Wonder what you make of this?
A LEGAL battle by the BBC to interview a terror suspect has cost the taxpayer about £100,000 and angered public-spending campaigners. Babar Ahmad, 38, was shown yesterday in prison being questioned by the corporation’s journalists over his fight against extradition to the US. The Ministry of Justice originally rejected an application to interview the British Muslim, who has been detained for nearly eight years. But a High Court judge ruled in favour of the BBC after their lawyers argued the matter was of significant public interest.
I’d much rather watch his execution.
Didn’t see the interview I’m afraid but did the viewing public really need to see and hear him in person? Couldn’t the BBC have just slid a notepad and pen under his cell door along with bread, water and a Bible? Nope, just an expensive publicity gimmick in yet another fawning gesture to placate the Muslim/lefty viewers! The BBC must be really pissing off our American friends and cousins across the pond with their obsession over terrorists/prisoners’ human rights! It’s amazing isn’t it? These fanatics are all bluster and swagger and AK47s, but as soon as they’re caught they all innocent and cry endlessly about human rights abuse because they know what the Americans will do when they get hold of ’em! Send him to America where they can deal with him properly unlike our weak and gutless legal system.
I see the bBC was up to its usual tricks of spreading disinformation as usual as while they were opining about this poor souls uman rights over the past 7 years they conveniently left out that the only reason this prick has been in limbo for that long is down to him and his defence team working every angle going in which to drag this case out.
And did anybody notice how while the bBC cries out from the highest minaret that the men who the Paki twat claims assaulted him (Note as a Brown skinned Ex Muslim, I have every right to call a religious bigoted cunt who wants me dead a Paki Twat.) were acquitted after the police paid out, never mention that, the reason they were acquitted wasn’t because of racism, but because unknown to everybody MI5 has hidden listening devices in Ahmeds house and recordings of the arrest proved without a doubt that the Paki terrorist cunt was lying out of his arse about getting assaulted. Something the f-ing bBC doesn’t mention at all in its biased pro-Islamic terrorist articles about Paki twat Ahmed.
The bBC the traitors in our Midst.
I think Mr Melanie Phillips called it right
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/12/babar-ahmad-victory-freedom-expression
It’s a freedom of expression issue, whatever you think of the man. I certainly think the Taxdodgers Alliance argument from public expense is a red herring
Yes but Jim it’s our money they’re being profligate with here in a time when many young people are having to move back in with theur parents because they can’t afford a mortgage. There is freedom of expression I agree BUT NOT at such an expensive cost to the taxpayer in a time of austerity. His message could have been conveyed just as well via the written word.
No, its the state in this case that is profligate.
1. Is there enough evidence to prosecute him here?
2. If not, there isn’t enough evidence to extradite him.
3. If the UK hasn’t asked for the evidence, then there again is a major problem with the CPS and the government in not prosecuting terrorists (if he is on).
4. Locking someone up for 7 years without trial is equally abhorent.
ie. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I think in this case the BBC has it right.
Fair point!
You know what Jim, I agree 120% with on on the freedom of expression angle.
Yet and a big yet, do you not think the bBC kicked the arse out of rewriting his story so as to present the image of a nice sweet boy whom semtex wouldn’t melt in his mouth. what next from the bBC about this terrorist scumbag that he loves his mother, that he sends money to children at the local bBC mosque. Here’s a question why didn’t the bBC spend as much time on the cases of the two nasty BNP idiots who ran away to the US and who fought (and lost) their extradition back to the UK.
To the bBC those men were quite rightly guilty, but I didn’t see the bBC crying out about how evil it was to return them to the UK.
Freedom of expression! Where is he freedom of expression for those who argue that Muslims have a fully developed system of mendacity when communicating with non-Muslims on subjects that concern Islam or help them weaken opposition to jihad? It is fully documented and involves among other things lying directly, lying by omission and lying by slipping between levels of meaning (known as taqqiya, kitman and tawriya rspectively). It is inconceivable the BBC would ever allow a full and frank discussion of that particular subject, let alone pay £100,000 for the privilege of doing so – and yet familiarity with such doctrines might do a lot to help audiences understand just what approach to take to anything Ahmad might have to say. Did they even bother to mention that claiming to have been tortured is standard operating procedure for captured al quaeda operatives?
