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?
AYA, I sympathise with your viewpoint that the BBC should not speculate as to the faith of the people involved in the absence of evidence.
However, the BBC has such a long record of bias towards Islam, particular in the failure to mention the word muslim in any negative context whilst shamelessly promoting it in any positive context that it has now bred into the population the automatic assumption that if the faith of the perpetrator is not mentioned it probably means that they were Muslim.
This is the opposite to the original intention, but really the BBC only has itself to blame.
Arthur Dent: Don’t worry. The BBC might try to hide the fact that Moozlums are behind the rate hate going on in our Country, but most people see through it. Just like most people see through the lies from the BBC about climate change.
When they use the word “Asian” we know they are not talking about Hindus or Seikhs or Chinese. They mean Pakistani Moozlums.
The only people the BBC are deceiving are themselves and there is nothing new there.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=murder+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=assault+site%3Anews%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7288729.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7289694.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7293473.stm
Three reports on murders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7237248.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7237248.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7237248.stm
And three (or maybe two and a half) on assaults, where the religion of the attacker is conveniently absent. In fact even when the victim is, or at least has the name of, a Muslim, religion is not mentioned.
Now, you will notice that the first hit on ‘murder’ is Theo Van Gogh,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
and though it is chocked full of references to Islam and Muslims, it doesn’t actually mention the perpetrator’s religion.
But you will also notice that all it says about the suspect is:
“The man, aged 26, had joint Dutch and Moroccan nationality, they [police] said.”
And of course you will also notice that in this story,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4716909.stm
the first sentence, in bold type, is:
“A Dutch court has sentenced a 27-year-old radical Islamist to life in prison for the November murder of controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh.”
So what you’re saying, that the BBC refuses to say ‘Islam’ whenever a Muslim commits a crime, is ridiculous. The BBC generally omits any mention of Islam until it is:
a) relevant and
b) provable.
“When they use the word “Asian” we know they are not talking about Hindus or Seikhs or Chinese. They mean Pakistani Moozlums.”
No, I think they generally use it as a generic term for ‘brown’. I’ve often heard it applied to Hindus, Sikhs, Indians, Bangladeshis, anything where they want to mention race but don’t know the religion or nationality.
AYA: So, just to be clear: a priest is beaten up; police say it’s a “faith hate” crime; and the fact his church has been attacked by Muslims and there’s a large Muslim population generally isn’t relevant context? Is that what you’re saying?
There is no conclusive evidence that “they want to mention ‘race’ but don’t know the religion or nationality”. This is sheer surmise on your part.
“AYA: So, just to be clear: a priest is beaten up; police say it’s a “faith hate” crime; and the fact his church has been attacked by Muslims and there’s a large Muslim population generally isn’t relevant context? Is that what you’re saying?”
Not that it is irrelevant, but that if it is relevant, at this point in time the relevance is purely speculative. We don’t yet know that this attack and the “this should be a mosque” incident are connected, so, although you lot can go ahead and wonder if Osama was directly involved or if the attackers had funding from Iran, it is wrong for the BBC to try and second-guess the police.
“There is no conclusive evidence that “they want to mention ‘race’ but don’t know the religion or nationality”. This is sheer surmise on your part.”
In the case of this article, no there is no way to know what they mean, and that wasn’t what I was getting at. In terms of the general use of the term “Asian”, this is usually the case
AYA: “the relevance is purely speculative. We don’t yet know that this attack and the “this should be a mosque” incident are connected, so, although you lot can go ahead and wonder if Osama was directly involved or if the attackers had funding from Iran, it is wrong for the BBC to try and second-guess the police.”
Right, so here the background detail is purely speculative and would be wrong to include – ie that the church of a priest who’s been attacked in a faith hate attack has been targeted previously by Muslims. Yet when Bowen offered us some speculation the other day as to why that Yeshiva was attacked he was “entitled to offer an explanation” and it was “highly relevant information”. How does that work, then?
Angry Youth:
You are digging a bigger hole for yourself. You are illogical and inconsistent. You have no conclusive evidence in your interpretation. You are a negative troll.
