Certain this must be a sweep stake in the BBC news room…how fast will some one notice the deliberate evasiveness?…..
‘Three men from Birmingham have appeared in court accused of plotting to attack members of the English Defence League.
Our correspondent says the defendants, all with dark hair and beards, wore black sweatshirts and trousers as they sat in the dock at Tuesday’s hearing.’
Guess I’ve just won someone a tenner!
Crime aggravated as racially motivated? – Thought not…
The IBBC don’t want to mention the people going to attack the EDL were Muslims. Not because of some political correctness policy. But because they are spineless cowards. We have to pay to fund the IBBC. Makes my blood boil we have to pay for a left-wing propaganda machine.
They have the same response to anything in the police investigations into wrongdoing in the media…
For example, their breaking news:
Two journalists arrested in corrupt payments inquiry
Breaking news
Two journalists have been arrested in south-east London and Kent by detectives investigating corrupt payments to officials.
Officers from Operation Elveden – the Metropolitan Police probe into alleged inappropriate payments to police and public officials – made the arrests.
A 37-year-old man was arrested at his home in Kent and a 34-year-old man arrested in south-east London.
The men are being questioned at police stations in Kent and south-east London.
The part of that story not mentioned? Not a mention of the fact that these journalists worked for the left wing rag, the Mirror. Now if it had been Sun journalists or anyone else from News Corp, then, you can bat that they would have mentioned Murdoch somewhere in there.
Story now updated to include that fact. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18796837 When these stories first break the police don’t say which paper the arrested suspects work for or indeed who they are. So after doing a bit of journalism all these stories are then updated with that sort of information. Usually including the formula “the BBC understands” or similar.
In the BBC news report the EDL were described as a ‘far right’ group. Does that make the alleged terrorists a ‘far left’ group?
No, of course not. In bbc-land the right are “extremists”, whereas the left are “activists”.
The metropolitan police class the EDL as neither “extremists” nor “Far right” under their own systems guidelines……They do however regard the UAF et-al, as both “Extremists” and “far left”……Now who would have reckoned on that, getting their news exclusively from the official state broadcaster?
Yes, one only needs to take a few moments to look at the UAF’s real agenda and what they actually get up to, to see what a vile gang of extremist lunatics they are. Attacking women and children, smashing up public and private property etc.
When the media claim “x amount of arrests at EDL march” a little scratching beneath the surface soon reveals that these are nearly always UAF freaks that are arrested.
Strange how the BBC haven’t dedicated a Panorama special to such a disgusting organisation which follows the most evil ideology ever invented by man.
Hi Earls Court, there is no law that says you have to have a TV license the license is authorized under a (act of parliament) called a statute, statutes are not laws a statute can be repelled by parliament whenever they so chose, they cannot repel (common laws) nobody can.
How do you get out of paying the BBC Tv license. There must be some legal way/ways to do this.
Haven’t paid for at least 10 years, then again haven’t watched telly either, haven’t missed it. Especially not standing up and shouting at the thing in my own house.
Small price to pay to deny these insects 1500 quid, try not to listen to them on the wireless either Its quite enough for me to read what they get up to in these columns.
I agree- don’t watch tv, it really is a waste of your valuable dwindling remaining days on this planet. No tv means no need for a tv license. It is many years since the radio license was abolished so you can listen without fear !
TV!! Blimey! bbc radio already makes my blood boil. I doubt if I could stomach TV as well
Unfortunately, we do need a TV licence even if we don’t own a tv or radio but do have a computer connected to the internet. The fact that we can receive BBC output is enough. I am not saying I agree with this state of affairs because I don’t, I am just saying that is how the BBC and their enforcers see it.
Not strictly true – they can’t prosecute unless they can show it was likely that you did receive live tv as it’s broadcast. The iplayer website even makes a point of this – watching catchup is fine, but you need a license to view the live stuff.
I have no tv and watch iplayer, 4oD, etc on the web (catchup only) – and have no license.
Point of Information. Statutory trumps common law where to the two actually are in conflict. Judges will often do everything reasonable to interpret both statutes and common law so there is no conflict, but sometimes statutes are specifically passed to do away with the subjective nature of some common law decisions…in essence, attempting to bring more stability and consistency to the law.
New Democrat propaganda for Obamacare:
http://www.worldstaruncut.com/uncut/48349
Maybe they were militant folk singers?
LOL, ZZ Top have been at it again.
Ahha! three men (two with beards)…hey, did they conspire to attack an EDL march?
😀
sorry…bit slow
Classic! What arses the BBBC are!
The IBC world service are in orgasmic mode at the moment with news that the rotting corpse of mass murderer and terrorist Yasser Arafat may be exhumed on suspicion that someone had the decency to poison him.
This was the murderer of women and children who croaked with a personal fortune of $2.4 billion and luxury properties all over the world.
Not bad going for an inmate of a ‘concentration camp’ though.
It was Aid’s wot got him in the end. His wife was purely cosmetic PR.
Just remember this the next time the EDL is reported by our beloved state broadcaster.
Can you just imagine the wet dream they’d have if it had been the other way round.
