Truly remarkable. Some of the cash from the BBC’s Children in Need charity may have been used to fund the propaganda activities of the suicide bombers who killed 52 people in July 2005. Who say so? The BBC!
According to BBC 2’s Newsnight £20,000 from Children in Need was handed over to the Leeds Community School, in Beeston, Yorkshire between 1999 and 2002. The school, which also received large sums from other public bodies, was run from premises behind the Iqra Islamic bookshop which the gang used as a meeting place and an opportunity to radicalise others. One former worker described those that attended the bookshop as a kind of “brotherhood.” Both Mohammed Sidique Khan, the leader of the bombers, and Shehzad Tanweer, the Aldgate bomber, were trustees of the bookshop and Sidique Khan also worked for a Saturday club at the associated Leeds Community School. Sidique Khan ran outward bound adventure courses in north Wales which were used to recruit and radicalise young Muslim men. Both the bookshop and the school were registered charities – the bookshop claimed, on Charity Commission submissions, that its aim was “the advancement of the Islamic faith”, while the school’s aim was said to be to “advance the education…of Pakistani and Bangladeshi” pupils. They handed out DVDs and books about Bosnia and Chechnya and held Arabic classes in a back room, attended by Jermaine Lindsay, who went on to become the Kings Cross bomber. They also produced a leaflet in the wake of September 11 blaming the attacks on a Jewish conspiracy.
The reaction by the Chief Executive of the BBC Charity to these serious charges is hardly inspiring when he says that the BBC exercises the utmost care in handing over these “small” sums of money. What do you feel about this? I know the BBC is bad but I never thought it may have actually FUNDED Jihad!!!
i’ve always had a hunch that “children in need” was creepy and evil..
now i know my hunch was right.
.
The People’s Cube were onto this one some time ago:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=806
The whole idea of the BBC running self-promotional charity events is ludicrous, especially when you consider they pay Jonathan Ross £6 million per year to make feeble masturbatory jokes.
If the government made me pay it £140 for the right to use a TV and gave all that cash straight to Oxfam and other worthy charities I wouldn’t be so opposed to the licence fee. That the government charges me £140 per year for the right to use a TV and then wastes it making utter trash like Eastenders, Casualty, Celebrity Cash in the Attic and Top Gear is quite another matter.
Poor research by the CiN accountants is hardly the BBC funding Jihad. Pathetic post, really. Just throw the bookshop owners in jail and/or demand the money back so CiN can give it to a less, er, murderous recipient.
It’s hardly the first charity to make this mistake. Didn’t Geldolf’s various African endeavours result in a bunch of warlords and corrupt government officials getting richer while the people it was supposed to help remained starving?
Sorry, but this isn’t anything to do with BBC bias.
The only debate really is whether the BBC should be running such an event whilst existing as a public service broadcaster.
Devil’s Advocate,
Saint Bob’s endeavours may indeed have aided African warlords but last time I checked they weren’t behind the bombing of the London Underground.
The fact that the State Broadcaster has used it privileged position to raise funds which may have gone towards providing assistance to the 7/7 bombers IS relevant. Death on the license fee? Perhaps that is also your point but I do not consider it “pathetic” to raise the topic. I do, however, consider the BBC to be pathetic.
As I mentioned in the general thread, there should be a public inquiry into the BBC and their support for Muslim terrorism.
It isn’t just Children in Need. W have “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” (and a fucking terrorist)
Then the BBC tried to destory Channel 4 over the excellent Undercover Mosque.
There are endless BBC programmes involving camp/gay men in Phil Shiner glasses defending Muslim terrorists.
The time has come to slit the throat of the BBC.
The time has come to slit the throat of the BBC.
Martin | 21.08.08 – 11:17 pm | #
In front of a live camera? True bad Muslim style?
Hey, lefties have been funding sub-human radical scum for decades. Who do you think funded and armed the Black Panthers back in the early 70’s?
That loathsome media
the very worst of the breed is exemplified by the political correspondent, one such being Jo Coburn who works for the equally repulsive Beeb.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/08/that-loathsome-media.html
Sorry to post here but the open thread is miles away.
The view from Offcom
“Quality TV could disappear from our screens”
Any new PSB model needs a strong and confident BBC at its centre.
What hope is there?
……….and the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/22/do2202.xml
There is no way that CiN would have intentionally funded any terrorism related activities.
Therefore if the money was used in that way, then CiN and/or the Charity Commission would have been the victims of fraud.
Let’s not forget who was in the wrong here.
Also, let’s not forget which news organisation revealed this story.
“There is no way that CiN would have intentionally funded any terrorism related activities. MisterMinit | 22.08.08 – 1:11 am”
But the issue is how detailed to these organisations need to be in their applications for funding? BBC children in Need / Comic Relief have been crying out to give money to minority groups for years. Do such groups need to provide detailed accounts of where every penny goes? I doubt it very much.
