“The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist” in order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”. Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight. A judge ruled this week that the Muslim preacher, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, should be released from a British jail, angering ministers and MPs. Adding to the row, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, yesterday insisted that Qatada “has not committed any crime” and said his release has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.
Meanwhile in the gravity based community a British court has called Qatada a “truly dangerous individual” and even his defence team has suggested he poses a “grave risk” to national security. Some might say that by pretending this Jihad preacher is NOT extreme the BBC is a “grave risk” to the Nation.
So is right wing extremists out , to be replaced by right wing radicals ?
Exactly! Boy, have they made a rod for their own backs with this one. So the bbc are to avoid making value judgments, eh? Well, I look forward to this brave new world of bbc reporting. Not holding my breath tho…
So…Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch is no longer to be announced as ‘right-wing’ but should in future be introduced as ‘radically progressive’.
Sounds good to me, for a long time I’ve resented the left reserving the title of ‘progressive’. The idea that incurring generational debt is anything other than selfishness and the antithesis of forward thinking is preposterous. As is the notion that rapidly importing millions of people with radically different cultures to that of the host is the only way to foster a more harmonious and progressive society, but then we all know that was never the real motivation behind this disasterous policy.
‘So the bbc are to avoid making value judgments, eh?’
It’s that old ‘interesting precedent’ thing again. Or, as they call it, ‘unique’.
More ‘avoid unless it suits the narrative’.
Joiningg ‘watertight oversight’ in the lexicon of flexible impartiality applicatiuon, ‘value judgements’ is a guide based more on agenda requirements than anything.
I was just about to make exactly that point grangebank. Plenty of talk about the apparent terrorist threat from right wing “extremists” the other day.
Is this why at 0930 this morning on Radio 2 (In my office we don’t a DAB radio) hence radio 2, they came out with an Islamic prayer for the day. I kid you not. An Islamic prayer. Mind you had to give it to Chris Evan when the silly bitch stopped opining for Allah, he came out with a Black Sabbath quip.
Nice of the bBC to promote the relgion of peace as…peaceful.
Found it, 2.53 30 on Iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01blgk8/The_Chris_Evans_Breakfast_Show_Ewan_McGregors_brother_Colin_joins_us_on_the_phone!/
The irony the silly bitch talks not been able to hear music or your loved ones cheek. Well my dear you can get that wish under Islam, no muslic , no touching , oh and I was wrong it wasn’t Black sabbath it was led Zeppelin.
Bloody hell, this really makes my blood seriously boil! What the hell is the BBC doing quoting anything from this religion after all of the hassle it’s brought to this country? Muslims only reprsent a tiny tiny (but ever growing) fraction of this nation’s composition but they get way over the quota of their airplay. The BBC is an Islamic sympathiser whereas it is hell bent on destroying Christianity and thus the very base on which this society is based.
PS Did anyone see BBC Breakfast this morning? Did you see that silly middle class woman Sharn Williams skim over the Telegraph headline about the BBC refusing to use the word extremist? Pathetic!
The classic liberal refusal to discriminate. That is the number one crime in their world view. Beats murder, rape or anything else.
More interestingly it shows that the BBC has really taken “1984” to heart. As an instruction manual in the use of language.
How can anyone take this pathetic organisation seriously any more?
Not allowed to suggest he’s overweight? What’s he going to do, issue a FATwa?
That made me chuckle.
Meanwhile open season on Adele I’d hazard, as she appears not to be a purveyour of the ‘correct’ political thoughts.
‘Hi, Karl, it’s Tristram. Look love, we have a slot on nhe Breakfast Sofa, Vine Show and Newsnight if you’d like to trash that Tory singer again. No probs on that here. It’s after slot on us being beastly to poor old radicals and warmongering Island defenders. Call me!”
