Well what do you know? The BBC reports that a priest has been attacked in the grounds of his church, in what police described as a “faith-hate“ crime. Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was injured by two..ahem… Asian youths at the church, in Tower Hamlets, east London. Canon Ainsworth said a third youth watched as he suffered cuts, bruises and black eyes in the assault at the church of St George-in-the-East. The “youths” also jeered at the priest for being a churchman in the attack on Wednesday night, the Met Police said.
“Two Asian youths”? Oh, I see, that must be the same kind of “youths” who ran riot in the Banlieues of Paris. I think this is a patronising media euphemism for…. Muslims. When we see the media censoring itself we know something is very rotten in the State, broadcaster.
When I posted this story over on my own site. A Tangled Web, the point was made that the BBC are merely reporting what the Police said. That’s a fair point but surely it is up to the BBC to confront the reality that a Christian minister was attacked by two Muslim ouths and report it as such, no matter what precious sensibilities it offends?
UPDATE: Just a little more detail on this vicious attack, none of which is sourced from the BBC.
The Reverend Alan Green, Area Dean for Tower Hamlets, said it was the latest in a series of “faith hate” crimes in the borough. He said: “It was a nasty cowardly attack. There were several groups in the churchyard and two from one group attacked him and the other group came and helped him back to the house. “He was kicked and punched in the head as he lay on the ground, I believe that what was shouted was ‘you f***ing priest before they attacked him.
And then…Mr Allan Ramanoop, a member of the Parochial Church Council, said often parishioners were too scared to challenge the gangs. The Asian church member, who lives nearby, said: “I’ve been physically threatened and verbally abused on the steps of the church.
“On one occasion, youths shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here’.
“Should be a Mosque” …right, I think we have now now ruled out the Zoroastrians… so which group might this leave?
Are you serious? You think it’s the place of the BBC to be speculating on the religion of the perpetrators when even the police haven’t said anything?
I think the article got it right, they are asians (although Im always amused when its non-chinese people being called asians :).
I would hazard a guess these pieces of scum carried out the attack because they felt they could get away with it…I seriously doubt the attacks had anything to do with the religion of the geezer on the ground or the religion of the little sh1theads who carried out the attacks.
Mailman
AYA,
Yes, the BBC must report exactly what the police suggest and not dig any further. Funny thing is, when it came to a certain incident concerning Mr Mendes that rule was suspended. The BBC is running scared of the simple truth that a significant number of Muslims in Britain show no loyalty to the State and a lack of respect for our laws. Beating up a Priest is entirely in keeping with this unfortunate reality, but the BBC will endeavour to keep such minor details buried.
“Yes, the BBC must report exactly what the police suggest and not dig any further.”
So what exactly are you complaining about?
Looks like another “community cohesion” moment where the BBC mustn’t mention the ‘M’ word.
Funnily enough, the BBC were only to happy to mention the ‘M’ word in the headline for this article:
Senior Muslim officer is promoted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7297568.stm
So BBC policy must go like this:
If it’s a story that might portray a Muslim in a good light, say the ‘M’ word as much as possible, if it portrays a bad light then don’t mention the ‘M’ word.
Benny, in the “faith-hate” story, we don’t know the religion of the perpetrators yet. In your story we can be fairly sure. That’s the main difference.
Well, AYA, the fact that the police are not divulging anything other than the deliberately misleading term ‘Asians’ leads one to conclude that the perpetrators are muslim. If they were not muslim, it would have been stated as such. BTW, I reckon that you know this!
“Yes, the BBC must report exactly what the police suggest and not dig any further.”
So what exactly are you complaining about?
Angry Young Alex
WOOOOSH
Benny, in the “faith-hate” story, we don’t know the religion of the perpetrators yet.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 15.03.08 – 6:15 pm
If ‘that’ is true then the faith-hate story is deliberately misleading. There are apparently about 2.4 million Christians in Pakistan; over 24 million Indian Christians and around around 370,000 in Bangladesh. If the hoodlums were not Muslims beating up the priest for religious reasons then how can the BBC assume faith had anything to do with it?
