A Lancet report suggests that troops coming back from the frontline are more likely to be violent.
Nicky Campbell is running a phone-in asking: ‘Does the Army mess you up?’
When we have Muslim suicide bombers telling us they are acting in the name of Islam does the BBC ask: ‘Does being a Muslim mess you up?’
No…it says they are madmen or criminals perverting that glorious religion.
The BBC is all too keen to kick the Army or the Police…which is odd really when you read from the BBC’s own report that in fact those in the Army are less criminal than civilians:
‘Overall criminal activity was slightly lower in military personnel than in people of the same age in the wider population. Some 94% of men returning from combat zones will not offend.’
That story gets 2nd billing on the Frontpage…the one below gets no report at all on the website…….
By coincidence the Muslim Brotherhood have released a document decalring the UN’s statement on the rights of women will destroy society as it goes against the tenets of Islam.
The BBC’s response on 5Live…to bring on a ‘women’s rights’ campaigner…a Muslim, who declares the Muslim brotherhood have it all wrong…Islam isn’t like that at all.
‘Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood say UN document on violence against women violates Islamic rules.’
It seems that the story only made an appearance on 5Live to push the BBC’s very own interpretation of Islam…..it’s a wonderful, enlightened, peaceful religion that embraces tolerance for other religions and empowers women.
It is hardly surprising that men coming back from a tour of combat duty will be keyed up. It is hardly surprising that, once in Civvy Street, they seek to achieve that level of thrill again.
It is usually achieved by extreme sports but not every one has access to that so, for a tiny minority, it is achieved by picking fights in pubs or committing crimes.
Combat Psychology 101.
You could argue that the Army should do more to settle their troops emotions post combat tours. But that is unlikely to be effective in an effective army as the two aims aren’t exactly compatible.
The BBC know this so why do they keep reporting the wrong story? Because they are c**ts.
My immediate thoughts were: ‘King’s College, touting for business on behalf of the psychiatrists who will treat ex-soldiers’, put more ex-soldiers of pacifying drugs, pharmaceutical shares on the up’ – follow the money.
Gullible Nikki once again proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Yeah soldiers are so fing violent:
Like the man in court over stabbing a girl to death on a bus in Birmingham
Like the Man who punched his girlfriend to bits after the cashpoint refused him a pay out
Like the man who punched a pensioner to death so he could sit in his car.
Or even like a labour peer who killed somebody by dangerous driving
Lets not forget the man jailed for going round London punching women
Or the thousands of Islamic women cut down there for male sexual gratification.
Yet the bBC doesn’t see any of that instead they only see the few soldiers who say they have an anger issue. You know like former labour MPs last night.
the bbc is shocked SHOCKED! i tell you this morning
that the Fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood, don t like
women to have any status (shakes head) .. and are following islamic doctrine … where have they been eh!
They of course are dead set against the UN charter on womens rights, (and UN decl on Human Rights? )
So to speak loud n proud about it, trawl up, muslim women
network spokeswomen, who is just a plant, and starts off with ambiguous excuses and gets worse,
oh! and who wants to go to Egypt, and force the MB to follow … Sharia? , (for fairness, obviously ),
yep! you couldn t make it up.
hilariously she is helped out , by the al beeb chimp, who
on reading the appalling Islamic dictates about women, chips in with, ah! … but its all about context, all about interpretation though isn t, its not that islam, its this islam
etc.
hmmm … i m going to Cairo, to get them to follow islamic principles … ;-D good luck with that
ps
oh and don t go via Tahir Square luv ..
so bloody glad its only in Egypt aren t you
with burkhas, and sharia, repression, and all that.
Ahhhhh…..Gaunty.
I miss him, the last of right-ish wing the non-programed “shock -jocks” out there.
Soon as he won his Sony awards, the left wing liberals & media began to chip him down, till one fateful day, he called a “Tory” councilor a health Nazi, and that was him….done.