Hugh:
In the Yeshiva case, we knew who the perpetrator was and the BBC was speculating as to the political motives. In this case we have absolutely no idea who did it further than the attackers’ appearance and, if the BBC avoided speculation as to the identity of the perpetrator.
AYA, whom do you think are the perpetrators?
No idea. Probably a couple of confused and radicalised Muslim kids in a general state of rage and paranoia. But as I said, no idea.
AYA: “In the Yeshiva case, we knew who the perpetrator was and the BBC was speculating as to the political motives. In this case we have absolutely no idea who did it further than the attackers’ appearance and, if the BBC avoided speculation as to the identity of the perpetrator.”
Run that by me again. It’s legitimate to speculate a crazed gunman was motivated by the political nature of the school he targeted, despite a complete lack of evidence, but not to point out that there’s been previous attacks by Muslim radicals in the vicinity – in fact, at the very church of – a priest who’s subject to a faith hate attack. That’s your argument?
I am getting a bit sick of we Indians getting the blame for these Muslim atrocities.
Two different types of speculation.
In the one case, the main culprit was known and the reporter postulated on the motives of what was probably not a random attack. The tone may have been inappropriate in places but speculation on why a homicide was committed is standard journalistic practice.
In the other case it was the opposite way round. We are reasonably sure of the motive and not the culprit. The BBC has quite rightly refused to second guess the police on who was behind it. This is the key difference, and what you seem to expect the BBC to speculate on is not even the identity but the religious background of the attackers.
Now for publications like the Times, Mail and Telegraph to toy with (as far as we know) unrelated incidents and population statistics is fair enough. They are in a position to theorise and are not known for their neutral stance on Muslim issues. The BBC however has a responsibility to cover events impartially and should not be implicating entire communities without evidence.
Putting words in bold doesn’t strengthen your argument.
Is this another of your golden rules of BBC journalism to go along with the rule that their impartiality doesn’t allow them to speculate whether Castro’s demise could mean greater freedom for Cuba (only it did) and that they always take the word of domestic government’s over foreign media (only they don’t)?
Do I actually have to bother doing the google search that will show the BBC do provide relevant background context to crimes where this might suggest characteristics of the likely culprits?
Hugh:
The BBC was right not to speculate until further details of the attackers were confirmed by the police. AYA makes a strong point on the significant differences between this and the yeshiva killings. There was no doubt as to the ID of the gunman there. There is no certainty about the assailants here.
Whilst the call for complete transparency on reporting of racial and religious conflict is a reasonable one, it’s also rational, and ethical, to avoid causing tension by publishing speculation which may yet turn out to be wrong.
Even if all B-BBC posters were fair and rational human beings – and that’s open to question given the rabid foaming about Islam frequently posted here – there are many in the real world who have no compunction in stirring up tensions at the tiniest excuse. That something you want to encourage?
.
At least you have the honesty to identify the reason and grace to admit that I’m asking for transparent reporting, rather than subtly suggesting I want the BBC given over to the BNP. It’s not that these details are irrelevant or that there is some ludicrous policy of not providing context where the culprits have not been identified: it’s about community cohesion, isn’t it?
But I disagree with your analysis. I think the BBC’s attitude here is patronising. I also don’t see how you can square your support for this approach here, yet also support screening the recent documentary on the “massacre” by British troops in Iraq, which almost certainly never was and where there was a far more real risk of inciting violence.
Also, when it comes to community cohesion, bear in mind that readers of the Sun, Mail, Times and Telegraph, as well as probably everybody who lives locally now knows about the religious make up of the area and about the previous attack on the church. So let’s see what happens.
Hugh:
If it turns out that these kids were a mixed bunch, or lapsed Muslims without any true religious affiliation, would it still be patronising for the BBC to have reported as it has?
The difficulty with your approach is that you want to jump the gun out of a suspicion that Muslims are a bad lot and the BBC doesn’t want to tell us so. That, though, is not a valid reason to speculate about something which could spark trouble. Why not wait for more details to become clear?
