254 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. Teddy Bear says:
    February 21, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    As suggested, I’ll repost this here.

    I am struck by the difference between two headlines showing on the BBC UK Webpage today.

    The first is this one
    Birmingham men guilty of mass bomb plot

    The other is this
    Rabbi Chaim Halpern arrested in sexual abuse probe

    The first sentence of this article tells us
    Four men have been arrested by police investigating sexual abuse allegations among the Orthodox Jewish community in north London.

    So not just ‘London Men’.

    So not only are we aware that one is a rabbi, even from the headline, but that also the other three are supposedly from the Jewish community in north London. It’s also worth noting that at this time it’s only alleged that these men have done anything wrong, and is yet to be proved.

    The men in the first article however have been found guilty of terrorism charges, but nowhere in the article are we told of their religious affiliation. It’s fairly easy to deduce though, from the photos of the men, from their names Irfan Naseer, 31, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Ashik Ali, 27, and from certain passages in the article:

    *The jury heard that Naseer and Khalid had received training from al-Qaeda contacts in Pakistan
    *…Naseer played a key role in sending four other Birmingham men to Pakistan to receive training
    *Two other Birmingham men who were part of Naseer and Khalid’s plans, Rahin Ahmed, 27, and Mujahid Hussain, 21, have also pleaded guilty to terrorism charges.
    *The trial heard the men were inspired by sermons of US-born Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in Yemen in September 2011

    So even the fact that these men also recruited others, the BBC decided not to mention any common link between them. The only mention of Islam is in the final sentence I included above. One might question the motive for the BBC to avoid terming them as Muslims, militant or otherwise, since that clearly is the factor underlying their actions. For one thing, it makes sure it won’t appear on any search of Muslim terrorist.
    The BBC even has the temerity to tell us that:
    Our correspondent added that what was never clear during the trial was what had really made them want to be bombers. They exhibited all the same characteristics as many who have gone before them – including a vague hatred of “Western” society.

    So nothing wherein Islamists throughout the Muslim world are preaching the need for adherents to launch jihad, as the plausible motive for their terrorist intent. The BBC correspondent just ‘hasn’t a clue’. 🙄

    Contrast all this with the Jewish article and tell me the BBC doesn’t have a clear agenda here.

       10 likes

  2. George R says:
    February 21, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    INBBC Radio 4’s ‘PM’ :
    -spent more time discussing the South African Pristorius case, than it did discussing the Birmingham Islamic jihad mass murder plot.

    One wouldn’t think, from INBBC political standpoint, that this jihad attempt was, as ‘Telegraph’ states, planned to be the most devastating attack ever in Britain, targeted at ‘kafirs’, i.e. at non-Muslim people:

    “Hundreds would have died in attack plotted by Islamic fanatics.
    “It would have been the most devastating terrorist attack on British soil leaving hundreds dead – and by al-Qaeda inspired but ‘home-grown’ Islamic fanatics.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9873855/Hundreds-would-have-died-in-attack-plotted-by-Islamic-fanatics.html

       2 likes

  3. Louis Robinson says:
    February 21, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    And the missing word is?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21534048

       2 likes

  4. joe b says:
    February 21, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    From today’s BBC website, muslims get another free pass:

    “Birmingham men guilty of mass bomb plot”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21534048

    the writer says: “what was never clear in the trial was what had really made them want to be bombers.” really? how interesting…

       5 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      February 21, 2013 at 6:42 pm

      The BBC really went out of their way to make sure you understood that this was a stitch-up job, and that they seriously disagreed not only with the verdict, but with the charges.

      More opinion-mongering masquerading as “analysis”.

         4 likes

  5. lmda says:
    February 21, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    News seems to have dried up re the mob of about 50 masked French neo-nazis that attacked a bar in Lyon where a group of English football supporters were. Arrests were apparently made but no more information has emerged which, in these peculiar times makes me suspect that these are not your normal common or garden neo-nazis, with DMs and skinhead haircuts, but neo-neo-nazis who have unfortunately confused criticism of Israel with violence to Spurs fans. I may be wrong of course, but the police arresting just 3 from a mob of 50 and the general absence of surprise about the whole episode just seems bizarre. But if the BBC tells me they were neo-nazis and French that must be all I need to know.

       2 likes

    • wallygreeninker says:
      February 21, 2013 at 7:19 pm

      From end of a report on ESPN

      “The website of French newspaper L’Equipe reported that three men were arrested, each believed to be Lyon ultras”

      apparently ‘ultras’ are French football fans.

      http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/194110.html#

         0 likes

      • lmda says:
        February 22, 2013 at 9:40 am

        Ahh, thanks for that additional information, I suppose I should have decoded “neo-nazi” as “French football hooligan” whereas it would have been “youths” for North African origin hooligans whether motivated by football or politics. ‘Football hooligan’ being…. erm… not judgemental enough?