In addition to that, what happened to the 7/7 bombers gym being funded by charity money. It looks like they were living the life of Larry prior to murdering the infidels. Lucky for some, but it’s not so easy when you are a lifeboat crew looking for some dosh to save people’s lives.
MisterMinit writes: “There is no way that CiN would have intentionally funded any terrorism related activities.”
Would you just clarify your qualifications for making that statement?
Devil’s advocate,
You miss the point.
Of course it was not deliberate. That would be truly criminal.
It was a mistake arising from the bias that clouds the BBC’s judgment.
.
20 grand is a ‘small sum’ is it ? that’s 75% of what we paid for our first house.
Didn’t seem like a ‘small sum’ to us, but then me and the missis are working class, not coddled public sector employees living off non-jobs in London.
These idiots haven’t got a clue.
Children in Need is a farce, follow the money, it supports every transgendered lesbian community outreach peace initiative for Somali asylum seekers type project going.
While the docile British public are conned into handing over money to annoying fat birds going round the pubs in fancy dress, in the belief that the money will actually be spent on cute British teddy bears with eye injuries.
Rope, Tree, Beeboid – some assembly required
For the education od Bangladeshi and Pakistani children ?
If a charity that wanted to educate christians only or British children only would the BBC have given them any money.
The lottery people would have turned them down for being not ‘inclusive’ enough.
David Vance says I know the BBC is bad but I never thought it may have actually FUNDED Jihad!!!.
It is of course not the BBC that funds it but the mugs who donate to the charity. However I have to say there is enormous pressure to contribute – for instance my children’s nursery had a “Children in Need Day” to which it is virtually impossible not to contribute. So I guess I’m amongst the mugs.
Political correctness would prevent the Trustees of the charity from ever questioning just what “the advancement of the Islamic faith” might involve.
The BBC funding jihad , its no suprise to me at all , i have never liked the concept of lenny henry pleading for us to give to african governments to but arms oh er sorry school equipment , stand pipes etc .
Did the 7/7 bombers call their attack operation pudsey ?
Weel said MisterMinit, its rare that anyone here ever speaks any sense.
‘Sidique Khan also worked for a Saturday club at the associated Leeds Community School. Sidique Khan ran outward bound adventure courses’
It’s going to be difficult for anyone to know that he’s also showing Jihadi videos to the kids. (Just as no one was aware he was planning to blow himself up) It raises questions for the charity and for the charity commission.
Newsnight broke this story as I posted previously. David knows these insinuations are nonsense, so why be so dishonest about it? I guess you’re just blinded by your irrational hate.
Billy Joel | Homepage | 22.08.08 – 10:46 am
Anat (posting from far away Israel) has a clearer grasp of the issue here than you do • presumably from inside BBC HQ.
This group should never have got the money in the first place.
If any of the regular posters on this blog had been sitting on the committee that doles out the money, then alarm bells would have gone off: does this group encourage Muslim seperatism? Are they connected with any extremists • Hizb/Muhajiroun/Jamat-i-Islami/Tablighi etc. ? Checks would have been made.
But the beeboids just said “Muslim youth • no problem”. That’s precisely what all (or at least much) of the fuss is about here.
It’s not deliberate but (as the great man said) it’s visceral.
just when you think Al Beeb couldnt get any more repulsive than it already is, wham, along comes this
if we had sharia here, how many beeboid hands would the religeon of peace chop off?
reprehensible beeboid scumbags
MisterMinit, Joel
I’d love to know what your attitude would be if, say, Republican funds had “inadvertently” been directed towards the 9/11 bombers?
As you well know, the BBC would be all over it, relentlessly making political capital over it, and claiming it demonstrated that the Republicans were unfit to govern.
And I’m willing to wager that you would be right behind them.
Sorry, however inadvertent this was, the BBC has to take responsibility and have a serious look at why this was allowed to happen.
Your points are whitewash.
“But the beeboids just said “Muslim youth • no problem”. That’s precisely what all (or at least much) of the fuss is about here.”
PaulS | 22.08.08 – 11:33 am | #
What exactly are you basing this on, other than a presupposition that they weren’t given a grant based upon the merit of their application?
The time has come to slit the throat of the BBC.
Martin | 21.08.08 – 11:17 pm | #
In front of a live camera? True bad Muslim style?
gunnar | 21.08.08 – 11:58 pm | #
Yeah – the BBC has to be slaughtered in the ritual way known as Zibah.
Hmmmmm…. I’m wondering if the Beeobids in this thread would be equally understanding should the police lose two handguns left in an unlocked car? Surely that would be covered by the left’s new ‘no criticism without proof of intent’ rule, no? Ditto, accidental discharges from Sellafield – or does the whole ‘duty of care’ thing apply everywhere except one particular lavishly-funded organisation?
The BBC should call that teddy bear with the eye patch Mohammed.
Did Al Franken run the charity for the BBC?
/american joke
Amazing thread, thank you.
