We have already covered the story concerning how MP Sadiq Khan was “bugged” when he went to visit a senior Islamist terrorist suspect in prison. So you will know that the media, including the BBC, pathetically misrepresented what actually happened. It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged, and rightly so in my view. But the BBC peddles the line that it was poor Mr Khan who was under surveillance, even when the facts are to the contrary. One presumes that if even Ronald McDonald had dropped in for chinwag with Babar then he too would have had his conversation recorded. So, even after all of this, now come the BBC headline alleging that Khan was bugged twice, even though he hasn’t been bugged once! This headline is very misleading as the article itself makes it very clear that it was Ahmad who the security forces were monitoring. Is this just sloppy writing by whoever wrote the headline, or else is it a desire to use this headline to convey an impression, with the detail contradicting it buried deeper in the article?
REPEATING THE LIE.
Bookmark the permalink.
This would be the article that starts with: ‘A Labour MP was bugged on two visits to see a constituent in prison’.
Thats the one you linked to right?
You say ‘the BBC, pathetically misrepresented what actually happened. It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged’
Provide one example or shred of evidence to substantiate that? Anyone who did not realise it was Babar Ahmad who was bugged hasn’t been listening. Perhaps you missed the story on Newsnight,Question Time, News 24 etc.
It is you who have misrepresented what happened.
If this is the best you can do…
Joel, take a sharp left at the end of the street you want to find your way back to the real world.
Joel,
when the headline states “MP was bugged twice, report says ”
and half way down the article it says
“Ms Smith said that Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting in south London, was not a specific target of the surveillance operation”
looks like misrepresentation to me
To be honest, I don’t really agree with you on this one. Technically, even if the surveillance was aimed at Babar Ahmad, Mr. Khan’s words were also recorded, so I think it is not unreasonable to state he had been bugged, even though, as the article cites Jacqui Smith saying, he was not the main target of the surveillance. After all, MPs are supposed to be immune from surveillance, whereas terrorism suspects are presumably not.
Sounds like te guy who was writing the reports on Israel has been moved sideways?
To bug an MP suggests you are recording all his conversations. This is not true.
Anyway, what’s more disturbing is that Babar Ahmad has been held without charge for over 3 years now.
Wow, a new low.
Mr. Vance obviously doesn’t understand the concept of a “conversation”.
The BBC headline gives the impression that the MP was bugged. The other accurate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7256421.stm
http://news.aol.co.uk/khan-not-target-of-prison-bugging/article/20080221082809990007
Correction:
The BBC headline gives the impression that the MP was bugged. The other is accurate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7256421.stm
http://news.aol.co.uk/khan-not-target-of-prison-bugging/article/20080221082809990007
The BBC, victim hood status for Muslims in the Uk and half the story.
MP was bugged twice, report says
A Labour MP was bugged on two visits to see a constituent in prison, the home secretary has told the Commons.
Jacqui Smith was relaying the findings of an inquiry into the recording of Sadiq Khan at a jail in Milton Keynes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7256421.stm
The BBC in usual dhimi mode uses a shock, Horror, gasp headline in which to air the findings of an inquiry of the friend of a Terrorist fund raiser which is strange as this is how the Mail reports the same story;
Scotland Yard cleared of bugging Muslim MP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517217&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow
Even the Guardian paints a different picture that that portrayed by the BBC;
Smith vows to end ‘confusion’ over bugging rules
An inquiry by the surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, found that Khan was bugged on two occasions – once in 2005 and once in 2006 – when he visited terror suspect Babar Ahmad at Woodhill prison. But Rose said Khan was not the “target” for the surveillance and there was no breach of the Wilson doctrine, which forbids interception of communications involving MPs.In a statement to the Commons, Smith said the report concluded that the monitoring was “properly authorised and fully documented”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/21/terrorism.uksecurity2
How about what the Press Association has to say
Khan ‘not target of prison bugging’
Mr Khan first visited Ahmad before becoming an MP and was still listed as a “friend” on subsequent visits after being elected.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGu7SBRjKkDwrCGYKgVWSzAl_5PA
So I’ve included a rightwing article, a leftwing one and a neutral one and none of them support the BBC’s stance. But the very important fact in that last link it states prison records that show Khan visited both times as a friend not as an MP and once before he became an MP that the BBC is playing devils advocate with this story.