The left wing of this country are so eager to protect the human rights of others that they forget about their own and all of those who subsidise their existence. I’m just waiting for him to turn up as a BBC newsreader; wouldn’t be surprised. But in all seriousness, why are the BBC so bloody obssessed with Muslims, minority groups and ethnic minorities? Every time we turn on the news it’s either Arab uprisings, ethnic minorities, multiculturalism, Muslims being oppressed, oppressed ethnic minorities protesting in London over some injustice, gay marriage, Blacks being bullied in London, right wing extremism, John Terry being racist etc etc etc. I am sick of it, you here me, I am sick of it; we hardly ever, for example, hear about ethnic cleansing of Christians by Muslims around the world, or Asian, Black, or Eastern European racist crimes in our cities, well hardly ever anyway. The BBC will surely go down in history as traitorous and anti-British and one of the deciding factors in the downfall of the United Kingdom. I watch RT.com myself nowadays; what a state of affairs when one has to watch news from the Russians at an attempt to get some modicum of balance!
“Radical NAZI, Herman Goering should be freed from jail because he has been held too long, his lawyer told a bail hearing.
Ed Fitzgerald QC told the Special Immigration Appeals Commission: “There comes a time when it’s just too long, however grave the risks.”
Home Office lawyers oppose attempts to bail him while he fights deportation.
The European Court of Human Rights says if he were deported Isreal might use evidence obtained by torture. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16904749
The BBC sees threats where there are none and ignores real threats. i am sick to death of the BBC supposedly hiding behind”valued judgement” statements. The have constantly attacked bankers for “fat cat” salaries (no valued judgements there), they have labelled people “sceptics and deniers” for not taking their green propaganda (no value judgements there), they have attcked people like Palin constantly with character asasinations ( no valued judgements there). Who is making the decision? The Trust or Patten? Or is it some left wing weirdo who spends his spare time smoking pot.
This extremist is a Jordanian national, he has no right to be here, but because of our ridiculous immigration system, being here illegally is not a crime. I wonder how the French would deal with him?
“France Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said that “13,000 undocumented immigrants have been expelled in eight months,” and he is now committed to sending 10,000 more illegal foreigners home before the end of 2005, reported the Moroccan daily Assabah on Tuesday.
He urged the police authorities to work hard to meet this goal.
In a meeting with police officials, Sarkozy said that “France managed to expel 12,842 by the end of August,” adding that “so far, we have succeeded in achieving 56% of the hoped-for total of 23,000,”
In 2004, France expelled 18,000 foreigners.
Sarkozy has refused all the attempts made by different humanitarian associations and communities, explaining that “the European Court of Human Rights does not allow people to live wherever they like,” added the Moroccan daily.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/09/france-expels-13000-illegal-immigrants.html
I expect they would just go ahead and kick him out. But Britain is lead by weak politicians who are scared more of what the BBC will say rather than their masters the British public.
Beeboids propagandise their political value judgements with every political report, including their diktat above.
Is there any Beeboid who has undergone the experience of Mr Bell in the following article on reporting Islam?:
The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam
Maybe the BBC should tell Jorn Madslien their corraspondent in Norway not to use “valued judgements”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260195
Or Dominic Casciani who seems to think that the world “extremist” is OK sometimes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16900108
Or this unkown reporter who uses “valued judgements” to describe some “radicals” in Germany
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16622030
And Lucy Ash seems to think that people can be described as “extremists” in Greece.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0146bm8/Generation_E_Greeces_Farright_Extremists/
The BBC is lying – it makes valued judgements all the time. In fact they are making a valued judgement by refering to this dangerous cretin as a “radical”.
”The BBC is lying ‘
Usually indicated by the red glowing dot on any peice of kit capable of receiving a broadcast signal.
Nice fisking on the value judgements precedent.
Notice the cherry vultures have hunkered down for a while ’til this one blows past?
An alternative political value judgement to that of INBBC:
“The rest of the world must shake its head and laugh as we bend over backwards to make allowances for terrorists ”
By James Slack
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2097322/Abu-Qatada-The-world-laugh-UK-bends-backwards-terrorists.html#ixzz1lk0WEsik
Cameron should grow some balls and challenge them.
He should but he is not really a leader. He is a corporate PR man who must not get any bad press from the BBC otherwise he thinks it might harm the image of his Blairatism party.
