- When David Mills, somewhat-estranged husband of Olympics minister Tessa Jowell, was sentenced to four and a half years in prison by an Italian court, what was the headline those fearless BBC newshounds with their keen nose for a story came up with? Er… “UK lawyer guilty in bribery case”. Bet that one pulled in the punters.
- Freeborn John is thinking of starting a list of awful things caused by Conservatism. His first entry was provided by what the BBC calls the “conservative views” of one Abdurraheem Green. Funnily enough, the preacher himself describes his own views as “radical” rather than conservative:
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green’s advice recently.
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is “part of the solution” to extremism because young people listen to him.
“I surely have said some pretty radical things and maybe even written some radical things in the past,” he told Panorama. “But one thing I have been very consistent on is terrorism, participating in terrorist activities, violent revolution – is not something that I have ever thought was part of the religion of Islam.”
Some senior police officers argue it is vital to work with radicals because they have credibility amongst young British Muslims.
But some moderate scholars warn this is a dangerous road.
Sheikh Musa Admani, imam at London Metropolitan University, says if advice is sought from the radicals, or if they are funded with public money, then “Muslims are going to endorse them as a whole and so there’s the danger”.
All emphases added. It is not clear to me whether Sheik Musa Admani actually used the term radical himself, but the sentence about senior police officers is certainly the wording of the BBC writer. How odd that he or she uses the antithetical terms “conservative” and “radical” almost interchangeably.
Two quick links
Bookmark the permalink.
Now lets see – financial skulduggery and prison sentences – abhorrent comments about personal tragedy – cash for favours – spin – expense fiddling – I bet that dutch MEP would have to be brought here kicking and screaming next time!
BBC has a way with headlines. As in ‘Peer jailed for motorway texting’ headline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm
Thought he’s jailed for causing death by dangerous driving.
hmmm
disagree here DV
several mentions about labour and the:-
“Although we are separated, I have never doubted his innocence
Olympics minister Tessa Jowell
Mr Mills’ estranged wife”
statement in the middle right of the article – pretty UN biased if you ask me.
Cameron,
Not my post!
Who exactly is Natalie and Sue? I’m confused as to how they are contributing to the main postings on this blog and yet regulars here who post all the time have no contributions on the main page?
They are The Quality, the Blogging Elite in the Realm of B-BBC Haloscan…ours is not to question… Let’s hope we don’t have to die, as in the rest of that quote.
Re: Who exactly is Natalie and Sue? I’m confused as to how they are contributing to the main postings on this blog…
The gall this Natalie has. Look at the date.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2002/08/jenin-fantasy-becomes-fact.html
Ratass Shagged | 25.02.09 – 7:13 pm |
You obviously haven’t been here for long, Natalie has been on this site for years. And if you want to contribute to the site why don’t you ask?
max | 25.02.09 – 7:55 pm |
Quite right max. Next he’ll be asking “Who is Laban”?
Lord Ahmed was found to have played no part in the death of the poor young man on the motorway. He has been sentenced because he was using his phone whilst driving (which is an offence in itself) and the judge, quite rightly in my view, is setting an example by sentencing him to prison.
Actually I just want to know why Atlas hasn’t had any of his comments posted on the main page?
Gunter – check the actual BBC news web page – it says that the judge said the texting had no bearing – he was convicted for dangerous driving – he killed someone for Gods sake!
—but only a complete prick texts whilst driving – but driving in the fast lane – in the dark! – wow – what a tool!
Cameron, the Mills/Jowell story was adequate*… but how many people were ever actually moved to read it, with a headline like that? I think a parallel story featuring the Tories would have got a much juicier headline.
Ratass and those who replied, yes, I’ve been here almost since the beginning, though other commitments (and to a certain extent blogging fatigue, although I hope that will be temporary) mean that I post intermittently now. For the same reason I’m not in a position to read enough of the comments to have a view on whether individuals should be elevated to Jedi status.
*Though lacking any mention of the question of why Ms Jowell jointly signed with Mills a document to pay off a loan with the money received, despite saying she did not know anything about him getting it.