I’m not convinced your Iraqi point holds up, either. It was a considered documentary, not a news report. It’ll have been pored over by lawyers, execs and compliance bods and it was nuanced in a way few urgent news reports ever are. More importantly, Iraq is seething with people who have it in for the allied forces. Whilst any one bit of bad news might help their cause, it’s not necessary to get the insurgents wound up. They do it all on their own.
Hillhunt: “The difficulty with your approach is that you want to jump the gun out of a suspicion that Muslims are a bad lot and the BBC doesn’t want to tell us so. ”
No, I certainly don’t suspect Muslims are a bad lot. Nor do I want the BBC to jump the gun. I just want them to tell me the bloke’s church has been attacked by religiously motivated attackers previously – because it’s extremely relevant. And, yes, even if the latest attackers turn out to have nothing to do with the other lot, it’s patronising to censor the news in this way.
“It was a considered documentary, not a news report. ”
Yes, it had had the opportunity to establish that there was no evidence to support the claims of a massacre. Yet it still ran with them. In the case of this faith-hate attack, meanwhile, all the circumstantial evidence points a certain way, but the BBC holds off reporting it in case the facts end up pointing to a different scenario.
“I just want them to tell me the bloke’s church has been attacked by religiously motivated attackers previously – because it’s extremely relevant.”
This is a reasonable request, but arguably to report it would be biased as it would imply the events were connected, which might not be the case. While I personally don’t see the harm this information would do, what makes you think the BBC hasn’t just erred on the side of caution when it comes to speculation?
Angry Young Alex: Spin all the crap you like. They were Moozlums! They practice a religion that preaches violence and hatred.
Only the Bum Bandit Corporation would try to birng Hindus and Seikhs into the argument.
Martin: If you have information on the case proving this I would advise you to go to the police.
Martin:
Only the Bum Bandit Corporation would try to birng Hindus and Seikhs into the argument.
You do have a strange obsession with homosexuality, don’t you? Your breathless description of cottaging parties in Islington and “bottom action” on Hampstead Heath speak volumes.
Is there something you’re trying to tell us?
Oh…one more thing:
What are Seikhs? And how do you birng them?
I think religous bigots of any offence are evil. But what the BBC supposed to do about this. Stop trying to turn this into a right left issue. Stop trying to claim it is ledft wing to support racist abuse by blacks. I am left wing but i do not support racial abuse of a priest. I am not some mad nutter at the sun.
Yo Yo:
I don’t think anyone, left or right supports this attack. We’re simply divided over whether we or the BBC can say for sure what religion’s adherents were behind it. If there is a left-right divide it is over whether we should blame Muslims prematurely for an unsolved crime.
AYA: “…arguably to report it would be biased as it would imply the events were connected…”
I’m getting a bit bored of you. There’s no sensible argument that to report it is biased. It’s obviously relevant and a line the police will be following. It does, of course, imply the events might be connected – because they might well be. Readers are bright enough to know that’s not a certainty while no further information is unavailable. And, if in doubt, you can point it out – as I have seen many a news report do – by stating that the police have not said whether the attacks are connected.
“what makes you think the BBC hasn’t just erred on the side of caution…”
I think they have, as even a brief read of my comments above would suggest. They’ve erred in the interests of community cohesion. They were fearful that to report either the religious make up of the area or the earlier attack – both extremely useful, relevant pieces of context for the reader – might either unfairly malign the Muslim population or provoke racists to some hideous retaliatory attack. I think it’s a patronising attitude and entirely unnecessary. It is indeed an error.
Point taken. I think to print it or not to print it would show bias one way or another. But as this is early days, the BBC is right to go with “unsure”.
AYA: I’m baffled as to what point you have taken given your reply, but there we go.
This really is depressing – I keep hoping someone will change the story, particularly since in this follow up they take the same approach:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7299475.stm
Sky is first with news; the newspapers provide the relevant context and background; is the BBC’s unique selling point really going to be that it’s the only one to ensure its reports are run through an army of social workers before publication? The safest news on the web?