“….involves among other things lying directly, lying by omission and lying by slipping between levels of meaning…..” – Yes, the BBC wrote the handbook on those.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/12/babar-ahmad-victory-freedom-expression
(Comments before closing: 4. There’ s some irony there already)
“Terror suspect Babar Ahmad admits fighting in Bosnia in BBC interview.
“A terror suspect fighting extradition to America has admitted ‘taking up arms’ in Bosnia, in a BBC interview that has cost taxpayers at least £100,000. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9188870/Terror-suspect-Babar-Ahmad-admits-fighting-in-Bosnia-in-BBC-interview.html
Of course, INBBC, in its special pleading and colossally expensive interview with its political chum Babar AHMAD, it did not point out that by the tenets of Islam, non-Muslims are not innocent. So the comment from a Muslim about ‘innocence’ should be understood in that light.
On Islam and ‘innocence’ –
For INBBC’s CASCIANI:-
Does INBBC watch its own stuff?
“BBC News Clip – mullah says non-muslims are not innocent ”
From that Telegraph piece:
Why the heck should “audiences” make up their minds?!
It’s a judicial matter.
This just shows how the BBC sees its mission as feeding the public their version of “context”.
“a High Court judge ruled in favour of the BBC after their lawyers argued the matter was of significant public interest.”
‘Why the heck should “audiences” make up their minds?!’
Maybe if he had been accused of burning a copy of the Balen Report things may have been different?
I wonder what Jim’ll ‘think’ on this? Can’t wait.
Is there anybody out there who could NOT predict the script and associated sob stories that the Beeb would rustle up on behalf of their boy?
That being the case then, how the hell does this become news…we KNOW what the BBC will be wanting us to think, and so they will create the narrative to sustain it.
It will get them plaudits from those who they seek to impress…everybodys favourite Persian rug.
Really resent paying for this…and am sick of the BBC telling us all what should matter to us via their news outlets…and what we won`t be needing to hear-because it might be divisive, judgemental, counter-Rusbridger…and therefore TRUTHFUL!
Make the parasites at the BBC do their party pieces in their own time and with their own money…oh, no…wait…it turns out to be ours again does it not?
Shake the buggers down when they leave the studios for the next month and insist on whip rounds or charity appeals to pay for this crap.
Get them out…for Gods sake…get them out and off our backs…
Well said Chris!
Strange how BBC lawyers can argue that this matter was of significant public interest but releasing the Balen report isn’t…
Whoops, sorry… didn’t scroll far enough before posting. Can’t hurt to repeat, eh?
Quite. But are you trying to claim because they haven’t release the Balen report, they should also have suppressed this case?
‘Nick says:
April 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Quite. But are you trying to claim because they haven’t release the Balen report, they should also have suppressed this case?
Not sure if directed at me, but as I was on board anyway, I’ll answer.
No. But it’s a classic BBC (and apologist.. not saying you are, as it’s a worthy question) ‘two-wrongs’ situation which I am afraid on a blog critiquing the BBC’s efforts cuts less ice. Where it gets claimed all debate can only focus on one aspect, depending, as showing up double standards somehow isn’t ‘relevant’. Imagine if a politician being interrogated by a Paxman or Humphrys, instead of engaging in a debate in the round, embracing full context and fielding all questions, suddenly started setting parameters and mandating what can and cannot be brought into the discussion? It may make for a more focussed piece, but isn’t going to happen soon. ‘Thanks for the waffle on whatever, Minister, but as I have got you here, what about the questions being asked of your colleague following accusations (we got from Labour HQ) of him and a goat?’
At least this blog is out of the control of the BBC, so when an apologist turns up and uses the free right to speak their piece, it seems entirely relevant to grab them while in the forum and ask about equally pertinent matters of overall principle in the topic area.
They are not going to answer of course, but it can serve notice to put or shut up, at least banging out only the side of the coin they want discussed.
Now I don’t want to suppress anything, and am happy to keep going… so long as they don’t get to control the ball and pitch to suit their playing style alone.
So, the one posed is a heck of a question… answer the one about Balen being ‘off limits’ without going all FoI exclusively ‘unique’, and the full issue can be thrown in the mix.
Thanks to the BBC’s funding, and lack of accountability, the licence fee payer gets to stump up for legals when they get excited, but also for legals when they are feeling more bashful. That is, at best, a double standard, based on a less than clear appreciation of what is, or isn’t ‘in the public interest’, too often decided upon by a very, very small % of ‘the public’ who see value in pushing some topics whilst suppressing others, usually through reasons of agenda or self-interest.