I noted a few days ago that anybody searching the BBC website with the term ‘Islamic Terrorism’, the results are quite benign, as the picture below shows.
I see the BBC says about the decision regarding Abu Qatada
A BBC spokesman said: “We think very carefully about the language we use. We do not ban words – the notes are a reflection of a live editorial discussion about how to report the latest developments on this story.”
Where the ‘how to’ has nothing to do with truth or accuracy, just what best fits the BBC agenda. Seems to me they want to keep their website free of anything that smacks too much of Islamic or Muslim terrorism or Extremism, despite the reality.
The religion of peace and thin people.
A BBC spokesman said: “We think very carefully about the language we use. We do not ban words – the notes are a reflection of a live editorial discussion about how to report the latest developments on this story.”
I’d suggest that the BBC bans quite a lot, if the complaints and twitter blocks we see shared here are any guide.
That para is… bollux.
“We think very carefully about the language we use.”
That’s the BBC for you, putting the slim into Muslim.
Why do I think we’ll soon be seeing it written by the BBC as Islim?
I take it that his mail will be checked for any explosive content? It would be a grave indictment of the police, almost amounting to islamophobia, should he be blown up on his own doorstep. Inshallah.
According to a Home Office dossier, between 1995 and 1999 Qatada used his base at the Four Feathers Social Club in Baker Street, central London to issue a series of influential fatwas [religious rulings] which supported the killing of non-believers. Among those he influenced were Mohammed Atta, one of the ring-leaders of the September 11 hijackers, who had a number of Qatada’s videos in his Hamburg flat. It is also said that he advised Rachid Ramda, jailed in France for financing the bombing of the Paris Metro in 1995 and Djamel Beghal an Algerian linked to Finsbury Park mosque, jailed in France for plotting to blow up the American embassy in Paris. He is also said to be a close associate of the Algerian Abu Doha, who was arrested in Britain in 2001 in connection with a planned attack on Los Angeles airport. The Spanish claim he is an associate of Abu Dahdah, who ran a network of safe-houses for terrorists in Spain. The groups who asked for his guidance are thought to include al-Qa’eda, Islamic Jihad in Egypt, the GIA and GSPC in Algeria and other groups in Iraq, Indonesia, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. It is said he was the “spiritual leader” of the al-Tawhid movement, which was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who went on to be the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. MI5 believe that Qatada avoided being drawn into the al-Qa’eda structure in order to maintain his independence and continue his activities in Britain but he did have links to the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, whom he met in Afghanistan, and who is now the leader of al-Qaeda. He went into hiding in December 2001, three months after the September 11 attacks, as the Government prepared to introduce a new Anti-terrorism Act which allowed the detention of foreign nationals deemed to be a threat to national security.
Yup, the BBC is right. He is “radical” alright!
‘Jihadwatch’:
“BBC directive: Don’t make Osama’s right-hand man in Europe look fat”
[Excerpt]:
“How clueless and compromised is the mainstream media?
This clueless and compromised:
‘BBC tells its staff: don’t call Qatada extremist,’
by Neil Midgley and James Kirkup in the Telegraph,
(thanks to Pamela Geller)”
BBC’s poster kids: Does my offensive and dangerous advocacy look more benign on this?
“Will hate preacher Hamza be set free next? Qatada ruling could open door after his appeal to Europe over human rights.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097943/Abu-Qatada-released-Will-hate-preacher-Hamza-set-free-next.html#ixzz1lmZ8Uhul
The next Islam Not BBC (INBBC) political diktat?:-
‘Don’t show Mr Hamza as having unusual appendage to his right hand, and don’t mention what it is the result of. And don’t mention the jihad.’
OK B-BBC I won’t call him fat how about =
over boned ,obesity slim ,dimensionally spacious ,gravitationally weighty, or the ever green and comically edgy bbc3 type ‘wide load’!
But my personal fave is ‘lunatic hater with a eating problem who should be deported from a plane at about 10,000 ft over some welcoming and non naughty torture practising desert’*
* note can also be used on Prescott’s !