           1 likes

  6. Aerfen says:
    February 21, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    Just heard Radio 4 give a platform to the pretentious little twenty something who calls herself ‘Bidisha’ (yes just Bidisha) , to slag off a play at the Royal Court about austerity and a ‘victim of racism’:
    http://www.royalcourttheatre.com/whats-on/if-you-dont-let-us-dream-we-wont-let-you-sleep

    A socialist play from a left wing activist (well it would be, at the Royal Court) it was nevertheless too liberal for Bidisha.
    According to this illiberal wannabe censor it was too understanding of those who were ‘racist’ towards the asylum seeker.

    Funny how the BBC chooses such unobjective as well as young and inexperienced commentators as critics. Makes you think they are chosen for their political bias.

       3 likes

  7. wallygreeninker says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Sky News moves to rival BBC’s anti-Israel prejudice:
    Sky News used to be different from the BBC. Not now as their Sam Kiley rehashes familiar prejudices without appearing to know even the basics about the conflict

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2774/sky_news_moves_to_rival_bbc_s_anti_israel_prejudice

       1 likes

  8. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:46 am

    BBC acting like ‘secret service’ by censoring criticism, Lord McAlpine says
    More than 3,000 pages of witness statements will be published on Friday after an inquiry chaired by Nick Pollard, the former head of Sky News, into why a Newsnight investigation into Savile’s paedophile past was shelved.

    However, the BBC has redacted over 90 pages of evidence in which staff, including Jeremy Paxman, the Newsnight presenter, are highly critical of senior executives.

    Lord McAlpine, who was wrongly accused of being a paedophile after an investigation by the BBC’s Newsnight, on Thursday urged the corporation to publish the witness statements in full.

    He told The Daily Telegraph: “Of course they should publish them in full, the BBC is not the secret service for Christ’s sake.

    “There’s no reason for holding back, what Jeremy Paxman said should be printed. It should be explained to people.”
    According to sources familiar with the redaction process, there has been a conflict between lawyers BBC Trust, which wants to publish as much as possible, and the BBC’s executive.

    The source said: “The trust lawyers, who wanted to publish everything to fulfil Patten’s pledge, and the BBC executive’s lawyers squared up against each other, and the BBC executive’s lawyers have won.

    “They have been fighting to redact everything they can that will cause trouble. It goes way, way beyond all the idea of just defamation – any criticism at all of management has been taken out.”
    …
    The corporation has failed to sack a single executive in the wake of the McAlpine and Savile scandals, despite admitting that weak leadership left it in a state of “chaos”.

    Six senior executives and editors were singled out for criticism, but none have been fired. Two have quit, and four have been moved into new positions within the corporation.

    Helen Boaden, was criticised for the “casual” way in which she warned George Entwistle, the former director, about the conflict between the Newsnight investigation and a planned Savile tribute programme. She was last week appointed as the new director of BBC Radio.

    Adrian Van Klaveren, the former controller of BBC Radio Five Live who signed off the Lord McAlpine Newsnight programme, is now overseeing programming for the centenary of World War One.

    Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor who made the “flawed and wrong” decision to pull the Savile programme, has been appointed as head of the BBC’s News Archive.

    Liz Gibbons, the deputy editor of Newsnight who opposed the Savile programme on grounds of taste, remains at the corporation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9886485/BBC-acting-like-secret-service-by-censoring-criticism-Lord-McAlpine-says.html

    The BBC has redacted over 90 pages of evidence in which staff are highly critical of senior executives. I feel an FoI request coming on …

       5 likes

  9. thoughtful says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:52 am

    How does a room have a religion, and why is it that the bBC can manage to put the name ‘Muslim’ in a header when it feels there might be discrimination against them, when it cannot when they are up to their usual tricks?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21542041

       2 likes

  10. Privatise the BBC says:
    February 22, 2013 at 10:09 am

    The Pollard report will be published today.
    ITV are reporting that there will be 90 pages redacted and there’s an accusation that the BBC are acting like the Secret Service:

    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-02-22/bbc-savile-report/

       3 likes

  11. noggin says:
    February 22, 2013 at 10:27 am

    5live your call
    what motivates islamic terrorists ….
    so we ll fill an hour with muslims talking to other muslims
    then to nicky then other muslims – and then erm “scholars?” – and then some crony from that “prevent” disasterous money pit, then anyone whose knowledge
    about islam is very very limited, to the religion of peace –
    just for “balance” you understand.
    one chap right at the end started to ask questions of this said “scholar”, then he was deliberately faded away … gone!
    …. now why was that 😀

       3 likes

  12. DYKEVISIONS says:
    February 22, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Apologies for being off topic but when did this start happening?
    More and more responses to questions starting with ‘So….
    ‘Today’ program always seems to be full of these examples, here is one:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qnt5p at 1hr22m43s

    Defence mechanism, delaying tactic or just another annoying tic exhibited by the under 40’s?

       0 likes

  13. Guest Who says:
    February 22, 2013 at 11:50 am

    ‘He knows. Even Dez isn’t that dumb.’
    Pretty sure Flokker Guidelines demand evidence to support that.

       0 likes

  14. fertility Doctor columbia sc says:
    March 5, 2013 at 4:07 am

    It’s awesome in support of me to have a site, which is useful for my know-how. thanks admin

       0 likes

←Older Comments