“The tolerant Youth of Tower Hamlets”
http://poorbastardmarvin.blogspot.com/2008/03/tolerant-youth-of-tower-hamlets.html
David G,
I know, he totally missed it. 😉
“the fact that the police are not divulging anything other than the deliberately misleading term ‘Asians’ leads one to conclude that the perpetrators are muslim.”
Or that they don’t know yet.
Look, some of you seem to be under the impression that the only religions in Asia, the world’s largest continent, are Islam and Christianity.
Now, I will assume that the BBC is using “Asian” in its common British understanding of South Asian and from the Indian sub-continent or Middle East.
Now, I will exclude Christianity as Christians do not generally bad-mouth clergy for being clergy. However this still leaves Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and of course atheism as religions practiced by those of South Asian descent or appearance which are not Islam. There are also certain grey areas such as the Druzes and Baha’is.
“If they were not muslim, it would have been stated as such.”
Pure speculation.
“WOOOOSH”
continued from “Whoosh:
David, if I missed the point could you please clarify?
You admit that the BBC should avoid speculation. Then you castigate the BBC for not speculating as to the religion of the perpetrators.
There may be other cases when the BBC does speculate and shouldn’t, but this does not mean it should speculate now to even it out.
And if you do have conclusive evidence that these Asian Youths were Muslims and not Hindus or Sikhs, surely your first stop should not be the internet but the police, as they don’t seem so sure on the subject and could probably do with your help.
Yes, all those putative marauding Zoroastrians do indeed put a new dimension on this.
Whoosh.
Alex writes;
“Are you serious? You think it’s the place of the BBC to be speculating on the religion of the perpetrators when even the police haven’t said anything?”
Alex have you even visited Tower Hamlets? Let me tell you not many Hindu or Sikhs live there. But anybody who has visited the area will inform you on the predominant faith.
Funny enough the area has a sizable jewish population. But something tells me it wasn’t a bunch of Yids who kicked the shite out of the local padre.
Tower Hamlets for dummies;
Christian 40%
Muslim 33.5%
No faith 14%
Hindu 0.8%
Buddhist 1.0%
Jewish 0.9%
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_rate_page.jsp?u_id=10057346&c_id=10001043&data_theme=T_REL&id=5
Stats taken from 2001.
Faith in Tower Hamlets (from National Statistics census 2001)
Christian: Count 75,783, 38.64%Buddist: 1,938, 0.99%
Hindu: 1,544, 0.79%
Jewish: 1,831, 0.93%
Muslim: 71,389, 36.40%
Sikh: 682, 0.35%
Other: 525, 0.27%
No religion: 27,823, 14.19%
Religion not stated: 14,591, 7.44%
Who is your money going on? Odds stacked very favourably in one direction… And we all know which one.
Angry Young Alex_
We look forward to a heartfelt apology and an admission of your ingeniousness when it’s confirmed that the attackers were in fact Mohammedans.
Bearing in mind the statistics above, and the fact that the attackers have been identified as “Asian”, what are the odds, bearing in mind past form and not just statistics, that said attackers are not Hindu, Sikh, or Chinese born Jews?
I never said they weren’t Muslims. I never said that they probably weren’t Muslims. I never even said that they weren’t probably Muslims.
What I said was that the BBC is right not to state the religion when it DOESN’T ACTUALLY KNOW. I don’t know how you can get so worked up about it.
Isn’t the problem here, that the BBC has already admitted it censors it’s own output in the interests of ‘community cohesion’.
We can no longer trust a word it says.
‘Angry Young Alex’ really is a foolish young person (if he/she is indeed young) at best, and most likely really dishonest. Everyone knows that ‘faith-hate’ in a UK context could only mean Muslim-Christian: there have been numerous attacks, though usually in Yorkshire or Lancashire, by ‘Asian’ ‘youths’ against churches and against Muslim converts to Christianity. I have never heard of Hindus, Sikhs etc attacking Christians for their faith. As I have part-Chinese children, I object strongly to misuse of the word ‘Asian’ to denote people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage. Let us say ‘South Asian’ from now on.