No where left to go after Talksport (apart from Sun radio, that was closed down right after he won another award)…no BBC station would hire him again, he is a danger to them because of telling the truth, and uncomfortable facts.
Some good talk radio is needed in this country, LBC don’t cut it, Talksport employs (employed?) Galloway ffs!
And the answer to the question in the heading is yes, being a muslim messes you up and everyone you come into contact with.
The Muslim Brotherhood are correct: in particular, to criminalise wife-beating would be to directly contradict the Koran ( the immutable, timeless word of God)
4:34
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other…………….. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. ” (Dawood translation)
You sometimes hear Muslim women deny the existence of this verse which tends to make one suspect that they, too, are lied to about what Islam really teaches. The only complaint to the BBC about an old mendacious R5 documentary, ‘The Truth about Mohammed’ that was upheld was that a female Muslim asserted the Koran did not condone wife-beating during the programme and that this was so palpably untrue even the Beeb had to admit it.
There have also been a few efforts to claim that the word ‘beat’ or ‘scourge’ is a mistranslation of the Arabic (one translation even adds the word ‘lightly’ which isn’t in the text at all) – but there are too many translations already made by practicing Muslims that do use the term, for that to convince any but the most gullible.
Yes it’s been my experience that many Muslims(not just women) display a programmed response to criticism of Islam.They shout about the positive aspects of Islam from the highest steeple(if you know what I mean).But when criticism is issued,they respond aggressively and defensively and try to silence you by playing the race card.The BBC aids them in their mission to promote Islam by highlighting the positive and ignoring the negetive aspects of Islam.
well stephen here is the perfect example to illustrate your point.
37 mins 20 – check it out, as usual a “scholar” is on and is directly questioned, by a caller, well first campbell tries to shut him up,
this scholar then lies about those facts, and the caller (as this is the bbc has no reply) … oh those facts.
Most of Islam is about the Kaffir (non-believer)
It explains how to treat them, how to talk to them, how to fight them, how to punish them, kill them, how to subjugate them … yes – deceive them? well … how, when and where? …. page after page after page, oh the exact figures, here they are:
Koran 64% about Kaffir – Sira 81% about Kaffir – Hadith 37% about Kaffir
The Islamic trilogy, the Quran, Hadith, & Sira are about 60% about us, over 30% is about jihad –
even worse, more about us, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt it is much more about political power than any religious aspect.
information from centre for the study of political islam
I am reminded by this piece about the condition of those suffering from the effects of the world wars. I was born in 1945 and watched latterly over time the manner in which ex-military (WW2) men lived and died quietly, particularly one of my family tortured at great length by the Japanese Army. My own father was seriously injured due to strafing when assisting a pilot into his Hurricane (Libya). Little or no adequate support was provided to these men and in many cases they were later attacked by the government regarding level of war pensions having received very serious wounds – not only physical. That’s apart from great difficulty in getting a job after swift medical related discharge. I did not observe at anytime reports of violence by such men. Indeed reporting then was not the manic machine it is now. Perhaps incidents were hidden from us as a result. However, as touched on above, support to the fighting military is and has always been extremely poor and is ultimately left to charities (British Legion and others). This time the UK is involved in wars it cannot satisfactorily win and will with ever increasing political contempt kill and maim more of our young people. God help them !
In the Army they teach you to respect all life and that women are just as equal as men.Islam teaches you to look down at non-Muslims and that women are lower than men.
In the army they teach you to save life, in the Koran it teaches you to take it
In the Army they teach you to act responsible and to be a better man. In the Koran it teaches you to lie in which to get your way.
In the Army being gay isn’t an issue, Under Islam ,you are taught to kill gays.
The bBC report above states that 94% of military men will not commit any crimes. In contrast while representing only 2% of the population Muslims account for 16% of the prison population.