The Magistrates Courts Act 1980 limits to ten points reports of preliminary hearings on offences triable by jury:
Name of the court and names of the magistrates
Names, addresses and occupations of parties and witnesses and ages of the accused and witnesses
Names of counsel and solicitors in the proceedings
Offences with which the accused is charged, or summary of them
Any decision to commit the accused or any of the accused for trial; any decision on the disposal of the case of any accused not commuted
The charge or charges, or a summary of them on which the accused is committed for trial; the court to which he or she is committed
Bail arrangements, including conditions of bail, but not any reasons for opposing or refusing it
Whether legal aid was granted
If proceedings are adjourned, the date and place to which they are adjourned
Any decision of the court to lift or not lift these reporting restrictions.
On top of this the appearance and demeanor of the accused is traditionally included in reports.
Can you spot what the BBC or indeed anyone else can’t report?
I read the BBC report. You are quite correct. Strictly as per guidelines. One problem. Their names. Most of us can put two and two together.
Do you really imagine that if EDL members were charged with a similar offence that the liberal media would not be making assumptions left right and centre? Because I don’t.
I’m at a loss as to why you’d think any reporter would risk a jail term and fine for breaking contempt of court rules whoever is in the dock.
Alan wonders why a particular fact is missing from this report. There’s an extremely good reason. And it’s the same good reason that would apply to anyone else.
A correction to the original post would be nice.
David, do you work for the BBC by the way? Just wondering. 🙂
Sorry, yes. The (BBC) after my name seems to have disappeared, apologies! But any hack would say the same about this post. There’s no mention of the fact Alan wants reported because the law says you can’t discuss anything beyond “the ten points” and appearance of the accused in court. The only “agenda” here is that Alan doesn’t apparently understand the law.
A lone voice of sanity on this blasted heath.
Oops – just declared your own insanity.
It seems to me that it’s the reporting restrictions that are slightly insane. I’m sure they order these things better in America. Naked humus throws general accusations of insanity around a little too often for me to be fully confident in his own personal mental stability.
lol… You must feel a bit like Colonel Custer! Do the BBC read this site/know you are on here?
There was a sort of high point for awareness of this site. There was even an article in in-house mag Ariel. But it’s tailed off since then. As far as I know I’m the only BBC staff member who still posts. Can’t say with any certainty how many read it, I’m sure David could check the IP addresses 😉
Basically I come in “cherry pick” and then strop off when someone upsets me.
But I thought it important to try and get a correction on this particular post. There’s no BBC “agenda” here, just the rigid rules of court reporting.
Well I must say David, you come across as very reasonable and down-to-earth.
PS I think it’s excellent to have a BBC employee on here (formally or informally) to debate with as it keeps the discussion grounded and relevant. You should ask Mr Vance if you could post ‘response articles’ where you have the opportunity to critique the critical assertions! Would be good fun.
David, do the BBC always ask (or are they told/not told) whether reporting restrictions are lifted or not?
The BBC (and other broadcasters etc) will often challenge reporting restrictions. (Indeed at the level of smaller courts and stories it’s the BBC who tend to do this because we have quick access to legal support that many local papers and radio stations no longer have)
But in this case you wouldn’t be challenging reporting restrictions you’d technically be challenging the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. Even if you politely stood up and asked to be able to mention a specific fact about the case you’d get very short shrift.
Thanks David. I concur with Harold about your input…
The EDL can expect zero sympathy from the liberal media. I have never come across a report that is other than dismissive if not downright hostile. Rather counterproductive but there you are. Lack of thought is an all too common trait of liberal commentators.
By the way I did agree with you about the BBC’s report. I just don’t share your belief in the impartiality of our media. Track record really.
It’s all about balance, which the BBC clearly lacks. The fascistic characteristics of the UAF never come under scrutiny, in fact the opposite – whenever they are mentioned it is always in a favourable light. Not surprising really, they tick many of the BBC boxes (left-wing, pro-Islam, pro-immigration etc).
You missed out “Prone to committing acts of violence” – something else the BBC enjoys when it is directed against their “enemies”.
I’m sure if the men had long curly sideburns that would have been reported.
As it is one can only hope the accused aren’t thought to be Hassidic extremists. 😉
Just watched Ed Gove destroy Newsnight’s Gavin Estler over the House Of Lords reform debate… Much better than Mr Slippery… Next Tory Prime Minister?
Gove has proved to be the only remotely real conservative out there.
Next Tory Prime Minister? Possibly but looking good so far.
No way. He looks like too many recessive genes have climbed over the fence. Never in a million years.
They need someone photogenic ‘cos you no’ us dumb ass voters only vote for the purdee.
I despair …
Not all bad news, then – that means Millibean must be out of the running.
Oh yes, but for other more obvious reasons 😉
Cameron will probably find an excuse to sack him. Far too dangerous a rival. Boris Johnson is harmless in comparison.
Michael Gove is hated by the BBC for being a Conservative, for taking on the scond most loved by the BBC public sector sector workers – the teachers, for not having an easy to attack ‘posh’ background and for previously working for Rupert Murdoch.
The BBC will do their beat to ensure that the next Conservative leader is more pliable and has an easy to attack privileged bckground; just like when they promoted the chances of David Cameron over those of Davis Davis.
its about time the real conservatives had a night of the longs against the libdems and all the eton tories.
long knifes
“long knifes”
You will burn in hell for all eternity.
V for vendetta? 🙂
Okay, so how have other news organisations reported this story?
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/10/three-accused-english-defence-league?INTCMP=SRCH
No mention of Muslims.