And of course the BBC knows what is going on. What’s a bet at least oen of the perps is called Muhammad or Ali?
AYA: “What I said was that the BBC is right not to state the religion when it DOESN’T ACTUALLY KNOW.”
I agree, actually, but I also think it would have been an fairly obvious step for a journalist to state what the major religions in Tower Hamlets are to give the story some context, wouldn’t it?
“Isn’t the problem here, that the BBC has already admitted it censors it’s own output in the interests of ‘community cohesion'”
Once again, Vance misses the point.
Unless the Police actually give some indication of religion, it’s not the BBC’s place to speculate. Time and time again this site claims both that it just wants the facts and it’s not anti-muslim. Bullshit.
The media – yes, the non-dhimmi not all communist fifth columnist caliphate wanting media – also understand that best err on the side of caution until the religion is confirmed. The perpetrators may well be muslim. But if they’re not the BBC and other media would be accused of creating tension while B-BBC can simply add it to the litany of suppositions and errors it makes daily and no-one cares or notices.
So, “Asian youths” it is in The Times, Telegraph, PA, Reuters.
“but I also think it would have been an fairly obvious step for a journalist to state what the major religions in Tower Hamlets are to give the story some context, wouldn’t it?”
It depends on whether if you want to go for a “Shock horror, priest attacked!” story or a “Shock horror, Muslims attack!” story.
And as if by magic this article has disappeared off the main news pages already.
Got to agree with Angry Young Alex on this one. Yes They may well be Muslims but if the police ain’t saying (for whatever reason good or bad) and the media don’t have any witnesses who swear blind they were shouting “Allahu Akbar!!” at the time then the media shouldn’t speculate.
Also :
We look forward to a heartfelt apology and an admission of your ingeniousness when it’s confirmed that the attackers were in fact Mohammedans.
What they hell would he have to apologise for Galil? Why should he be sorry if all of your hunches are proved correct – still doesn’t mean that the BBC or anyone else should broadcast what they don’t know (although the BBC do do this on other occasions)? I expect he will readily admit to his being ingenious though.. 😉
Simple really
when its good news about muslims the BBC use the ‘M’ word.
when its bad, thay use the “Asian” word.
Wonder why more sikhs and hindus never complain though?
Youths generally means muslim youths when trouble breaks out in areas where they are high in number.
It was the same in NI when youths fired stones etc, it was generally accepted that they were nationalist youths,
yet time and time again, the rioting was not down to nationalists at all, and the generalisation of ‘youth’ was wrong,
thats why we need to be wary of generalising ‘youths’ to mean muslim youths.
In this case I think the BBC got it right.
I see a number of folks are defending the BBC on this one.
Ok then, why is when ever a muslim gets attacked the BBC is more than happy to refer to it as a ‘Racist’ event. Even before the police are informed.
But in answer to “Well the BBC are only reporting what the police are saying” Right would that be the politically correct shackled police who do as their PC masters tell them to. You know fast track Muslims, don’t use dogs near muslims, don’t laugh near muslims,and for Allahs sake don’t wear shoes inside a muslims house.
Yeah right here is an example of how the BBC reports a racist hate crime when the thug is coloured;
Pregnant woman in ‘racist’ attackA heavily pregnant woman was pinned against a post by a 4×4 and racially abused in a road rage incident, a court has heard.
Ms Chambers, who claimed her “road rage” attacker called her “Tony Blair’s bitch”, said as the pain went from bad to “unbearable” she was left unable to move, barely able to scream and convinced her unborn child would die.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6088568.stm
and here is the leftwing Daily mirror version;
PREGNANT GIRL ‘PINNED AGAINST POST BY RACIST ROAD RAGE DOC IN 4X4’
A GP drove her car at a pregnant nurse squashing her against a post in a road rage clash, a court heard yesterday…
She added: “I could hear her shouting at me: ‘You are Tony Blair’s bitch, all you white people are the same’.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=pregnant-girl–pinned-against-post-by-racist-road-rage-doc-in-4×4-&method=full&objectid=17999895&siteid=94762-name_page.html
How about the free metro paper;
“She allegedly yelled at the terrified nursery nurse: ‘You’re Tony Blair’s bitch, all you white people are the same – you all vote for Tony Blair.'”