The trouble with AYA’s oh-so-reasonable view here is that it is intellectually utterly dishonest. He / she starts by saying the faith of the attackers is unknown – strictly true, I suppose, but even he cannot seriously suppose that this attack was carried by Sikhs, Hindus, or Jews.
When it is pointed out to him that other news sources have noted a history of attacks by local Muslims, he still maintains that it might not be Muslims. It might be all those Jews and Hindus, who are well noted for their murderous and bigoted violence.
When the perps are had up in court, he’ll maintain that they didn’t necessarily do it for Allah because there’s no verdict yet. When there is a verdict, he’ll argue that the verdict only said that they did it, but not why. And then he’ll argue that they might be innocent and were framed by the police.
And so it goes on.
Alex, have you ever heard of or read that German play about the rise of Nazism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biedermann_und_die_Brandstifter? You really should, because you’re in that play actually.
Anyway, the bad news for the BBC is, this attack definitely and categorically was a racist crime, at least. Why? Because under the MacPherson definition, it’s a racist crime if anyone at all says so. And I say so. QED.
Sky is first with news; the newspapers provide the relevant context and background; is the BBC’s unique selling point really going to be that it’s the only one to ensure its reports are run through an army of social workers before publication? The safest news on the web?
Hugh | 17.03.08 – 11:26 am | #
LOL, C’mon Hugh admit it – you work for Mark Byford don’t you?
To me this one read like someone trying to avoid any risk of contempt ,before proceedings are active. Bless.
I apologise for the illiteracy and absence of grammar in the previous post, I have been working on a yoof project.
A Christian clergyman is attacked by a gang being called a “f**ing priest”
Its an area where most people are Christian or Muslim, there are no numbers to suggest gangs in enough numbers to represent another faith position.
An Asian PCC member is threatened by the gang “This should not be a church, this should be a mosque”
But there is a doubt about the religion of those perpetrating the faith hate crime, really?
News Update:
This, from the wife of the poor priest attacked in East London:
“Normally community relations here are very good. We have had very strong messages of support from the East London Mosque and Tower Hamlets Mosque with whom we’ve got good relations.
“Clearly the Muslim community is very shocked. These individuals were under the influence and this was a random act.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23455746-details/Wife+of+vicar+beaten+for+'being+a+Christian'+by+Asian+yobs+speaks+of+shock+at+faith+hate+attack/article.do
Inexplicably, at the time of writing, the BBC is keeping this positive news from us. What conspiracy theory explains that?
.
And from that same story:
Parishioner Susan Crocker said: “It is not out of the blue, they broke the glass last Easter – it’s a recurrent problem.”
Toni Davey, 43, said: “To be honest something like this was going to happen sooner or later – it is the area and the times we are living in. There is a tension in the area with the Muslims.”
And why is the Muslim “community” shocked, particularly?
Goodness Hillhunt and AYA are imbeciles – they’ve wasted this entire thread shrilling that there’s no evidence to support the claim that these thugs were Muslim and now that it has been proved abundently clear that yes, they were Muslims, we hear that the media should give prominence to those sympathetic to the islamists.
It seems to be very difficult for these pseudo-liberals to comprehend that the majority of citizens do not want to embrace dhimmitude.
Since the BBC and other media are afraid to mention the “M” word in association with violence – whether it be against the police or just innocent non-Asians – how can anybody possibly know who perpetrates these acts? How can we know if they are Muslim or not, or just some of them are, or if it was just the one that got on camera?
Well, I don’t know if something like this exists for Tower Hamlets or Bradford or Nottingham, but here are the “youths” of the banlieues of Paris explaining the recent violence in Grigny for you:
La Banlieue S’exprime
Anyone who can handle French will find this quite illuminating. For those who don’t, I’ll just say that the main poster, one Ahmed Moualek, compares his area to Gaza, calls for arms to defend their territory, and they all blame the police for everything, except when they’re blaming the US and Israel. There’s even a shout out to “Free Mumia”, which shows their level of depravity and connections to extreme Leftoids in the US.
For a real look at the unknowable demographics of these riots, check out the rest of the site.
“AYA: I’m baffled as to what point you have taken given your reply, but there we go.”