The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/three-in-court-on-terror-charges-after-firearms-found-in-car-7931635.html?origin=internalSearch
No mention of Muslims.
Sky News
http://news.sky.com/story/958145/trio-remanded-on-terror-charges
No mention of Muslims.
…
and…
The Evening Standard
No mention of Muslims.
The Telegraph
No mention of Muslims.
The Daily Mail
No mention of Muslims.
EPIC FAIL!!!
So Dopey Dez The Dimwit Droid (and also to David ‘Paying More Working Longer’ Gregory)…
You are saying that DV got it wrong on this particular post.
Can we take it, generally speaking, that you are in broad agreement with the articles that you don’t ‘cherry-pick’. And indeed that you are in broad agreement with the basic premise of this website, that the BBC is indeed ‘biased’.
No. They are saying that Alan got it wrong on this particular post.
The BBC NEVER states the Muslim connection. Hiding behind possible court action is pathetic. If the boot was on the other foot, which it never will be, there would be no holding back on the continual BBC/Guardian propaganda. Ultimately civilised people protest, Islam and the Left want extreme punishment on anyone who disagrees with them.
“The BBC NEVER states the Muslim connection.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Muslim%20terrorist
FAIL!
Thank you for the listing.
Is there a link to some paedo muslim child grooming gangs in Rochdale or were they asians.
And looking through the list why would anyone with any sense want to allow any more of these evil scum into the uk
Just saying
Have a feeling you won’t be getting a reply to that one. The trolls’ absence was very noticeable, too, when the shameful Question Time episode was being discussed on here.
How about the colour of muggers, Dopey Dez? BBC ever comment on that? There was a lot of discussion on said subject yesterday. You were inconspicuous by your absence. I would say you were even an EPIC FAIL !!!!
As I’ve said before there’s nothing to stop BBC staff popping in here to discuss the decisions they make. Not for me to speak for others. But on this one, you find me the stats about the ethnic breakdown of street crime in London from the Met and compare that to the choices the BBC made with that picture.
What the fuck are you on about now ?
For those like Henry who wonder what causes BBC staff to not bother posting here. It’s this sort of thing. You politely reply to a post and the response is an expletive.
David, you’re wasting your time trying to reason with these Daily Fail-reading ameoba brains… all they can do is squirt out offensive abuse when confronted with a simple and reasonable request to provide supporting evidence. I’m afraid the only bias one will find here is Right-wing.
We just ask for balance on the BBC, that’s all, to match its ‘impartiality’ claims. What exercises most people on here is the fact they are forced to pay a licence fee to support a bloated organisation with overpaid employees which peddles a blatantly left-wing agenda. The fact that you are so obviously left-wing in your views and defend the BBC avidly only goes to prove the point.
As for ‘amoeba brains’ – well, they seem to get the better of you every time.
“David, you’re wasting your time trying to reason with these Daily Fail-reading ameoba brains… all they can do is squirt out offensive abuse”
deliciously irony…
Or even better, how about matching up the ethnic breakdown of the mugger in question with the picture.
The journalist certainly knows the colour although he makes sure we don’t know. (least he thinks he does).
I am sure the BBC with all their resources has access to the stats. Perhaps you could find out and then we could all make a judgement based on the facts.
Or you could just google. Here’s the Telegraph on the most recent stats with an interesting analysis. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html
Now as the article points out crime stats are particularly difficult to draw widespread conclusions from. But even if we take them at face value then half of street crime in London is committed by black men.
That is of course way out of proportion to the ethnic make-up of London. But if the BBC uses a picture of a white suspect in handcuffs (which I believe was the point of the original discussion) that seems perfectly reasonable. As the stats show white people commit street crime in London too.
David that is beneath you althougth typical of the BBC mindset.
54% of street crime is commited by ‘blacks’ and 46% by ‘whites’. There is no break down in the article of what those two terms mean.
Either way the data is skewed (slightly but still skewed) towards ‘black’ rather than ‘white’ so why show ‘white’?
BTW there is no proven nor statistical correlation between race and street crime. There is a huge correlation between culture and street crime.
As I said crime stats are slippery but that’s all we have. What do you back up your position with?
[from below]
David, the article you posted says its not clear but still punts to the side that ‘black’ men commit more street crime than ‘white’ men.
You posted the ‘evidence’ yourself.
But I re-iterate; its not race its culture. The sooner the BBC gets a grip with that the better.
These are the only stats my (admittedly superficial) surfing has tuned up. But if the Met says street crime is split 54% black vs others in terms of ethnicity then using a picture of a white mugger seems fair enough? And perhaps the most “famous” mugging caught on video doing the riots was a multicultural affair. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15232750
I don’t cover crime that often and certainly not street crime. But I am a stats geek. As we’ve established these stats are pretty slippy. You say “culture” not race is important. The argument being that the culture of young black men leads them to violent crime? That would certainly explain what is clearly a disproportionate number of black perpetrators of street crime. But you could take these stats and argue it’s poverty rather than culture to blame. You’d find just as much of a correlation in the numbers. I think asking the BBC to “get a grip” is thoroughly reasonable. But with slippery stats that’s a really hard job. If you have more facts/stats to back up the culture argument I’m interested to hear it.
David,
To blame poverty for criminality is to blackguard the majority of those who could be classed as poor.