The BBC is quite correct to avoid the ‘extremist’ tag and it should avoid the word ‘radical’, too.
Abu Qatada, like Anwar al-Awlaki, Raed Salah and Haitham al-Haddad are Islamic clerics who all garner respect in various constituencies of the Muslim population here and abroad.
Their styles and rhetoric may differ and, to use British media-speak, they may have ‘different interpretations of Islam’ but what, fundamentally differentiates Qatada from, say, al Haddad?
To my eyes, both are stinking, Jew-hating, misogynistic, homophobic, backward-looking bigots but one, Qatada, is regarded as ‘dangerous’ while the other is feted at Islamic centres and universities throughouth Britain.
In other words, the adjectives such as ‘dangerous’ or ‘radical’ are utterly superfluous.
This is a truly bizarre waste of time by BBC managers if it is true.
The definition of extremist (noun) is: A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.
‘extreme’ (adjective): of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average
The definition of Radical (adjective) Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
The definition of Radical as a noun: A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform.
To be utterly pedantic, it could be argued that describing Qatada as a radical is actually more of ‘a value judgement’ than calling him an extremist.
In other words, to refer to him as “a person who advocates complete political reform relating to the fundamental nature of something (Islam)” is rather damning in terms of the new BBC crime “value judgement”. It implicates Islam in general as desirous of imposing political or social reform. (Which the BBC would prefer the public not to worry their pretty little heads about)
Calling him an extremist on the other hand, means he advocates taking extreme action; it emphasises that he is “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average” which pans out as less insulting to Islam in general, implying, as it does, that he is the exception to the rule.
Since he has already been convicted in Jordan of instigating terrorism, calling him an extremist should be acceptable to those at the BBC who are engaged in the business of distancing Islam as a whole from terrorism( by re-branding Islamic-inspired terrorism with the acronym ‘AQ terrorism’.
However, the issue of ‘value judgement’ as opposed to ‘impartiality’ is another matter. When did “value judgement” become a BBC crime?
Impartial, definition: “free from favouritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules; “
“free from undue bias or preconceived opinions; “an unprejudiced appraisal of the pros and cons”; “the impartial eye of a scientist”.
Impartiality doesn’t mean completely dispensing with established norms. It doesn’t mean having an obligation to treat good and evil dispassionately.
It doesn’t necessarily mean our famous tolerance has to embrace the intolerant, and loving thine enemy doesn’t necessarily mean you have to let him trample all over you.
I can hardly believe Ken Clarke is still insisting that Qatada must be treated as innocent until proved guilty, but I was interested in his claim that the judge was British.
I see the Telegraph has used a nice ‘thin’ photo.
The BBC should be put on trial for treason (I’m only half joking). What is wrong with them? They’re totally detatched from reality. Is there anything practical we can do? Complaining doesn’t work. Private prosecutions?
You know what the real tragedy is?
That the UK could deport Qatada and others, could have deported them years ago. We are being lied to and deceived on a truly industrial scale, the MSM is not asking the right questions and so the political class feel able to lie like rugs with no consequences.
What?
The ECHR is not a supreme court, its judgements are merely advisory rulings for signatory nations unsure of the legality and legal standing of a case or where there is some doubt about the validity of a judgement. In all matters signatory nations have the right to ignore the ECHR based on their own legal codes.
In plain and simple terms the UK government does not have to accept the judgement and didnt actually need to go to the ECHR in the first place. The ECHR has no legal force other than that which the UK government choose to give it, has no means of enforcing its rulings if member nations choose to ignore or strike down ECHR judgements.
Whaaat?
The UK government freely chose to allow the case of Qatada to go to the ECHR, it didnt have to, there is no mechanism in place to force the UK government to obey guidance rulings. There are thousands of instances where member nations have ignored or struck down ECHR judgements with no consequences.
Are you f*cking gobsmacked yet?