The BBC, victim hood status for Muslims in the Uk and half the story.
The BBC, victim hood status for Muslims in the Uk and half the story.
pounce | 21.02.08 – 4:19 pm | # ”
Excellent pounce.
So AYA still claiming it’s not bias.
Usual BBC bias.
Seems to me that they want to either:
1) Deflect attention from the ‘bugee’.
2) Kick up a stink and make things easier for terrorists.
No surprises there then..
Angry Young Alex:
“Mr. Vance obviously doesn’t understand the concept of a “conversation”.”
I’m not sure I understand your point. The BBC headline is badly written. Reuters gets closest to making the same mistake – “Police bugged Muslim MP’s prison meeting twice”
However, it at least says the “meeting” was bugged. I don’t really see how you and Joel can miss the fact that the BBC headline and lead paragraph suggest the MP was the target of the surveillance.
This is the BBC… the mouthpiece of NuLiarBore. Don’t pay the “TV licence” as you are funding this crap. For God’s sake… is it really that hard to understand?
WoAD: writes;
“Anyway, what’s more disturbing is that Babar Ahmad has been held without charge for over 3 years now.”
This is off topic however I share your concerns over the treatment of Babar and please feel free to post this JPG I knocked up in which to highlight the situation Barbar is currently in;
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6182/image1zb7.jpg
However, it at least says the “meeting” was bugged. I don’t really see how you and Joel can miss the fact that the BBC headline and lead paragraph suggest the MP was the target of the surveillance.
Hugh | 21.02.08 – 4:54 pm |
Correct, another clear example of headline misrepresentation, and as usual always biased in the same direction.
If we only focused on the headlines:
In a case of Muslim vs. non-Muslim:
A word “Muslim” can only be stated in the headline when they are the victims.
Other people’s background can only be stated in the headline when they are the perpetrators.
In a Muslim vs. Muslim violence, only the receiving end can be attributed with and explicit “Muslim”
Like in the:
A man described as a “fanatic” has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier
Here we had a Muslim on both sides, but only the victimized role can belong explicitly to a “Muslim”
A reader is led to believe that it was a Christian fanatic behind a plot.
“Scotland Yard cleared of bugging Muslim MP”
(see also comment by Hugh Fitzgerald):
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/13143
Personally anyone who associates with terror suspect SHOULD BE bugged.
In particular the “usual suspects” that we see representing terrorist suspects.
If “we” can be bugged by our local Council I don’t see why those that are involved with terrorist suspects should be be either.
Anyone notice that this “Saudi School” that preached race hate, is in fact in London?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7257695.stm
A better headline would be London school preached Saudi hate.
The BBC, however, would never dream of publishing something like that even though the Saudis are one of the prime dispensers of Islamic hatred and terror worldwide.
Pounce, thanks for the further information. With this clarification, I agree the BBC story (headline in particular) does seem skewed.
Thanks David Vance for raising this as well.
On the Barbar Ahmad – Sadiq Khan issues, Melanie Phillips has:-
“The extent to which this government is going to undermine its ability to defend this country against the threat that it faces is simply astounding.”
‘A Self-inflicted injury’:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/517786/a-selfinflicted-injury.thtml
It’s now displayed on the news website as if it’s something new that has just happened very recently, not 3 years ago. It also leaves until the very end of the report the fact that the claims have already been investigated and dismissed.
What a disgrace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7258374.stm
OOps wrong thread
Anonymous:
It’s now displayed on the news website as if it’s something new that has just happened very recently, not 3 years ago. It also leaves until the very end of the report the fact that the claims have already been investigated and dismissed.
What a disgrace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/72…/uk/ 7258374.stm
Anonymous | 22.02.08 – 1:06 pm | #
“It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged, and rightly so in my view”
Really? We’re back to the Vance Coward Line. Babar Ahmed has been convicted of no crime, yet he is in jail based on the hearsay of a foreign government and his every conversation, even with his MP, is bugged.
And when Vance unpicks that particular knot on what exactly constitutes British sovereignty and what exactly is habeas corpus then we’ll get somewhere.
If this was a member of the UDA or the Orange Order, with a nice white skin and a Bible in the corner, we can bet that Vance’s reaction would be entirely different.
We’re still waiting for the moral coward Vance to actually leave the damp cave in which he lives and explain how an innocent man in the eyes of the law can have his human rights removed from him at the behest of a foreign government without recourse to any legal defence. We’d also like to know what right Vance has to defame a man based on no evidence.