Having dragged myself out of the shit more than once I can tell you that just because you live in shit doesn’t mean you are shit, even if for Labour’s middle class idiots the stench still clings. There are plenty of poor people who would love more than they have and to get it they work, when they can, and they do not thieve. –>
–> I’m astonished that you can think that poor = criminal.
Unless you have fallen into a syllogism. Criminals are poor, criminals steal. Therefore the poor steal? Surely not?
The same logic applies to ‘black’ people. The vast majority of those who have nothing don’t resort to lawlessness to improve their lives. Why on earth anyone would think that was untrue is beyond me.
So what is left but culture? The ‘whites’ as well as the ‘blacks’ involved in street crime are all part of the same sub-culture. It’s a culture that lauds criminality, misogyny and demands respect for their low-life existence. Can you guess which one it is? Well it ain’t Heavy Metal. How many heavy metal muggers are there I wonder? Guess which of the two gets the most air play on the BBC.
As to me proving this, if only I had the time to search out stuff for you. Don’t you have an unpaid intern to do that stuff for you? Actually don’t ask her to do it, she’d think it was a trap.
Try Emile Durkheim if you want a laugh – he’s still taught in Universities today, unbelievably.
Don’t be silly David, or are you just being provocative? If a minority group commit the majority of muggings why show a picture of a white chap being led away in handcuffs? The Beeb are always so desperate to portray minorites as victims, hence the ludicrous amount of air time given over to Stephen Lawrence. Since his murder 18 years ago I’ve lost count of how many young black men have been slaughtered by other young black men. I don’t think that i could name any of them. The Lawrence case gave the left ( and Aunty is very much a part of the left ) the chance to attack the police and to make the rest of us feel guilty by proxy. They have been salivating over this case for nigh on two decades. Dear God, the saintly Mrs Lawrence even popped up at the John Terry trial! Why? And isn’t it insane that anyone should be put on trial for such a pathetic offence?!
I could only find one story so we got it about right.
So the BBC fails as usual!
dez go and do some research without a political agenda. You might find the majority of the UK think that Islam sucks as does my brother David
If people were to storm the beeb buildings, machine-gunning all the employees except one, then I suspect that the survivor would tell viewers that they were massacred by right wing extremists. But I bet if the nationalists dressed up as moslems, the story wouldn’t get a mention……………..heh.
Well we’ve never been machine gunned but we have been bombed. And whatever happened once the case came to court for its first hearing we’d report; the ten points and what the accused were wearing. Because that’s the law.
Then how come the BBC used licence fee payers money to fund Mohammed Hamid aka Osama Bin London the groomer of the 27/7 and then covered it up.
Come to think of it the the BBC fund Richard Dart with Licence Fee payers money?
The BBC don’t half know how to pick em.
As I always say I can’t speak for other members of staff. But the appearance of Mohammed Hamid in “Don’t Panic I’m Islamic” was covered at the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7190323.stm and certainly not covered up. Whether or not we funded the paintballing we filmed I do not know.
I also don’t know if Richard Dart was paid to appear in “My Brother the Islamist” but it would be unusual to pay anyone to appear in a documentary. The full programme is here, it’s well worth a watch if you haven’t seen it.
BBC lets naive bugger who knows nothing about Islam bend over backwards to give a bunch of near psychotics a chance to display their common humanity. BBC would never – and I mean hell would freeze over first – let a respectable critic of Islam who doesn’t swallow any Islam/Islamist dichotomy codswallop give these people the evisceration they deserve while also pointing out that they are just one arm of a pincer movement aimed at sabotaging British liberal democracy. Confused neurotic finds rock to cling to limpet like: gains instant membership of a gang, absolute certainty about everything and an answer to his indecisiveness so comprehensive it tells him how he should wipe his own backside. Hold the front page.
Somewhat off topic – but perhaps not.
Now obviously the sort of people who can convince themselves (in line with their employer’s ideology) that dry weather is due to ‘man-made climate change’ but wet weather is the fault of the ‘jet stream’ are perhaps not to be relied on for their fair and independent thought.
The BBC have done all they can to promote the Olympics. The puff for this event has even encroached into news bulletins.
One part of this painful Olympic overload was a 5 Live show speculating on how many medals ‘team GB’ might win.
This included an awful lot of BBC support and praise for a guy who does Taekwondo.
Now there was much controversasy over who was picked for the GB team.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/taekwondo/9390011/London-2012-Olympics-Aaron-Cook-omission-was-fair-rules-World-Taekwondo-Federation.html
‘(Aaron) Cook claimed that he was cheated out of an Olympic place after the British Olympic Association sanctioned GB Taekwondo’s selection of world No 59 Lutalo Muhammad in his place. ‘
What could it be about Mr Muhammad that has got the Beeboids hearts all a flutter?
Sounds like a case of inclusivity trumping talent. Anyway, nice to see a Muslim partaking in British sport for a change.
First of all, congratulations to David Gregory (BBC) for his courage in coming on here and saying who he works for. Perhaps I should have known who he was in the first place but then there are rather a lot of people at the BBC and who does know them all?
Secondly, I am sure we are all grateful for his clear legal information on the reporting restrictions. Lastly and most importantly, he has done it in a constructive way without the usual insults we receive from folk of a left leaning bias…. well almost. Now, I am not saying that Mr Gregory is of a left leaning bias but it is of course the impression we get from most of the BBC girls and boys, and it is impressions that count isn’t it?
