Along with other eagle-eyed Biased BBC readers, I noted the BBC lead story at the moment which is entitled “Men planned explosions”. Mmm.. all sounds a bit vague, doesn’t it? I wonder why? Here’s a clue – the prosecutor said the men planned to inflict heavy casualties, “all in the name of Islam”.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I would happily sell my house says:

    Well of course. The BBC can’t possibly mention Islam in anything other than a benign light. One general point here; some months back Gordon Brown made a statement that he was going to talk to the media about more ‘careful’ reporting of Islamic issues. You know, lest they stir undue tensions. That sort of thing. Perhaps somebody should put in a request to the BBC & the Govt under the Freedom of Information Act requesting whether BBC news reporting is operating under any such mandate. We all know that most BBC staff are a curious mixture of cowardice & political correctness when it comes to reporting about Islam, but it would be interesting to know whether there’s another layer involved.


  2. Gibby Haynes says:

    Police Chief Wiggum: This is Papa Bear. Put out an APB for a male suspect, driving a… car of some sort, heading in the direction of, uh, you know, that place that sells chili. Suspect is hatless. Repeat, hatless.


  3. Trumpeter Lanfried says:

    I listened carefully to the six o’clock news tonight, on BBC1. This was the lead story, to which they had alloted four or five minutes. Not once did I hear the words ‘muslim’ or ‘Islam’. They are actually distorting the news by supression (and making themselves look ridiculous into the bargain.)


  4. cheeta says:

    Intriguing to note that the Muslim Council of Britain’s website has no mention of this story, yet finds room in it’s headline for “The MCB is deeply concerned that Britain is continuing to adopt a policy of partisan support for Israel despite its atrocious behaviour in Gaza this week where it has killed over 100 Palestinians including several children as young as six months old.”


  5. cheeta says:

    Trumpeter – the 10’o’clock news just now had Wright’s phrase verbally and also on screen “…in the name of Islam”. However, to offer 5 minutes on the alleged plot to kill 2,500 people on numerous jets and then the same time to an election in Zimbabwe was very poor.


  6. Martin says:

    The BBC can try to lie as much as it likes. But as soon as they show the photograps of these people or read out their names (link Mohammad or Imran) we all know what they are.

    Mind you I expect the BBC to stop doing that soon. They will just be referred to as “people” and their pictures will not be shown.


  7. Martin says:

    At least the Daily Mail can be relied on to get the facts right


  8. archduke says:

    “Trumpeter Lanfried | 03.04.08 – 10:18 pm”

    thats odd. because bbc radio 4 news at 6pm specifically mentioned “islamic fanatics”.


  9. archduke says:

    ” Martin | 03.04.08 – 10:59 pm |”

    why are they all wearing white? is that our version of the Gitmo uniform?


  10. archduke says:

    by the way – re that daily mail link – i think that there is something quite WRONG with publishing their names and photos. this is a trial after all, and one is supposedly innocent until proven guilty.

    i’m probably going against the grain here, but there is something quite un-british about that parade of names and photos.


  11. Grimly Squeamish says:

    ” i think that there is something quite WRONG with publishing their names and photos”

    Er, why? Justice should be seen to be done, no? Not everyone can crowd into the public gallery of a court to see the day to day proceedings – a fundamental right of open and fair justice in this country – and a newspaper or media report is just an extension of the public gallery.

    So long as the reports do not prejudice the case in any way, I can see no problem.

    It would be a shame and rather sinister if we went down the road of secret trials…

    The BBC reports, of course are sanitised to the point of being totally patronising to the viewers. But what’s new?


  12. George R says:

    Yes, the BBC’s pussyfooting around Islam is obviously part of a deliberate policy of appeasement.