Understandable, reading my post again it was fairly vague. It is impossible, in this case not to take sides to some extent. Either the BBC publishes statistics and preceding events which prematurely scream “It was the Muslims!” or it omits possibly relevant information. Does it unjustly exonerate the Muslim community from this unsolved crime or does it unfairly accuse them? In this case it goes no further than the police and is right to do so.
“Goodness Hillhunt and AYA are imbeciles – they’ve wasted this entire thread shrilling that there’s no evidence to support the claim that these thugs were Muslim and now that it has been proved abundently clear that yes, they were Muslims, we hear that the media should give prominence to those sympathetic to the islamists.”
My goodness that was a quick trial.
hillhunt
thanks for the link, pity for you it proves the opoosite of what you argue.
it wasn’t an isolated incident…
“a fearful congregation yesterday who said rising tensions in the area had led up to the attack on 5 March, the second time the church has been targeted after a Good Friday attack last year in which youths threw bricks through the windows.
Gravestones in nearby St Dunstan’s Church in Stepney are also regularly vandalised and locals say drink and drugs problems, combined with religious differences, fuel the attacks.
Parishioner Susan Crocker said: “It is not out of the blue, they broke the glass last Easter – it’s a recurrent problem.”
And the source was known…
“Toni Davey, 43, said: “To be honest something like this was going to happen sooner or later – it is the area and the times we are living in. There is a tension in the area with the Muslims.”
but it is being treated as a faith hate crime…
“Police have confirmed the case is being treated as a faith-hate crime”
Thanks for the research hillhunt.
AYA: If the perpetrators are never caught, anyone relying on the BBC report will remain entirely ignorant that some say there have been religious tensions prior to this; that the attack was not an entirely freak occurrence – even if it might yet be unrelated to earlier incidents; and that the guy’s church had had its windows smashed prior to the attack. Furthermore, if they subsequently hear that some suspect the perpetrators were Muslims they will be entirely baffled as to why. Is there really much point in news reporting that leaves readers in almost total ignorance?
This non-reporting is necessary, you suggest, for fear the readers will be too profoundly stupid to distinguish between suspicion and established fact – or, perhaps, that they will be unable to calculate that even if the probability is that Muslim radicals were behind the attack it does not reflect on Muslims generally. I disagree.
To report this properly does not require the BBC to “speculate” in any way. It simply needs to provide the facts anyone with a normal level of curiosity would ask having been told a “faith-hate” attack on a priest had taken place. The readers may well then use this information to speculate themselves as to the likely culprits, but it’s not the BBC’s job to stop them doing so.
All that is true, but there is no way they could provide that information without an unpleasant, accusatory undertone. Faced with such a decision, it is no sign of bias to report what the police said and no further.
Anonymous | 17.03.08 – 6:04 pm
Also from the same article
“Police have confirmed the case is being treated as a faith-hate crime and no arrests have been made.”
This looks almost as if no arrests have been made BECAUSE it’s being treated as a race hate crime.
Immunity for the you-know-whos? Nothing would surprise me.
It only happened a couple of days ago. And it’s not a race hate crime. Read your own quote.
AYA: here’s the unpleasant, accusatory undertone at the Times. Reads like a fairly solid, sober and balanced account to me:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3564521.ece
Key passages the Times was able to include because it didn’t feel the need to censor the discussion entirely:
“‘We do know that in this area there is no concerted campaign against Christians and Christian buildings.’
It was feared that the incident might inflame tension in the area, which is in the heart of Tower Hamlets where more than half the residents are from ethnic minority groups. A third are of Bangladeshi origin.
‘The harassment is usually coming from young Asian men • often, but not exclusively, Muslim,’
Worshippers at St George’s suggested that youth thuggery, rather than religious bigotry, may be more to blame.”
And they also include some people suggesting the opposite. Do you see how it can work yet?
Yes. Though the “often, but not exclusively, Muslim” might enrage certain posters here.
My point is not that the BBC should not have published the background information. What I am saying is that stopping where the police stopped is not evidence of bias.