This is what this blog is about our impressions of the BBC and guess what our impressions are that it is biased. Mr Gregory may correct us on a legal point and he may well come on here and correct us on many more, and I am sure we will all be very grateful again but it is not the point.
So Mr Gregory I have a question for you. Why do you think the people who write on this blog and the thousands that now read it, along with the many thousands of comments that are made on other blogs and in the on-line newspaper comments sections feel as we do, that the BBC is biased? Please do not reply with the usual, you are all right wing Daily Mail readers and nut cases affiliated to the EDL, we are not. A considered reply would be appreciated this is a serious problem, the nation’s broadcaster is considered by a growing number of people and MP’s to be politically and socially biased as well as dismissive of their audience, why?
David Gregory has kindly commented on this blog for years – has always been polite and responded when appropriate – he is as far from a troll as it is possible to get and has always been open about his employment. Whilst I don’t always agree with him I have in this post been appreciative of his explanations.
Agreed
I think he is totally wrong on all the Catastrophic Global Warming guff – we had more of the panicky stuff from Roger Harrabin on the Today programme this morning – but otherwise Mr Gregory is welcome here.
The day the BBC give decent airtime to the likes of Richard Linzen, Steve McCintyre and Donna Laframboise to name but three individuals capable of bringing much-needed perspective to the man-made global warming hysteria, without inviting on some shouty AGW fanatic who constantly interrupts, I might, just might, start to believe the BBC is beginning to bring some balance to its broadcasting.
As for Harrabin’s piece this morning – shameful.
I agree too and appreciate Mr Gregory coming on this blog and as an employee of the BBC it would be nice to hear his views on the deeper points rather than on just specific issues, or the legality of them. My question was why does he think the people of this country have this perception of bias from the BBC and why do we feel that the BBC is politically and socially biased as well as dismissive of their audience and indeed not patriotic?
Just to be clear the question is not why is the BBC biased as Mr Gregory would not agree that the BBC is, but why does a growing percentage think that they are? Or is it simply that deep down we just resent being made to pay for one specific media service when there are now so many free alternatives?
We need to understand the thinking before we can as individuals make our minds up because despite the fact that as individuals we can be prosecuted for not paying the TV licence as a nation we can decide, as we did with the poll tax, that we will not pay.
Also, whilst they are not my cup of tea, why are the EDL, the BNP and what they stand for so vilified, they have not committed crimes against the public, whereas the non-indigenous perpetrators of mass murder in this country are striven to be understood, forgiven and given free uninterrupted air time? This is an area of clear bias and does not bode well for the future of free speech in this country.
At least Mr Gregory posts well within the boundaries of respectibility, something which certainly cannot be said for many who dwell within the murky depths of this often outlandish site.
Why do you come on here, then?
…to tout his credentials as a hypocrite.
Outlandish? I suppose that could be construed as a compliment. Those that dwell outside received opinion. The liberal left cannot understand that those who are sceptical of their somewhat idealised view of humanity and it’s foibles may sometimes have a point.
Rather they see them as mad or bad or both. Time and reality will tell.
Maybe the EDL should protest outside Broadcasting House for being Bias towards non Muslims.
Freed Palestinian footballer Sarsak returns to Gaza (note “footballer” is not in ‘quotes’)
What the so-well-informed BBC won’t tell us:
It turns out the soccer player really was a member of Islamic Jihad
Israel accused Sarsak of being active in the violent Islamic Jihad group, a charge he denied while in custody.
However, senior Islamic Jihad officials were present during a welcoming ceremony for him in Gaza City on Tuesday, and one of the group’s leaders, Nafez Azzam, praised the soccer player as “one of our noble members.”
Later Tuesday, as Sarsak approached his family home in the Rafah refugee camp, dozens of Islamic Jihad gunmen fired in the air from SUVs and motorcycles. Women waved black Islamic Jihad banners from nearby homes and streets were decorated with huge photos of the player.
Have a look at this link to a pre-trial appearance in court (albeit in Crown Court, therefore MCA does not apply):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11600072
Count how many allusions there are to the defendant’s religion in this very short piece. In an article that is only 112 words long, I see no fewer than SIX references to the man’s religion – “Catholic priest”, “Fr” [for “Father”], “priest”, “his ministry”, “Most Holy Redeemer Church”, “Catholic clergy”.
Now, contrast that with any BBC report of muslim paedo gangs that you care to mention and try to tell me that the BBC does not have a biased agenda in its new reporting, the bunch of spineless, Islamo-appeasing cowards.
Where’s our dirve-by friend, Ze Big Ol Dickhead? Remeber what he had to say yesterday about BBC bias? – “the accusations are preposterous and completely unfounded and some of the comments are despicable. Not one shred of evidence is provided to back-up the ludicrously inept charges against the BBC”. Blinkered bollocks.
For the clickably-challenged, this is the whole piece referred to above (It’s very short so not really amenable to just an abstract):
“A Catholic priest has appeared in court charged with sexually abusing two boys.
Fr James Martin Donaghy, 52, pleaded not guilty to charges including 13 counts of sexual assault.
He is alleged to have abused one boy between June and August 1983 and the other from May 1994 to December 2001.
The priest, of Lady Wallace Drive in Lisburn, stepped down from his ministry at the Most Holy Redeemer Church, Ballyholme, County Down, in March 2004 after allegations emerged.
