axe on this formerly interesting and thought-provoking blog.
My, my, what colourful prose. What hyperbole. This blog is greater than ever. That’s what the BBC cannot stand. If it were ineffective and ‘extreme right’, BBC apologists would not bother to come on here and debate with us.
Ain’t nobody steering nobody towards nothing, Aussie. We each got our individualism, got it?
Meanwhile, in Australia:-
“Convert to Islam misunderstands her new religion, says Osama follows ‘correct’ version of Islam”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019802.php#comments
I am not sure what Mr Vance has done to trigger such an emotive rant from Aussie Bystander but if one charitably ignores the infantile name calling there are points raised which deserve to be addressed. Firstly lets deal with facts as they are publicly known. Approximately 4 years ago the US Government appealed to the UK Government to extradite one Babar Ahmad on charges of supporting terrorism and conspiring to kill. The USA made that request because the alleged offences involved were technically committed on US soil. i.e. the vehicle for the offence , a website/s was hosted on US soil. Interestingly had the offense been committed on UK soil it would have been the UK’s responsibility to act. The UK Government acting in accord with proper legal procedure, detained Mr Ahmad with the intention of honoring that request. Since that request and subsequent detention Mr Ahmad, as is his right, has fought with every legal means at his disposal to avoid going to the US to face these charges. Even though that necessarily meant that he must remain in detention in the UK until resolution one way or the other. Those are the simple facts. Secondly whatever one thinks about the inter-governmental agreement under which extradition was sought, it is well publicized perfectly legal arrangement voluntarily entered into by both parties and cannot be portrayed as evidence of a police state. it is also disingenuous to complain about the length of Mr Ahmad’s detention, given that it was he who initiated the delays and continues to do so because he believes that to be in his own best interests. As for bugging his conversations, that seems an entirely reasonable step for a democratic state to take – given the very serious nature of the charges laid against him, and taking into account a background formed by the events of 7/7 and the subsequent history of plots being laid against this country and its allies by Islamic extremists. To fail to gather intelligence would be the greater dereliction of duty by the state.
Wilson doctrine : Look it up, answers your point. Your opinion on whether or not it should have been bugged is irrelevant.
Melanie Phillips has an interesting piece on all this:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/489266/cui-bono.thtml
Joel
Not sure to whom you are responding. Followed your link but it doesn’t seem related to discussion on this thread. Followed up on the Wilson Doctrine but not sure how that helps either . According to our Justice Secretary (see link in pounce posting above) this does not apply to instances initiated by the Police, as appears to be the case in this instance.
Gordon Neil | 06.02.08 – 2:17 pm,
Thanks for that clarification.
Let’s see how the dittoheads handle it:
“Approximately 4 years ago the US Government appealed to the UK Government to extradite one Babar Ahmad on charges of supporting terrorism and conspiring to kill. The USA made that request because the alleged offences involved were technically committed on US soil. i.e. the vehicle for the offence , a website/s was hosted on US soil.”
That’s fascinating. A foreign government claims that a British subject has committed an offence. Any evidence required?
“Interestingly had the offense been committed on UK soil it would have been the UK’s responsibility to act.”
No shit Sherlock.
“The UK Government acting in accord with proper legal procedure, detained Mr Ahmad with the intention of honoring that request.”
The UK Government in accordance with an absurdly one-sided extradition treaty which requires not a scintilla of proof required for extradition for British subjects but not the reverse for American citizens because American citizen have rights.
So far you’ve repeated the claim without any explanation as to why in any rational scenario, a person with no criminal record is suddenly jailed pending extradition without any habeas corpus or ability to refute the charges before being shipped overseas.
AND has all his communications bugged including with his MP.
Do we get an explanation as to how this is just in a democratic society?
NO.
Let’s see David Vance defend locking someone up without trial, bugging communications with democratic representatives, no legal redress and the joy of sectarian, racist fuckwits on a message board defaming him as being guilty of whatever he is accused of.
UK Independence? Soverignty of Parliament? Rule of Law?
None of the above.
Come on Vance, stop prancing about with the right wing conspiracy theories and answer the questions.
“Secondly whatever one thinks about the inter-governmental agreement under which extradition was sought, it is well publicized perfectly legal arrangement voluntarily entered into by both parties and cannot be portrayed as evidence of a police state.”
No of course not. Unlimited detention without trial, bugging of every conversation including privileged ones with democratically elected representatives are clearly the hallmarks of a democracy.
Not.
I wonder what would be evidence of a police state? It makes me wonder how willing some Brits are to throw away (or allow to be thrown away) every single check and balance in jurisprudence in order to feel slightly safer when they’re being fed fear from every media outlet.
And how many idiots discount evidence right in front of their eyes until it happens to one of them. Then its too late.