In my opinion the BBC could have given more details without too much trouble, but if it had doubts as to whether this would constitute impartial reporting, stopping with the police is a good rule of thumb.
And you missed these fanatically pro-Muslim comments:
In January one of the Church of England’s most senior bishops said that Islamic extemists had created “no-go” areas across Britain where it was too dangerous for nonMuslims to enter.
Thomas Beckett, 50, said: “I have heard that this church is an island in the middle of a Muslim community.”
Along with the relevant background information, you’ve got a nice couple of PANIC IT’S ISLAMIC moments. No matter that nobody’s been arrested yet, no matter that the local bobby says they’re not necessarily Muslims, no matter that the congregation say it’s probably not in the name of Allah, we need some irrelevant and slightly paranoid speculation about how they’re all taking over.
But fair enough, who goes to the Times website expecting impartiality.
AYA: “And you missed these fanatically pro-Muslim comments”
No, you missed the part where I stated: “And they also include some people suggesting the opposite.”
That’s the beauty of the free speech and free press combination: it allows you to report views that may even be considered unpalatable. However, reporting both sides of an argument doesn’t actually imperil your impartiality. With the Times at least you know there is a debate, and on issues such as this I certainly would head there for an impartial account – or at least some sort of an account – before the BBC.
“My point is not that the BBC should not have published the background information. What I am saying is that stopping where the police stopped is not evidence of bias.”
And I’m sorry I missed your point, but it seems to change quite often. Earlier I understood you to be arguing that the BBC should not have published that background information. That’s what I gathered when you stated:
” there is no way they could provide that information without an unpleasant, accusatory undertone.”
“arguably to report it would be biased as it would imply the events were connected”
“The BBC however has a responsibility to cover events impartially and should not be implicating entire communities without evidence.”
Likewise, before that, I misunderstood you to be arguing that the information wasn’t relevant – mainly because you said it was
“Nothing but speculation and nothing to do with the actual attack.”
Now I see you were simply arguing that to stick with what the police say is not evidence of bias. But, then, you did also say this:
“I think to print it or not to print it would show bias one way or another.”
“Likewise, before that, I misunderstood you to be arguing that the information wasn’t relevant – mainly because you said it was”
Not necessarily relevant, and only for premature speculation. The crux of all my arguments on B-BBC, as I have deliberately avoided involving my own opinions, is that the BBC is not necessarily biased. While I might have implied that I considered these events irrelevant, what I was getting at is that their relevance was not certain enough for the BBC to be obliged to mention them.
“Now I see you were simply arguing that to stick with what the police say is not evidence of bias. But, then, you did also say this: “I think to print it or not to print it would show bias one way or another.”
And that is the case. However if, when offered two potential accusations of bias, the BBC chooses to pick the same kind as the police and not report things the police have not said, I don’t see as this can be interpreted as bias towards or against any faith, ideology or community.
Hope that clears this up.
Here is another example of how the BBC goes out of its way in which to defend the faitful:
Missing Norwegian found murdered
A young Norwegian woman missing since Friday has been found murdered. Martine Vik Magnussen’s body was found partially hidden under rubble in a basement in Great Portland Street, central London on Sunday morning. The 23-year-old was last seen leaving the members-only bar, Maddox club, in nearby Mayfair on Friday morning. Police said they are looking for a man with whom she left the club. Forensic science experts are searching the block of flats where the body was found.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7300365.stm
So the BBC say the police are looking for a man whom she left the club with.
Here is how the Daily mail reports that story;
“Detectives investigating the murder of a wealthy economics student are hunting a mystery Middle Eastern businessman, it was revealed today.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=536555&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
Sky News;
“Police say they would like to speak to a number of people, including a man of Arabic appearance who was among her group of friends on Thursday night and who she may have left the club with.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1309599,00.html?f=rss
Times;
“Martine Vik Magnussen, 23, was allegedly seen leaving the exclusive Maddox club in Mayfair with an Arab friend who may now be in the Middle East.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3570999.ece
Just like the Tower Hamlets Story the BBC goes out of its way in which to keep quiet on the fav past time of the faithful.
May AYA would like to comment on this latest example of BBC bias.