He is still regarded as a member of the Catholic clergy.
Prosecution and defence lawyers told Belfast Crown Court numerous applications would be dealt with before the trial date in January next year.”
‘AngusPangus’ – may I politely request that you refer to a dictionary for your next unbridled load of hate-filled bile. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions now, the BBC can only report within the legal confines of an alleged case and no more. When will you understand!?
🙂 🙂
“Ze”, being as I am a lawyer and have been 25 years, I think I’ve probablly got a better understanding of the Magistrates’ Courts Act than you, sunshine. Although I’d be happy to concede that you could have better typing skills, dear.
Perhaps you can point out where I said anything about Alan’s “blackbeard” complaint? I didn’t. I was making a different, but related point. That point was to demonstrate that, IN GENERAL, the BBC often deliberately avoids mentioning religion when the perps and muslim, but deliberately and repeatedly stresses religion when the perp is from “another” creed.
Now, in this context, Alan’s reaction in writing the “blackbeard” piece, although misconceived, is perfectly understandable since it appears to be (although is not) a continuation of the BBC’s demonstrable appeasing apologist approach towards the “Religion of Peace”.
For a bonus point, “Ze”, perhaps you can direct our attention to which section of the Magistrates’ Courts Act would have prevented the BBC mentioning and discussing the defendants’ religion in the Rochdale rape trial?? Good luck with that one.
On a final note, I too, appreciate David Gregory’s contributions to this site.
“dirve-by”/”drive-by” whatever!
I would add to my previous post that there is nothing in the Catholic tradition AFAIK (though I am not hugely familiar with it) which encourages or condones sex with minors. Thus, it can easily be argued that the Catholic paedo priest’s religion is not relevant to the crime, and should not be mentioned.
On the other hand, the Islamic tradition very much encourages sex with minors and the exploitation and subjugation of kaffirs. Thus, it can be easily argued that a muslim paedo gang’s religion is highly relevant to their particular crimes.
And yet the BBC obssesses with reporting religion in crimes where it is not directly relevant, and avoids reporting it where it is directly relevent.
Odd, isn’t it?
Personally I think this article is totally biased against the goth ZZ Top guys who don’t like EDLs music taste. Don’t forget that the one without a beard was called Beard, so 2 of the members being named Mohammed is meant to be ironic.
There’s little point posting about the BBC obeying the law concerning the details it reveals in a report of a court case or an arrest. In any case, any sentient person reading the report noted by Alan will assume (rightly I guess) that the accused are Moslems. The BBC isn’t being deliberately evasive here in that respect. However, the BBC in its news reportage as well as its analysis generally seeks to distinguish – or convey a distinction – between “ordinary” Moslems and “islamic” Moslems. In this report, for instance, the EDL is cited as being “anti-Islamic”. This may be so in that, AFAIAA, the EDL does not describe itself as “anti-Moslem”. If we – or I anyway – wish to highlight the indulgence given to Moslems by the BBC it would be in the general (although not universal) refusal by the BBC to recognise that – for instance, on the basis of opinion polls of the Moslem population in the UK – it appears that the attitudes of those described as “Islamic” is mirrored by a large proportion of the UK’s Moslem population.
Wishing, as the BBC apparently does, to convince its audience that Joe Moslem next door is actually a pearly king in a galabiyya, the reportage and analysis (when it occurs) is always of the “tiny minority” of extremists who give Islam a bad name. The problem here is the “fish in water” analogy. Mao, whatever he was – and he wasn’t a very nice man – knew his terrorism strategy. According to Mao there was no point in having a cadre of activist terrorists without large-scale passive support from the general population of those in whose interest the terrorists supposedly acted. The terrorists must be able to “move among the people like a fish in water”. The tactics of insurgency are well-described here.
The “water” of Islamic extremism in the UK is, unfortunately, the generality of the Moslem population. This isn’t to say that your, or my, Moslem neighbour is waiting to murder us in our beds nor that in their daily lives Moslems are not as honourable, law-abiding, generous and good-humoured as their indigenous neighbours. I’m sure the Catholic supporters of the PIRA were – outside the conflict – as neighbourly as anyone. However, when it came to politics and religion (although the PIRA never claimed to act in the name of Catholicism) their support (active or passive, willing or unwilling) was vital in PIRA’s success (or otherwise). Concerning that support, I would note that the political wing of the PIRA (Sinn Fein) rather than any other non-Unionist party has been voted into government by the (presumably) Catholic portion of the electorate
So with Moslems. Very few actually are terrorists or even “activists”. However, it is, I consider, beyond doubt – and given that Islam is a missionary, aggressive and expansionary religion with an intolerant set of beliefs – that Islam and its followers are disruptive of the British body politic as I understand and accept it. Even if I’m wrong, such a belief is worthy of consideration by the state broadcaster since, AFAIAA, that belief is shared by a large number of my fellow citizens. And worthy, moreover, of polite consideration; not the occcasional dismissive and patronising mention generally given to those (generally working class) whose lives have been deleteriously affected by uncontrolled immigration from the sub-continent.
Accordingly, giving the BBC apologists who turn up from time to time on this site, a freebie is not very clever although it’s always interesting to see what issues get them out of the canteen. I notice, BTW, that David Gregory, who has a scientific background, has the chutzpah to comment on this fairly trivial posting but steadfastly refuses (as he has a perfect right to do although, given his background, such refusal is interesting in itself) to engage in any discussion of the practice (let alone the theory) of the “science” of climate change and how the BBC reports it.