“…without recourse to any legal defence” That’s not true, though, is it. If he didn’t have any legal defence he’d already be in the States. Nor is calling Ahmed an “alleged terrorist financier” defamatory. That’s what he is.
…unlike this comment:
“If this was a member of the UDA or the Orange Order, with a nice white skin and a Bible in the corner, we can bet that Vance’s reaction would be entirely different.”
which in the absence of any proof, is defamatory.
Aussie Bystander,
Lighten up a bit. You sound desperately unhappy. You might also like to note that this is a site about BBC bias, not your personal vendetta against David Vance.
Now perhaps you have something to contribute apart from your grinding obsession with this particular bugging issue?
Bryan:
“Lighten up a bit. You sound desperately unhappy. You might also like to note that this is a site about BBC bias, not your personal vendetta against David Vance.”
I don’t have a personal vendetta with David Vance. David Vance has a personal vendetta against most of the British people, against the civil rights of British people, against the religious freedoms of the British people and against any people who don’t believe in the sectarian extreme right-wing monoculture that David Vance thinks is such a wonderful thing.
Hugh:
“”If this was a member of the UDA or the Orange Order, with a nice white skin and a Bible in the corner, we can bet that Vance’s reaction would be entirely different.”
which in the absence of any proof, is defamatory.”
Which in the absence of demonstrating that I’m accusing David Vance of any crime, is complete bullshit.
I’m expressing my opinion that Vance is much more brazenly biased than the BBC he rails against (actually not just the BBC, but against most Britons). That isn’t defamatory – its called “fair comment” in legal parlance.
I accuse David Vance of defaming a man innocent in the eyes of the law of claiming that he deserves to lose all of his civil rights on the hearsay of a foreign government, and encouraging others to do so.
And Vance is such a moral coward that he daren’t even answer those points except to threaten to censor me for saying them (very like the illiberal left wing).
David Vance is making the BBC look like a paragon of virtue and balance by comparison.
The BBC was starting to engage with the concerns of this site until Vance came along. Now they needn’t bother because Vance has fucked the site over to pursue his personal vendetta against anyone who doesn’t share his view of the world.
Oh and for Vance-lovers everywhere (Sid and Doris Bonkers in Armagh) here is a very good reason why hearsay evidence from a foreign govermnent shouldn’t be used to frame an innocent man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7245677.stm
Bet Vance won’t try to explain this one either – because he never has mentioned it even though it exactly parallels his vendetta of spite against Babar Ahmed.
Aussie Bystander: “…in the absence of demonstrating that I’m accusing David Vance of any crime…”
I’m sorry; I took this:
“If this was a member of the UDA or the Orange Order, with a nice white skin and a Bible in the corner, we can bet that Vance’s reaction would be entirely different.”
to be an accusation that David Vance was racist. I couldn’t really see the point of the expression “nice white skin” otherwise. Clearly I was mistaken.
Hugh:
That’s because Aussie Bystander isn’t white himself. Why else do you think he comes up here with an inflamed sense of impropriety?
Meamwhile, in Australia:
“Jihadis use foreign phone networks”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/13165
“Terror plot to kill 1000, court told”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/12967
Hugh:
“…to be an accusation that David Vance was racist. I couldn’t really see the point of the expression “nice white skin” otherwise. Clearly I was mistaken.”
To accuse David Vance of being a racist is not a crime, if it is fair comment of his tone against Moslems and his partiality against the values of most Britons (and Australians).
So can you leave the pseudo-legal bullshit and deal with the substance, or are you as big a moral coward as Vance?
The People’s Front of Judea:
“That’s because Aussie Bystander isn’t white himself. Why else do you think he comes up here with an inflamed sense of impropriety?”
Thanks for confirming that this blog has been taken over by racists.
Well done, old boy.
Aussie Bystander:
“Thanks for confirming that this blog has been taken over by racists.”
‘Dem Racists, dey is everywhere! EVERYWHERE!!
Nice going Joe McCarthy. All you need is a pillow case over your head and a burning cross and you become the thing you hate the most.
Just like all lefties the true racism is within yourself.
Now get back to the sheep dip.
Meanwhile, about Muslim ‘students’ in Australia and the Western World:
“Muslim Students in the Western World”
(Hugh Fitzgerald).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/13193