Just another lively night in Grenoble according to the Beeb website….an armed gang robbed the local casino, police chased them, one of the robbers fired back and wounded an officer. The French police, instead of assembling a team of negotiators and counsellors, shot him dead.
Parts of the city then erupted in riots as “protestors” demonstrated against police brutality.
At first sight his sounds a little strange – is Grenoble the headquarters of the French mafia? Is every other local a gangster?
But then the BBC drops a clue. The dead robber’s name was Karim Boudouba who, it seems, has three previous convictions for armed robbery. Naturally he now becomes Mr Bourdouba – and you know the the Beeb is salivating…..
Mr Boudouda, 27, had three previous convictions for armed robbery.
………..
The riot erupted after a memorial service for Mr Boudouda.
Don’t mess with la police française. Simple.
I’ve lived in France and felt safe as houses walking home through the back streets of Paris late at night. It works having a lot of police, who don’t mess around.
so how come thew police themselves have decalred many “no-go” areas ?
It appears the bBC doesn’t even tell half the story here. You know such as;
1) A police office was wounded in the shooting
2) The car chase lasted over an hour (Rules out them just shooting anybody)
3) The riots only kicked off Karims funeral and how 30 thugs decided to smash up a tram with baseball bats.
4) During the rioting shots were fired at the Police.
I mean if Al Jezzera can report the full story why can’t the bBC
Even the Daily mail does a better job
No doubt the bBC will be handing out free mobiles to the locals in which to get them to ring in with their version of events. You know like finding Karims long lost brother in darkest Algeria and asking him what he thinks about the French police.
Hight spirited “youths”. Nothing to see, move along and please don’t mention the M word…
Do the BBC have rules about when to call someone Mister and when to drop the honourific?
How many more times will the BBC find an excuse to have a debate on the wearing of the burqha on one of their Sunday morning discussion shows?
Today it was “can the burqha be liberating” on Sunday Morning live.
In the past we have had all permutations of ‘Is banning the burqha an infringement of human rights”, “is wearing the burqha oppressive to women”, “is banning the burqha discriminatory towards a religion”, “is it right for France to ban the burqha”, “is the wearing the burqha a religious symbol”, “is a burqha a threat to security” and “is the burqha in the Koran”.
I am sure they only return to this subject every other week so that they can get some “misunderstood” Muslim woman on, dressed head to toe in black and allow her to promote Islam above all other religions.
Anyone would think that the religion in question was worshipped by some 95% of the British population given the level of coverage it and its followers receive from the BBC.
FFS BBC, give the burqha wearing / banning issue a bloody rest!
Like I said on an earlier thread.
If the frigging BBC is so exercised about “ooman” rights….
Then when are they going to present the Evening News with some Mohammedan in an eyes only, FULL BLACK BURKA.
Why not? That’s logical isn’t it? I suspect even the dopes at Propagandizing House are not that thick.
It will come.
In Broadcasting House this morning as well as the predictable unanimous horror at any mooted banning of the burqa, there was a “discussion” about women clerics in Christianity and Judaism. It could have been (quite) interesting. Unfortunately for interest though, both the interviewees were women, both were fiercly in favour of women clerics and both dismissed any notion that there were reasonable (well “reasonable” within the context of their religions) objections to women clerics. As a matter of interesting broadcasting – let alone impartiality – an opponent (Christian or Jweish) to the idea of women clerics would have been nice. As it is, all you get from Broadcasting House – this and every Sunday – is a continuous liberal drone with the odd squib thrown by Paddy O’Connell at anyone even slightly off-message concerning the BBC consensus.
BTW, as point of information, my Jewish friends tell me that there no such thing as clerical “ordination” in Judaism. In Judaism there is no priestly hieratchy a la the Catholic Church. You are or are not a member of the priestly caste by birth. Even so, this caste’s function died with the destruction of the Temple. A “rabbi” is apparently distinguished by learning, nothing else. That a “rabbi” might hold a certification from his/her synagogue to the effect that he/she is a rabbi has no religious significance but might have some social significance since he/she is licenced and employed by that synagogue to lead its prayers.
Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not have an intermediary between the believer and his God. Accordingly, I – as an unbelieving Christian (!)- would appreciate rather less of Julia Neuberger retailing unidimensional crap about her religion (and everything else). Unfortunately she, Lionel Blue and Rabbi Bayfield – another Jewish cleric whose babble is stamped with the BBC imprimature – are on the speed-dial index at Broadcasting House.
That sums up Broadcasting House and Paddy O’Connell’s role to perfection!
Well said, Umbongo. Actually, a rabbi isn’t required to lead prayers at all. Anybody can do it. The rabbi’s supposed to have enough learning and training (the certificate you mentioned) to be the spiritual leader of a community, nothing more. He’s there for guidance and to keep the congregation’s religious life going. The official “ordination” deal is a modern conceit.
Learning of religious texts has always been highly prized by Jews throughout history (well, as long as the texts have actually existed, anyway). So a rabbi used to be the most respected member of the community. Still is for religious purposes, of course.
As you say, though, a rabbi is not a mediator or conduit to the deity or anything like that. And Judaism existed for well over a thousand years before there was any such thing as a rabbi.
‘Atlas Shrugs’ has (updated) report on Muslim riots in Grenoble, which shows up the pro-Islam political censorship of Islam Not British Broadcasting Corporation (INBBC):
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/muslims-riot-mayhem-in-france.html
re Umbongo’s comments above : should you hear Tony Bayfield on the Beeb – remember he is so far to the left that he alianates many of the Jewish Reform movement.
Talking of Sunday Morning (but to go way OT) another of the subjects was “Is four days of rioting on the streets a price worth paying for parading what you believe in, or is it now time that controversial religious parades were banned?” Two loaded questions for the price of one!
Whatever your take on the issues involved, this programme’s treatment of them was biased. The introductory report featured voices from only one of N. Ireland’s communities and cried out for a right to reply from the Orange Order. That right to reply was granted, but the man from the Orange Order, Rev Martyn Gibson, got very short shrift and was not given a second bite of the cherry – unlike Catholic historian Brian Feeney (of Round Britain Quiz fame), who got two goes (the second to echo yet more condemnation of the Orange Order from Marxist-feminist Bea Campbell).
Rev Gibson spoke (in total) for just 1 minute 4 seconds. So not much of a right to reply.
The burqa lady added a few banalities along the way.
Craig
No surprise there then!
Well bugger me with Raoul Moats Urn , is anyone surprised at the blatant bias and dhimmitude from the BBC. Come on we all know what the agenda is. Alas we have not got any real politicians with the balls to say enough is enough.
I despair for my children.
And back in Britain, and DUDLEY, West Midlands: an update for Islam Not British Broadcasting Corporation (INBBC) -from ‘Atlas Shrugs’:
“The EDL was set up by the State”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/the-edl-was-setup-by-the-state.html