Heron: “I’d love to know what your attitude would be if, say, Republican funds had “inadvertently” been directed towards the 9/11 bombers?”
If the Republican Party had funded a charity linked to the 9/11 bombers I would have said exactly what I said here. There is no way the Republican Party would have intentionally funded terrorism related activities.
“As you well know, the BBC would be all over it, relentlessly making political capital over it, and claiming it demonstrated that the Republicans were unfit to govern.”
Not sure if I agree about the political capital part, but I’m sure it would get a mention (could you name a news organisation that wouldn’t run that story?). Don’t forget that in this instance, the BBC revealed this whole story. If it wasn’t for that Newsnight report, would we know about this?
Is no-one here going to give them any credit for doing that?
Me: “There is no way that CiN would have intentionally funded any terrorism related activities.”
GCooper: “Would you just clarify your qualifications for making that statement?”
If I’m being honest, faith. I have faith in that charity not to deliberately fund any other charity that performed illegal activities of any kind. Do you have any reason to suggest my faith is misplaced?
“Do you have any reason to suggest my faith is misplaced?”
Plenty. The BBC doen’t even believe in such a thing as “Islamic terrorism”, so handing money out to such terrorists would not even register as such. The BBC is on record as making chummy, back-slapping documentaries about Muslim associates of convicted Islamic terrorists – and refusing to inform the police about it. The BBC has refused to make dramas about muslim terrorism in case they appear “islamophobic”. The BBC criticised Channel 4 (NOT the supporters of muslim terrorism. note) over ‘Undercover Mosque’. The BBC never ceases to publish stories and make programmes presenting Islam in an overly-positive light. The BBC refuses to identify suspected terrorists as “Muslim” when every other news service does. The BBC has admitted it covers up muslim terrorism for the sake of ‘social cohesion’. And this is just scratching the surface
Bob
And it is Channel 4, not the BBC, that continues investigations of the preaching of extremism and jihad in mosques :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/22/channel4.islam/print
Bob: With so many homosexuals in the BBC you’d think they’d be against a religion that would string them all up tomorrow?
Bob:
“The BBC doen’t even believe in such a thing as “Islamic terrorism”, so handing money out to such terrorists would not even register as such.”
What was that Newsnight report about then?
“The BBC is on record as making chummy, back-slapping documentaries about Muslim associates of convicted Islamic terrorists – and refusing to inform the police about it.”
Were these connections known to the BBC at the time of filming? I can’t think of any excuse for not informing the police though.
“The BBC criticised Channel 4 (NOT the supporters of muslim terrorism. note) over ‘Undercover Mosque’.”
Show me this criticism.
“The BBC has refused to make dramas about muslim terrorism in case they appear “islamophobic”.”
I have seen dramas about Islamic terrorism (Spooks for one). I agree that they are over-sensitive towards Muslims (especially when compared to Christians), but I don’t think this is limited to the BBC.
I’m very interested in this point: “The BBC has admitted it covers up muslim terrorism for the sake of ‘social cohesion’.” When have they done this?
But on to what I said about CiN – I see none of these points you make concern the conduct of CiN and how their funds are spent.
Critical discussion on the BBC is a good thing, but let’s keep things in perspective here.
MM:
I’m pleased you agree the BBC is “over sensitive”, as you put it, towards Muslims. The ‘Don’t panic I’m Islamic’ is a matter of public record – check the trial reports of the 3 “documentary stars”, up for preparing jihad. The producer even went on to work for Al-Jazeera as I remember. Other posters provided numerous links to the BBC’s treatment of Channel 4 being “investigated” for Undercover Mosque. The “social cohesion” policy was admitted on this site by “John Reith” in the days when he used to spin for his masters. As for admitting to this CiN thing – it’s clear the BBC is merely covering its back.
“Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/22/channel4.islam/print
yup. we certainly do understand what the religion of pieces is all about..
“…Over the summer, Policy Exchange produced the most comprehensive report so far on the extent to which extremist literature is available in British mosques and Islamic institutions. It is called The Hijacking of British Islam.
Muslim undercover researchers visited nearly 100 mosques. In 26 of them, they found extremist material – titles such as Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell (for answering their husbands back), virulent insults of Jews and homosexuals, puritanical attacks on moderate Muslims, calls for the complete rejection of Western society etc.
It was a big story, and as I shall make clear, none of Newsnight’s claims this week has diminished its dimensions.
The report made the front page of many newspapers, including this one. It was extensively covered everywhere – everywhere except for the entire national output of the BBC…”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/15/do1501.xml
Actually, Martin, I believe the bbc DID cover that story – but (surprise surprise, can you guess?) their angle was that Policy Exchange had falsified their receipts, and we should give the murderous islamic filth the benefit of the doubt!
Here is some information that might enlighten you ignorami:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/12/newsnight_response_to_policy_exchange_statement.html
Martin, if you want to hate all Muslims because you’re a ignorant little cretin with low self-esteem that’s fine but it’s got bugger all to do with the BBC.