    ‘Jihadwatch’ doesn’t pussyfoot around over the current case , quoting the ‘Daily Mail’ headline:

    “British Muslims ‘planned to kill thousands by bombing SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go'”

    Yes, BBC, we know that this case is ‘sub judice’, BUT you are allowed to report what e.g. the prosecutors say. E.g. surely this could be emphasised in any reporting?:-

    “Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said they had planned, ‘ALL IN THE NAME OF ISLAM’ (Caps added), to carry out a ‘series of coordinated and deadly explosions’ and were ‘indifferent to the carnage’ that would have been caused. […]

    “‘At the very least’ seven planes would have been targeted, Mr Wright said. (-from ‘Jihadwatch’ above.)

    And even when this case is no longer ‘sub judice’, the BBC will still appease Islam, and will still discuss whether the West should talk to Al Qaeda, and NOT discuss the content of videos like this:

    ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’:-


  13. archduke says:

    ” Grimly Squeamish | 03.04.08 – 11:54 pm ”

    maybe its just me, but i find it wrong that they should be paraded in such a manner. why do we need to know their names and to see their photos? they have not been found guilty, YET….

    bear in mind that we do have a government with strong fascist tendencies. that is all.

    btw – i am as anti-jihad as the rest of you. but this is starting to smack of communist era show trials.

    (of course, the fuckers who allowed these criminal terrorists into the country in the first place will of course get off scot free , for they are never charged with the consequences of their actions, are they?)


  14. will says:

    bbc radio 4 news at 6pm specifically mentioned “islamic fanatics”.

    ITV News at 10 used the same phrase – perhaps words used in court & available for use by the media.


  15. archduke says:

    ” will | 04.04.08 – 12:15 a”

    good point. it is a tad difficult to discern scare quotes over the radio.


  16. Martin says:

    Archduke: What planet do you live on?????

    Men accused of rape get thier names spread all over the paper. Is that fair? Or are you suggesting that only Muslims accused of murder should be protected?


  17. WTF! says:

    btw – i am as anti-jihad as the rest of you

    You protest too much!


  18. Anonymous says:

    Islam, Muslim criticism = BBC scared shitless – ask Ben Elton


  19. Barry says:

    archduke at 12:15 am: “of course, the fuckers who allowed these criminal terrorists into the country in the first place will of course get off scot free…”

    Agree completely. If they want to persecute people in their own country, that’s bad enough. But let’s face it – they’re just doing what they do best. The main problem is that we’re stuck with them here.


  20. Really... says:

    Grimly Squeamish:
    ” i think that there is something quite WRONG with publishing their names and photos”


    It’s called ‘name and shame’…something that ALL criminals regardless of faith/colour have to endure.

    Heck, even if you are caught for the draconian crime of not paying your “[B][B][C] TV Licence” you are ‘named and shamed’ in your local newspaper.

    Is that WRONG too?


  21. Chuffer says:

    Let’s hope that the security services manage to get convictions without giving too much away about just how comprehensively these lads’ communications were monitored.
    Echelon, anyone?


  22. Joel says:

    This would seem a valid point if the phrase “all in the name of Islam” hadn’t been given in every report. Even the article you’re talking about has the quote, perhaps you missed it.

    The Daily Mail headline “British Muslims ‘planned to kill thousands by bringing down SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go with liquid bombs” would be a difficult one to fit into the space available for the website.

    Biased BBC: Never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.


  23. backwoodsman says:

    Why don;t the beeboids refer to them as “the self detonating community”, you know, like diferently abled, or whatever the latest non offensive term is.


  24. David Vance says:


    How about “Islamists planned mass murder” – snappy enough title for a webiste headline?


  25. Martin says:

    Joel: The Daily Mail had THAT headline on THEIR website!!!!!


  26. George R says:

    Well, the BBC has decided that the case of the British Muslims and the bomb plot of transatlantic airlines is not much of an event; the BBC has already moved it off its ‘ News Front Page’, and shifted it way down on its ‘UK Page’: to find the report now, you have to search towards the bottom of the ‘UK Page’, go down to the section on ‘More from the UK’ and the report is the 9th one down.

    The BBC: news values and Islam – it’s what we do.