Not engage on climate change? Honestly I’ve done it again and again on here. I was engaging on climate change when this website was a fetching shade of purple.
I have seen nothing from you on climate change for yonks, Mr Gregory. And I believe you once said you intended to refrain from commenting ?
If you do feel able to comment – how about your pearls of wisdom on anything – just anything – that has been current on WattsUpWithThat, BishopHill or Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit ?
Or how about the fact that under 30% of citations in the IPCC reports are drawn from peer-reviewed articles – the rest are quotes from agenda-pushing NGOs and journalists.
Or how about the most basic question – do you think the BBC gives proper balance to the issues involved in global warming – sorry, climate change – sorry, climate disruption – or whatever artificial jargon the BBC is using now.
I think we’ve pretty much established they way I approach reporting the science of climate change. And for what it’s worth I think the BBC Trust’s report on how we should approach coverage is a solid piece of work.
That said Mr Dellingpoole seems to be on the BBC more rather than less these days, which is interesting to say the least.
(I sort of stopped bothering getting into detailed arguments on here about this topic when I began to drown in whataboutery and random graphs off the internet. Also tiny reply boxes don’t really help. As ever people can email me direct if they like)
Your reply is evasive and an insult to our intelligence, I’m afraid. I expected better but understand your reluctance to deviate from the Corporation line (assuming you might be so inclined).
Mr Gregory
In your earlier answer you suggested that you were a frequent commenter on climate change issues here.
I said – no, you have not been commenting on specifics of climate change here for yonks.
I think that is now confirmed..
“I think the BBC Trust’s report on how we should approach coverage is a solid piece of work”
The Trust unsurprisingly – it had appointed him after all knowing exactly what his views were and what he would write – endorsed in their entirety Jones’s patronising dismissal of AGW scepticism and his recommendation that talk of AGW scepticism be prevented from sullying the BBC airwaves. Jones is, of course, a geneticist and certainly knows less about the “science” of climate change than Lord Monckton (a noted sceptic). As a mark of the quality of Jones’s work and his confidence in the unassailability of his ignorance, Jones delighted in the opportunity presented by the review to freely insult Monckton.
I don’t expect Dr Gregory to resile one iota from the BBC Narrative concerning climate change. However, even I’m amazed that Dr Gregory implies (or says it’s “interesting”) that, despite the BBC Trust’s suppression policy, having Dellers on, what two – maybe three – times somewhere on the BBC this year (but not, I think, on any of the major programmes eg Today), is somehow giving more room for sceptics to make their case or rather (this is “science” after all and, in that context, Dr Gregory, I’m sure, knows what that means) debunk the warmist one.
Try ‘Sustainable Development’.
I think that’s the one where windmills and electric cars go on for ever and ever with no need for maintenance or replacement and we all live happily ever after in a green CO2-free world growing money on trees so we can pay for everything like health care, education and council smoking inspectors.
(Well it is a bloody fairy tale, after all.)
I, too, respect David Gregory (Dez and the others) for contributing to this blog and giving us an “official” BBC view. Too many times this community gets bogged down in name calling when the issues are more important and need explaining.
See if this helps: – if David Gregory said: “The BBC has a problem. If too much publicity is given to the political fringe of Islam (“militant Islamists” as the BBC World Service terms them) then latent racism in the UK will be fueled and this could be a public order problem.”
I could understand that argument. It makes sense that if every time a “red-headed Scotsman wearing horn-rimmed spectacles” commits a crime he’s described as such, surely red-headed Scotsmen with horn-rimmed spectacles might feel targeted in the street. I’m sure many Muslims feel this way. I make a sharp distinction between “Muslims” and “militant Islamists’. one is a religion, one is a political ideology.
And let’s not forget that the security services depend in no small measure on anti-terrorism work done by Muslims themselves.
However it’s always a question of balance and judgment isn’t it? There have been so many occasions on both sides of the Atlantic when the obvious description of perpetrators has been ignored that many – and I am one – feel the facts are being kept from us. This, sadly, feeds my paranoia. Furthermore, when I see (or hear) that a “British born man” has been arrested in some terrorism investigation I know what “a British man” is code for. It seems all news bulletins are written in code these days. What is a “British born man” – could he be “a red-headed Scotsman wearing horn-rimmed spectacles”? I think not.
This effect of all this is dangerous. Many of the more extreme bloggers hear this stuff and run with it. They distrust the motives of news editors and department heads. They claim the BBC has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Crazy stuff?
This is bad for the credibility of the BBC. Don’t forget that the media now is distrusted more than it’s ever been. While this thread (“Blackbeard – the pirate?”) is open to argument, many others on Biased-BBC are not. On the demonization of Israel, the support for one US presidential candidate over others, the aggressive and offensive pushing of a left-wing agenda on BBC comedy shows – look back at the threads and check them out. There is chapter and verse.
The solution, David and other current BBC folk, is in your hands. Find a new form of words when dealing with Islamism that is respected by both the supporters and critics of the BBC so that more and more people don’t simply dismiss “Britain’s premier broadcaster” as either an Islamic toady, a cowardly quisling or a prisoner of the champagne socialists of Hampstead and Islington.