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=22846&in_page_id=34
But hey when you look at the court reports on this woman you see she doesn’t just hate whites;
“ARNAOT: RACIST IRAQI GP CALLED RAIL WORKER A ‘BLACK BASTARD’ ERITH, KENT A racist doctor who faces jail for a horrific road rage attack on a pregnant woman, nearly pushed a rail employee off a platform and called him a ‘black bastard’, a court heard. Dr May Arnaot, 50, attacked Robert Patrick at Kings Cross Thameslink station 10 months before she pinned Sarah Chambers against a no-entry sign with her 4×4.”
and what happened to this faith-hate doctor?
October 05, 2007 – ARNAOT:DOC WHO RAMMED PREGNANT WOMAN WITH 4X4 ABUSES PROBATION STAFF ERITH, SE LONDON. An Iraqi doctor given a suspended prison sentence for ramming a heavily pregnant woman with her car has been screaming threats at probation officers, a court heard. Dr May Arnaot, 50, was spared jail despite being found guilty of trapping Sarah Chambers against a no-entry sign with her two-tonne 4×4.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?courts=2&name=agony
and here is how the bBC reported this racist;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6511901.stm
Pity they leave out just what country this bitch comes from and her hatred of blacks.
Faith crime indeed.
Pounce – fine, in YOUR EXAMPLE I think the the doctor’s nationality and the languange she used were relevant and should have been reported by the BBC. However… IN DAVID’S EXAMPLE I believe that the BBC and everyone else who covered the story were right only to report what they KNOW about the case so far and not what they might (reasonably or not) SUPPOSE it to be. You may be right or you may be wrong about the “shackled” police but I don’t believe it’s relevant to BBC bias in this case.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/559467/jihad-in-a-whie.thtml
We know the faith that was the target of the hate. But which was the faith whose adherents were doing the hating? We all know, even though no-one is saying. Just as under Stalinism, we are now taking it for granted that we must read between the lines.
Doubtless this is yet further proof that the ‘no-go areas’ about which the Bishop of Rochester recently warned, but which everyone else from Westminster to Lambeth Palace assured us were a figment of the Bishop’s imagination, don’t exist.
Calling violent Islamists “Asian youth” Asian is an insult and hate-mongering against Hindus, Chinese and all the others. I know that other communities are not nearly as organized as Saudi funded Islamist front groups like MPACUK, but this has gone too far.
Other Asian ethnic groups should start filing defamation law suits against the BBC.
How dare the BBC racists bundle together violent Jihadis with all Asians.
Hindus are among the most successful and contributing immigrant ethnic groups in the West.
This just boils the blood in my veins!
Hang on, since when do we know these were “jihadis”?
The incident at the church has been reported in today’s Daily Mail:
“It has regularly had windows smashed by youths – who on one occasion shouted: “This should not be a church, this should be a mosque.”
Does this give any clues as to the attackers’ religion, I wonder, AYA?
AYA: “It depends on whether if you want to go for a “Shock horror, priest attacked!” story or a “Shock horror, Muslims attack!” story.”
No, it depends on whether you want to provide readers with highly relevant context. The police have not simply said a priest was attacked; they have stated it was a “faith hate” crime. A sentence to the effect that the police did not state the faith of the attackers but that Tower Hamlets has a large Muslim population would be entirely unsurprising and appropriate. Leaving that out just leaves the question hanging, which is rarely a sign of a well written story I’d suggest.
Angry Young Man
The Mail reports
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=535131&in_page_id=1770
‘The attack took place in the early evening after Canon Ainsworth politely asked three Asian youths who had gathered in the churchyard to quieten down.
Another group of youths intervened to protect him and they helped him into the rectory as the attackers fled.