The bBC, the Islamic cock sucking traitors within our Midst
I am learning a lot from these Jack Chick Tracts
Where do you find them?
http://www.chick.com
Jack Chick is an American Christian Fundamentalist who publishes Jack Chick Tracts, basically short cartoon books. They are so politically incorrect that they are hilarious. Think Fred Phelps or Terry Jones working for Marvel comics!
Oh look 3 misguided criminals have their day in court:
Three men plead guilty to terror charges
Three Muslims have pleaded guilty to preparing for acts of terrorism, including travelling to Pakistan for terror training. Jahangir Alom, Richard Dart, and Imran Mahmood admitted preparing or assisting terrorism between July 2010 and July 2012.The charges said they travelled abroad to commit terror acts and provided information about terror training.They made their pleas via video-link at the Old Bailey. Their trial was due to start in April. Dart, 29, from Ealing, west London, Mahmood, 21, from Northolt, west London, and Alom, 26, from Stratford, east London, were arrested between 5 and 7 July last year.
Good Job they aren’t British soldiers, because that would have shown how evil the British army is in training people to kill.
One of whom once worked for the BBC. Maybe the BBC messes you up?
Will politically subservient Islam Not BBC (INBBC) adapt its stance slightly after taking its lead from here?:-
“Britons afraid to challenge radical Islam, says former Obama adviser.
“British people are too afraid to offend a ‘vocal and aggressive’ section of the Muslim community who demand that their cultural values are accepted by wider society, according to a former adviser to Barack Obama.”
By John-Paul Ford Rojas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9932108/Britons-afraid-to-challenge-radical-Islam-says-former-Obama-adviser.html
The BBC sure knows how to pick em.
After Don’t Panic I’m Islamic fiasco now this.
Dart, Alom and Mahmood plead guilty to terror charges
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21799217
Dart, also known as Salahuddin al-Britani, appeared in a BBC documentary after Dart converted to Islam.
After moving to London he briefly worked as a security guard for the BBC.
Supplementary.
“Former BBC Security Guard Richard Dart Admits Al-Qaida-Style Bomb Plot”
By DOMINIC GOVER.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/446568/20130315/uk-jihad-islam-terror-richard-dart.htm?
Supplementary.
“Muslim ex-BBC guard Richard Dart plotted terror attack on Wootton Bassett”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/muslim-exbbc-guard-richard-dart-plotted-terror-attack-on-wootton-bassett-8536244.html
I noted bBC had a picture of the convert prat in a video discussion with Anjem Chaudhary – the poppy burner you all support with your taxes, while he urges jihad. This the man who said he couldn’t afford to take a job because then he would have to pay the full rent on his comfy council flat.
Is that what honest hard working poor pay taxes for? To support this piece of excrement? Betrayed first by Blair, then Cameron, who continues to p*ss your taxes up the wall (while wee Georgie plans carbon taxes to finish off the British Economy) I don’t know why Cameron doesn’t elevate Anjem to the House of Lords. He would be in good company – expense criminals, and climate liars all..
Meanwhile the BBC claims it struggles to find “right wing comedians”. Pat Condell, please. If you think you’re hard.
INBBC: its propaganda for Islam and sex.
A theme close to INBBC’s loins?
“Palestinians born ‘from prisoners’ smuggled sperm'”
By Jon Donnison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21658940
‘Ol Donny boy must have been too busy sniffing spunky beakers to get round to apologizing for demonizing Israel of murdering BBC workers babies.
Muslim w***ers.
Undeniable 😀
This story is gaining quite a bit of media attention although the BBC seems to be among the few ‘neutral’ outlets. Perhaps the others hesitated to run it with so little collaboration. The irony is that if true the Israeli prison authorities will plug the breach in security that they would never have known about without the publicity.
I don’t suppose anyone, least of all Donnison, thought about DNA tests to check this story? It is so easy to smuggle things in and out of prison, after all. The wives of long term prisoners occasionally fall pregnant without smuggled sperm, don’t they? They just don’t make the news.