If you take your critics seriously, they’ll respond (except the nut jobs). Meanwhile, calls to opt out of the licence fee system will be the only solution to many.
Meanwhile, don’t come here expecting to read Ariel – it’s not.
I know it’s been said before elsewhere, but I have to say it anyway, “I agree with Louis”.
Tune into the News Quiz to hear Jeremy “Socialist Worker” Hardy droning on about Satan Murdoch, Berlusconi , the evil Thatcher, Saint Obama, the full Left Wing Guardian/Indy world view; aided and abetted by the BBC’s professional Danish Lesbian, and so it goes on and on and on.
“I make a sharp distinction between “Muslims” and “militant Islamists’. one is a religion, one is a political ideology.”
This is a holier than thou view of islam and its followers. Your careful analysis is built upon sand.
Just take a look at somewhere like Iran: an islamic elected system of government. Do you believe all the abhorrent practices that happen there are carried out by militant islamists? or is any of it connected to the religion of islam.
it’s the lack of critical mass here that inhibits more of the followers of islam from more barbaric practices. It doesn’t stop all of course, and they are the ones you see as “militant islamists”. Just the kind of deceptive lexicon invented and practiced by the INBBC.
Killers/murderers have become gunmen or bombers.
Terrorists have become activists or radicals.
When there is a large enough proportion of the folk who follow the religion of peace you perhaps wont have such a rosy view of the majority. Even if they don’t approve of the so called radicals, it’s tough to argue with an AK47 or big sharp sword, as many have found.
The bottom line is, and many will cry “racist” here, if the UK indigenous folk knew what was approaching, they would take a different view. I for one dont want any more of these folk in our country. Offend or please that is my view. No-one asked me, no-one got elected on that platform.
Their religion ( or culture if you wish) is filled with barbarity in terms of maltreatment of women, FGM, abhorrence of gays, antisemitism, etc .
I’m sure people adopt a set of beliefs that makes them feel superior to the ordinary joe in the street. You know those plebs who read tabloids, and enjoy football. Of course the superior beings sleep well in their posh areas right now. just imagine that may not continue when you get a mosque on your street corner. The mosque, yes that place where peace and forgiveness is preached, like hell it is.
they are used to foment trouble, why did so much of the arab spring activity follow friday prayers?
Dunno?…me neither.!
I do not agree with louis!
Dysgwr_Cymraeg , please don’t think I don’t sympathize with your bleak view of the Muslim issue. In fact, in my gloomier moments I, too, would say “I don’t agree with Louis”.
It’s weird but my response to you reminds me of the bind Steve Emerson found himself in when I saw him speak a year or so ago. Steve Emerson is the brave man who heads up the Investigative Project on Terrorism here in the United States. Please check out his website and sign up to his daily newsletter (if you don’t mind lying awake at night worrying about the future).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/
Anyway, at this meeting Emerson was underling the help he receives in his work exposing militant Islam. In a documentary being produced by Emerson, he pointed out that all the camera people – the people doing the dangerous legwork inside mosques with hidden cameras – were his Muslim staffers. This led to an uproar from members of the audience. Interestingly the protesters were all immigrants from the Middle East warning Emerson loudly that no Muslim was to be trusted.
Ironically Emerson ended up defending Muslims against Arab, Persian and Christian immigrants from the Middle East.
So as you can see, I’m of two minds. More importantly for this blog there are two questions I’d like answered
(a) on the media why do we never (seldom) hear from non-radical Muslims?
And (b) why are radical Muslims never included in discussions on the subjects of women’s rights and homosexuality?
I think I know the answer to both those questions,
Thank you for the link, I will peruse it later.
Your points (a) and (b) are cerainly interesting. i dont think my dim view will be modified any day soon, but live in hope!
I can see where these middle eastern christians are coming from: Islamic culture has developed patterns of dissemblance and double talk of a complexity most non-Mulims have difficulty in imagining. The Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, is simply a production in the theatre of victimhood, with a cast dwarfing anything dreamed of by Cecil B de Mille and that has run and run in a way that has left the Mousetrap far, far behind in the record books.
I noticed, when I still had the stomach for reading Harry’s Place that their resident blower of the gaffe on Muslim hate preachers in Britain, Habibi, had an unusual habit. He reported what such and such a preacher had been saying- kill all homosexuals, apes and pigs, jihad is what it’s all about, wipe out Israel etc.
What he never did was point out that these are bog standard Muslim positions based on impeccable sources in the Islamic texts and approved by the most eminent Muslim scholars – something of which he must be perfectly well aware, just as he knew that the Harry’s Place crew would all but stand on their heads to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt ( unless it involved homophobia or the anti-semitism which they seem to think Muslims picked up from Europeans). Personally I think Habibi has his own agenda, which, given the way he focussed on the East London mosque seems to have been connected to the struggle between the Wahabbi financed jamat i Islami people who have taken over there and the more Bengali nationalist inclined Muslims in Tower Hamlets. Whatever motivated him, he never seemed to put his cards on the table.
You know the post that started all this isn’t “open to argument” It’s wrong. But it’s interesting that Alan seized on something that wasn’t there to illustrate the perception of a wider point. Says much more about Alan than the BBC.
I do not know whether it’s just me or if everybody else encountering issues with your site. It looks like some of the text in your content are running off the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This might be a issue with my browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
Many thanks