The incident happened outside St George-in-the-East Church in Wapping, East London.
It has regularly had windows smashed by youths – who on one occasion shouted: “This should not be a church, this should be a mosque.” ‘
It would be reassuring to think that the group of youths who saw the attackers off were themselves ‘Asian’. Perhaps they were, and we haven’t been told.
The Telegraph reports that
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/nrowan316.xml
“The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, who used to work with Mr Ainsworth, said: “I would want to see a condemnation of this cowardly behaviour by senior Muslims in the community and really hope there isn’t an over-reaction from the white community.”
Interestingly, BBC has sought Bishop Lowe’s comments very frequently in recent weeks, notably in order to solicit his condemnation of Bishop Nazir Ali’s claim that there are ‘no-go’ areas for non-muslims in certain parts of British cities. Curious that they have not sought his opinion on this occasion.
Incidentally, the Times also includes that detail from the Mail. And the Telegraph includes this: “the parish, which has a large Bangladeshi Muslim population”.
I live in Tower Hamlets and have a pretty good idea which section of our wonderful ‘community of communities’ is behind the attack.
Let’s not forget that Bethnal Green had these lovely stickers plastered all over the bus stops and road signs:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011705.php
Compare and contrast the prominence the BBC given to the East End clergyman attack with a similar event in Wales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7297650.stm
Here is the welsh one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/5165676.stm.
Stills, film, interviews with “disgusted” community members and senior police officers…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2871865.stm
Barry Wood,
Nail on head there in black and white (sic)!
Stalin would be proud of the Beeb.
The evidence continues to pile up yet AYA and his/her ilk (defenders of the indefensible) can only focus on ‘a’ points ignoring ‘the’ point.
GBS
This could have been a false flag operation.It is a well known fact that rogue Tibetan monks are masquerading as other ethnic minorities and stirring up trouble.The Dalai Lama is set on world domination.
If nothing else it underlines the London-centric nature of the BBC. They know that “Tower Hamlets” is code for “muslim” – but for most of the country its not as clear.
The Telegraph report
“The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, who used to work with Mr Ainsworth, said: “I would want to see a condemnation of this cowardly behaviour by senior Muslims in the community and really hope there isn’t an over-reaction from the white community.”
This reminds me of the Guardian headline:
Community leaders fear backlash after tomorrow’s bombing
.
“It has regularly had windows smashed by youths – who on one occasion shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque.’ Does this give any clues as to the attackers’ religion, I wonder, AYA?”
It gives clues as to certain local hooligans’ religion. As yet we don’t know for certain whether it was the same people who stabbed the priest that smashed the windows.
“The evidence continues to pile up yet AYA and his/her ilk (defenders of the indefensible) can only focus on ‘a’ points ignoring ‘the’ point.”
What are these mysterious other points then? David complained that the BBC didn’t editorialise the word ‘Muslim’ in at an early stage when the police were saying nothing. I argued with that.
That more evidence is surfacing NOW is irrelevant. The BBC was right not to comment prematurely.
“The BBC was right not to comment prematurely.”
Has the BBC commented yet? Post a link if they have.
As yet there is no conclusive evidence – except “A lot of Muslims live in Tower Hamlets” and “Some Muslims don’t like the Church”. Nothing but speculation and nothing to do with the actual attack.
An example of the BBC’s ‘impartiality’; it happens to involve Islam:-
“The convert and the control order”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7293995.stm
So what’s biased about ‘The Convert and the Control Order’. You can’t just fling links at us and expect us to know what you’re talking about.
You seem angry, Angry.
Like you, I’m letting the BBC’s ‘impartiality’ speak for itself.
Angry Young Alex: “As yet there is no conclusive evidence – except “A lot of Muslims live in Tower Hamlets” and “Some Muslims don’t like the Church”. Nothing but speculation and nothing to do with the actual attack.”
The fact that a lot of Muslims live in Tower Hamlets and the church has been attacked are both relevant pieces of information as context to this story, and you haven’t addressed why they’re not included in the BBC’s take.