    In contrast, ‘The Times’ report today includes this:

    “‘These men were known to each other and shared a common interest • an interest that involved inflicting heavy casualties upon an innocent civilian population all in the name of Islam,’ Mr Wright [Prosecutor QC] said. The group’s plan was to carry out a ‘series of coordinated and deadly explosions’ as their target aircraft were in mid-air, he said. He added: ‘These men were indifferent to the carnage that was likely to ensue if their plan was successful. The identities of their victims was irrelevant. What they intended to bring about was a violent and deadly statement of intent that would have had a truly global impact.'”


  27. Anonymous says:

    Biased BBC: Never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
    Joel | Homepage | 04.04.08 – 8:57 am | #

    Been taking lessons from your mate Ill*unt. Or maybe you are.


  28. Steve E. says:

    Had to laugh at Thirsty Work’s ‘even-handed’ approach to the story on Newsnight. She talked about the prosecution‘s presentation on the first day of the trial, then suggested she was looking forward to subsequent evidence in which the “machinations” of the police was to be analysed.
    What a bint she is…


  29. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    How about “Islamists planned mass murder” – snappy enough title for a webiste headline?
    David Vance | Homepage | 04.04.08 – 9:29 am | #

    Juries decide who are murderers and who are not, not journalists or bloggers.

    Your headline would be in contempt.


  30. Hugh says:

    Which could easily be avoided by placing it in quotes.


  31. Anonymous says:

    Sorry archduke but what you suggest is actually a truly massive change to the way that justice is administered here in the UK and round the world, I see where you are coming from but I do not think you have thought your original post through enough.

    Shannon’s stepfather’s arrest was all over the media including his picture and name again and again and he hasn’t gone to trial.

    Its not the only case, its quite common whether nationally or just in the local media.

    And not just here, did you object to Milosevic being known and publicised before being found guilty?

    Should accused terrorist would be mass murderers get different treatment?

    It is the norm to publicise these details as long as they are not prejudicial to the case, if they are they are declared as such and reporting restrictions are made.

    This is to reflect the fact that in modern times unlike older days its not possible for anyone who wants to attend a case.

    If you want that changed you have to change the whole system.


  32. Anonymous says:

    “How about “Islamists planned mass murder” – snappy enough title for a webiste headline?
    David Vance | Homepage | 04.04.08 – 9:29 am | #
    Juries decide who are murderers and who are not, not journalists or bloggers.
    Your headline would be in contempt.
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 10:39 am”

    BBC in contempt then…


  33. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    Only if someone in court actually said that. I believe what was said was “in the name of Islam”.

    So you could have:

    Bombing planned “in the name of Islam”

    If you wanted to take an editorial stance similar to one of David’s blogs.


  34. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    There’s nothing wrong with that report Anonymous.

    The only time murder is mentioned is in ‘deny conspiring to murder’ which of course they do.


  35. Anonymous says:

    No, the BBC headline is similar in intent, though it does not mention islam.

    If David’s headline is in contempt so is that one.

    It is NOT a direct quote from the case (hence the use of single not double quotes).

    Taking the BBC as a lead presumably it would be acceptable for David’s headline saying something like:
    Islamists ‘planned mass murder’

    BBC weasel words?


  36. Anonymous says:

    Unless you think attempted airline explosions do not constitute attempted mass murder.


  37. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:


    Islamists ‘planned mass murder’

    would be acceptable but has an editorial tone to it which the beeb would not take – although fine for David’s blog. You can call it weasel words if you like, but court reporting is about what you can and are prepared to get away with. David doesnt have a ‘social cohesion’ requirement in his Charter. Lucky him.

    However David suggested

    Islamists planned mass murder

    which is rather more definitive.

    As I said earlier “in the name of Islam” is on the record, priviledge applies, it’s the safe option to use.


  38. George R says:

    Perhaps the BBC is taking its line of dhimmitude towards Islam from this development:

    “Universal Declaration of Human Rights converted into Universal Declaration for the Protection of Islam” (by Lawrence Auster):-


  39. George R says:

    Day 2: BBC report less reticent in use of word ‘Islam’: good.