The UK government freely chooses to abide by ECHR advisory judgements, they have the authority and power not only to ignore the ECHR in matters of national security but also the right prevent cases going before the ECHR in the first place, not only that but it has the right to pull out of the ECHR as and when it chooses as no government can bind its successors to a treaty or trans national agreement.
Many other nations have either vetoed cases going before the ECHR or have ignored or struck down advisory judgements and that is what the Qatada case is, a simple advisory judegment handed down to members who WISH to volutarily abide by this decision.
Here is the truth that the MSM is witholding and the government is desperate to keep secret from us, the regime huffs and puffs and plays the outraged virgin all the while hoping that the public dont find out that Qatada is still here and about to be set free because the regime refuses to contradict the ECHR, refuses to place national interests above those of a grotesue treaty made by a previous regime, refuses to acknowledge to the public that they could if they so chose deport Qatada tomorrow. And worst of all refuses to tell the truth.
There are greedy selfish reptiles out there masquarading as lawyers who are making an absolute mint of of the ECHR treaty. These amoral ambulance chasing spivs in association with the regime are fast turning the UK into an ungovernable cess pit where ever more rapacious scum sucking spivs are tying our legal system into a gordian knot of gigantic proportions as they ruthlessly exploit every loophole and legal complexity and every ever more ridiculous human rights laws and rulings. A complete breakdown in the governance of the UK is not that far away and if and when Qatada gets out he is going to be surrounded by a f*cking legion of blood sucking spiv lawyers going after millions in compensation from the regime and the taxpayer will foot the bill.
Can you imagine any other government refusing to deport such a dangerous terrorist? In any other country Qatada would have been on a flight faster that you can say QUISLING LIAR.
Pity some of the ordure currently being thrown at company executives can’t be redirected towards lawyers.
“Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight”
By Douglas Murray
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7635333/ignore-the-european-court-and-deport-abu-qatada-tonight.thtml
The truth is absolutely heartbreaking isnt it? The truth of it is not coming out though, the MSM has by and large simply run with the fake outrage and crocodile tears of a regime that would rather have Qatada here than get a stiff letter from the ECHR. Qatada is here because the regime is allowing him to be here, all the lies and faux outrage cannot hide the fact.
Can you imagine the publics fury if they knew the truth? That it is in fact the government that is keeping Qatada here, that they are in effect helping and assisting Qatada not only stay here but escape justice. It is in fact the regime that has decided freely to allow Qatada to stay in the UK despite the danger he poses and despite the fact he has no right to stay. Qatada will be a massive drain on the UK taxpayer for as long as he lives, he will be a mortal danger to us for as long as he lives.
I cant believe how far and low we have fallen into the gutter led there by a treacherous political caste.
A trilogy of great posts Cassie!
Douglas Murray made it sound so easy the other night…yet the MSM couldn`t bear that-might show that we as a country still ARE worth bombing, as opposed to the snivelling spineless Guardian-lined sewer pipe that the BBC want for us.
Really is about time that Cameron learned that his little stamp of the foot in Brussels is actaully what most of this country want…and the less the BBC and the lawyers like it, the more he`ll win the next election.
Couldn`t be easier could it?
My comment is not about Qatada, but that higher management issued a decree that ALL will abided by. Surely this is bBC in action, showing what we all complain about. Not the occassional presenter or show showing their personal views. But a disciplined approach that must be maintained by all.
‘Daily Mail’:-
“Whose side are they on? BBC tells journalists to stop calling Qatada ‘an extremist’ – and showing pictures of him looking fat (but we can, so here he is!) ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098129/BBC-tells-journalists-avoid-calling-Abu-Qatada-extremist.html#ixzz1loCdNI6c
More and more people are realising the BBC are a pathetic left leaning politically correct pile of poo.
“So what should be done about foreign terrorist suspects and the European Court of Human Rights?”
By Melanie Phillips
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2098300/So-foreign-terrorist-suspects-European-Court-Human-Rights.html#ixzz1loNeC8pC
Just been debating this on the BBC with Mike Mansfield. To be fair, I got my say – namely Qatada should be on next flight to Jordan.