On this particular case, I see much down to the flaws in our democratic, legal and 4th estate system responsibilities. Truly complicated by the BBC being the ‘national’ broadcaster, with a responsibility to the state and its people.
In this case… why this case? Why not another media group? What would happen in another democratic country (OK, two wrongs again).
What other attempts at state steamrollering have there been that Aunty didn’t see fit to leap to our defence on, like a Chakrabati having a rather selective view on whose human rights are deserving the full force of her outrage (and screen presence), and which… not so much. And, in this case, to what extent are we talking MSM ‘suppression’ vs. not screaming every detail as much as some would like? You can’t play favourites with the law, but again, who has deserved a public voice and not got it from the BBC, because their case didn’t fluff their feathers quite like this one, be it on ratings or human rights PR angst? Like much in law, the terms and ‘interpretations’ are quaint, with ‘public interest’ being determined with very few public knowing about it, and if they did, I suspect caring or being as determined to blow £100k as a passionate few seemed to think was necessary.
Editorial by omission is one of the most pervasive and damaging biases there is. Like CO2 not being a poison, by excluding oxygen if it is all one gets to inhale, the results are every bit as fatal.
The % the BBC emits is by no means representative, or healthy.
Hence, at risk of a ‘two wrongs’, any attempt at pushing only one aspect, and trying to cry foul on full context, needs to be countered.
Not that it has much credibility to many in such matters, the BBC cannot make a song and dance about ‘right to know’ when it clearly has a bunch of stuff it protects itself from public scrutiny upon on the very same basis.
That… is hypocrisy. Easily solved as a point of contention by doing a Ken&Boris. So… are we going to get full disclosure from the BBC? No more ‘moderating’, referalls, House Rules, FoI exclusions?
‘Uniqueness’ has bought a lot of slack, but in insult to injury the bill has been landed on those at the wrong end of it.
That… must change.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/6/save-foi.html
Of course, then you get into when even what you have got has ‘exceptions’.
It’s not in the public interest but it is in the public service (IE: BBC) interest.
Far be it from me to criticise the judiciary but I note that Mr Justice Singh, who was one of the two judges ruling on this, is another of the BBC’s own – or should I say one of the metropolitan left now running this country. He is, of course, one of the many leftie human “rights” graduates of Matrix Chambers infesting the upper reaches of the bar and bench. Matrix Chambers is the well-known set co-established by the wife of the same prime minister who foisted the Human Rights Act on this benighted nation to the undoubted financial advantage of the members of those chambers.
As the article notes Rozenberg had no problems seeking a print interview with a convicted prisoner. OTOH a filmed interview has far more resonance with the public and we all know that a picture is worth a thousand words especially if – as does the BBC – you have an axe to grind. This is not a triumph for “freedom of expression”. We already had that in the pre-judgement established practice. This is a triumph of the human rights lobby, Islamic thugs and their enablers in the media.
Thanks for posting the link to the info concerning the Matrix Chambers. Very interesting and could explain quite a lot.
Let’s just not watch it. Let’s give this programme the lowest ratings of anything the BBBC has aired in it’s entire history. Better still boycott BBBC programmes, altogether. Maybe they just might! get the message.
Public interest is the most abused term in common law. It often means political interest. As in Matrix chambers.
And NIGERIA.
In its headline, INBBC says: “bombs kill many”.
INBBC does not make explicit that this is another Islamic jihad mass murder of Christians.
No doubt INBBC is willing go to great time and expense to do a special programme supporting the Christian victims of this latest Islamic jihad massacre. Only kidding. That’s just for its political chums like Ahmad.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/easter-bomb-attack-near-nigeria-church-murders-at-least-20.html
And INBBC-
“Nigerian car bombs kill many in Kaduna ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17650542
How come the US can extradite a teenager with a PC, but can’t access a dangerous terrorist inciting violence?? Something’s up here!
Wow, wonderful blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is wonderful,
let alone the content!
ROTFLMAO!
Time to reinstate the “Flag” button?
I total agree. I think this blog is does great work in highlight many importunt issue. You style of writing is impressive and clear for all to read. Keep up this works, it is for the good of all, and I shall return for future visits for certain.
My partner and I stumbled over here different web page and
thought I may as well check things out. I like what
I see so i am just following you. Look forward to going
over your web page repeatedly.
If you want to why society is in the mess it is google: cultural marxism and the frankfurt school.