    (Unfortunate that BBC headline omits the word ‘Islamic’, from ‘Islamic martyrdom’ which appears in text.)


  40. Abandon Ship! says:

    The World at One

    Beeboid trumpets headline that the videos made by the men cite the invasion of Iraq as the reason for their actions…..

    Haha! There you are!

    However, if you actually read the accounts in the newspapers, you see that Iraq is just one of many things – Afghanistan, Israel, Jews, crusaders etc. Funny how the Beeboids fished out Iraq to lead in the headline. But not totally unexpected, given the Beeboid outlook.


  41. Martin says:

    Abandon Ship: Yes. Perhaps it’s because one of them accused people of watching Eastenders to take much interest in world affairs!!!!!!


  42. Abandon Ship! says:

    World at One

    It’s the Robert Fisk show!

    Just imagine a journalist with a different political outlook on the Middle East being given a free no-awkward-questions 10 min slot on the BBC to outline his personal prejudices! Dream on…

    I look forward to many guest appearances on From Our Correspondent and Question Time.


  43. DB says:

    From Umar Islam’s martyrdom video:

    “We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord, and Allah loves us to die and kill in his fires. And anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and he will not be able to deny this.”

    Hmm, isn’t that the point Geert Wilders was making in Fitna?


  44. Martin says:

    DB: What that Islam is a load of crap and followed by people who have little respect for human life?



  45. TPO says:

    Your headline would be in contempt.
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 10:39 am |

    Unlikely Sarah Jane.
    Prosecution Council has commenced his openening statements to the jury in which he has outlined a terror plot to commit mass murder in the name of Islam.
    The defendants by their own admission are all Muslims.
    It is legitimate to report this and I see no reason not to headline the story Islamists planned mass murder
    Sub judice is a fine line, but unless there are extraordinary circumstances, such being held in camera, then there is a common law presumption that the case will be held in public.


  46. TPO says:

    And I should have added that being held in public then utterances in open court can be reported unless the judge specifically rules otherwise. In this case there have been no such rulings by the judge, ergo ‘Islamists planned mass murder’ is legitimate


  47. Martin says:

    TPO: Agreed. These men admit to being Muslims. It’s not hiding facts. It’s actually the bias of the BBC who think (like the rather silly Sarah Jane) that the BBC has to “protect” moderate Muslims.

    I’m not sure what she means by a moderate Muslim. One that doesn’t plant bombs on tube trains? Or one that doesn’t, but still thinks women who commit adultery should be shot in the back of the head on a football pitch?

    There is no such thing as a “moderate Muslim”. Is there a “moderate Christian” or “Moderate Hindu?”

    The very fact that BBC types have to use a phrase like “moderate Muslim” clearly indicates that THEy think that there are an awful lot of non moderate Muslims.

    My view is that the Koran is full of rubbish and evil and that anyone who follows the teachings of it is not only an idiot but is very dangerous. That applies to the Bible as well. We need to stop giving people who read these silly books an air of respectability.

    It’s a load of nonsense pumped out by leftoid BBC types.


  48. TPO says:

    To back up my assertion have a look at the Telegraph’s reporting of the trial.
    Highly unlikely that the Telegraph would report anything that would be in contempt of proceedings.

    So given the content of this article I think there is more than enough to re-arrange this well known phrase or saying:

    Murder… Planned… Islamists… Mass


  49. TPO says:

    Of course for council read counsel


  50. JG says:

    David doesnt have a ‘social cohesion’ requirement in his Charter.
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 11:52 am | #

    It seems to me that this is now used by the BBC to avoid/downplay any story that is critical of Islam/Muslims.

    Unbiased, straight reporting on this topic is actually impossible if you follow this ‘social cohesion’ charter. Every news story now has to go through the SC police and will get spiked/changed if it is thought that it might be in breach of this ludicrous requirement.

    No BBC report on these subjects can now be trusted (if it ever could).