Gunter 10:42
Because of Ahmed’s stupidity and negligence, he killed an innocent victim. He is incredibly lucky to get off with a mere 12 weeks. He should have been banged up for 2 years minimum.
I hope the prosecution will appeal the sentence. He just got off because he is a Labour Lord. The whole thing stinks of corruption.
damn right Grant – especially that erroneous BBC headline
Ratass Shagged | 25.02.09 – 7:13 pm
Who exactly is Natalie and Sue?
Natalie and Sue is two separate people known as wimmin. One is Natalie, and the other is me. Strictly speaking we should be in the kitchen, but here we are, bloggin.
‘What right have we got?’ you jape, ‘to post on the main page?’ Good question, as people say when buying some time to think of a convincing answer. But how much time does it take to say Good Question? Not very much I’ll wager. So here we are, back where we started.
Now you know all about Natalie, we’re left with who is Sue.
What, exactly, would you like to know?
That is the sort of judges we seem to get these days, ordinary person would have got 21 months in jail and banned for three years, he gets 12 weeks. The judge can see that there was “no causal” factor? A loon driving down the fast lane in the dark and not looking where he is going, how stupid is that? Corruption writ large.
Hi Grant and LP Gasse ,
Lord Ahmed did not kill anybody, the judge ruuled that. He was found guilty of dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving. You might be confusing the offences, or perhaps you are intentionally trying to imply that he is a murderer. Either way, he is guilty of dangerous driving, and the poor young man who died was drunk. The judge rules that Lord Ahmed’s texting did not contribute to the man’s death. Please get your facts correct.
Sue:
Ratass Shagged | 25.02.09 – 7:13 pm
Who exactly is Natalie and Sue?
Now you know all about Natalie, we’re left with who is Sue.
Sue | 26.02.09 – 10:33 am | #
————————————
Hehe. That reminds me of Quentin Crisp on the bus. When people were coming up to greet him and generally making a fuss of him on a bus in America, one puzzled onlooker demanded, “Who are you?”, to which he replied in his best theatrical manner: “Who, indeed?”
and the poor young man who died was drunk.
Gunter | 26.02.09 – 1:18 pm |
from the times..
The factory worker was standing beside the open driver’s door when he was hit, dying instantly. Tests later showed he had been drinking.
since when has been drinking meant drunk,perhaps you should get your facts correct before slandering a dead person.
Vicky:
good spot. ‘Hi Gunnar’ is quite capable of implying the guy got what he deserved from the islamic extremist text-messager
thanks robert.
Gunter 1:18
Why take the judge’s word for it ? British courts are famously corrupt.
I’m totally confused now— on Jeremy (rabble rouser) Vine yesterday – they kept going on about the texting before the crash being the issue – I’m sure the original BBC report said that the texting had no bearing on the case!?
Hi,
The judge said the texting had no bearing on the death, it’s the people on here who WANT Lord Ahmed to be guilty of murder who are suggesting otherwise. And Hi Vicky, yes he had been drinking, and you don’t think that that could have played a rather large part in his death? Often drink and drive do you? The judge ruled that Lord Ahmed did not cause his death, and therefore the only reasonable explanation is that the man was drunk. I am not saying he ‘got what he deserved’, I am simply pointing out that Ahmed did not kill him, as has been suggested on this site.
Well i am sure that he was convicted of dangerous driving – but not death by dangerous driving — but someone died as a result of him crashing into a stationary car. You figure that out.
If a driver cannot avoid a stationary object ahead because he is driving so fast, not allowing the requisite stopping distance, – which appears to have been the case – it may not be possible to prove that was the sole cause of the man’s death – drinking by the victim was obviously a contributory .
But Lord Ahmed killed that guy, most definitely had been driving dangerously a little earlier, and deserves all he got. More, IMHO.
Gunter | 27.02.09 – 11:09 am |
and therefore the only reasonable explanation is that the man was drunk
i think it would be reasonable if the judge had said the man was drunk,he did’nt,you lose.