At best this has zero collaboration and deserves to be placed with Loch Ness monster sighting and faces of the Virgin Mary appearing in cake dough. At worst it is pure propaganda masquerading as news. The Palestinians tell a story and Donnison prints it.
Note the clearly staged accompanying photograph. The caption is quite deceptive. In other uses the photograph is labelled as a protester against the rearrest of prisoners released in the Gilad Shalit exchange.
i’m an occasional reader of this blog but haven’t commented here before. i can see where the anger at the bbc comes from when it gives labour politicians an easy ride while giving the tories hell. but this posting is just a bigoted rant against muslims. asking why the bbc doesn’t ask a completely stupid question is not the same thing as pointing out actual bias. does it ever occur to you that people who have a gripe about the bbc’s constant liberal bias, but don’t actually believe that muslims are savages, think that your postings on the subject are abhorrent and prejudiced? i suspect you’re putting a lot of people off this site with postings like this one.
just my two penn’orth.
Good point, however have you ever noticed on the BBC news when some one gets nicked for something the Beeb will regularly describe them as a church goer, but never as a mosque goer?
And what winds people up is the double standards that the BBC uses when it comes to the Religion of Peace.
For example when there was finally a programme on Radio 5 Live about the “Asian groomers” the panel ended up blaming the victims. The Beeb can’t admit that here may be a downside to enrichment.
“The worship of ‘equality’ has played a part in the recent rise of anti-Semitism.”
By Ed West .
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100207251/the-worship-of-equality-has-played-a-part-in-the-recent-rise-of-anti-semitism/
If folk are not open minded enough to hear other folks opinions, be it about Muslims, Christians, USA, UK BBC or FOX News, then, perhaps, this aint the place to come visiting.
This is purely a place for debate, not an echo chamber of approved topics.
Biased BBC gives everyone what they are crying out for, a voice, not closed debate nor settled science.
“I suspect you’re putting a lot of people off this site”
You have not got the hang of free speech. People express an opinion. You agree, or disagree, or find another forum. All fine. You have a choice – that is the point.
no i absolutely have the hang of free speech. i’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to say these things, i’m saying that anti-muslim rants, which appear here on a practically daily basis, put off a large proportion of the population who would otherwise be signed up to the anti-bbc project. it makes the site sound like an outpost of the bnp.
If Far Left Nationalists want to express an opinion about the BBC in this forum they should be free to do so – even if YOU would prefer that they expressed their opinions elsewhere.
Of course they would have to defend their views (as indeed do YOU) but that is par for the course in a free society.
Readers make up their own minds.
Agreeing with everything everybody claims on this site is about as unlikely as the BBC making a programme that is critical of the Welfare State.
Hello Tim, why have you read but not commented.
Please post up your thoughts on anything you wish.
I’m sure most here will welcome another set of eyes to scrutinise what is said here.
Perhaps you can explain why it’s ok to criticise the bbc for it’s liberal bias, but that commenting if something involves a particular religion or ideology is totally bigoted?
Now you will gather that I as an individual believe the thread of this topic poses a very reasonable question for the bbc.
You obviously do not.
Please feel free to elaborate?
Just my two pennarth sir, and thank you for joining the debate.
Thank you for creating an account to tell us that. Your post is important to us.
We note that you consider the post to be a bigoted rant and that the suggested questions are completely stupid. Unfortunately you have not explained why you consider it to be a bigoted rant or why the questions are completely stupid and we are therefore unable to deal further with your complaint.
We’d also like to assure you we’ve registered your complaint on our commenters’ log. This is an internal report of commenter feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all editors and reporters, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are considered across the Biased BBC.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
If you are not satisfied by this reply then you can appeal to the Biased-BBC Trust. If you so do then you will receive an email within 30 days informing you that your complaint is not suitable for referring to the Biased-BBC Trust. If you disagree then your complaint will be put to the Biased-BBC Trust at their next monthly meeting when they will dismiss your complaint as unjustified and the case will be closed.
Tim Lawson
Presumably the Muslim woman on 5Live this morning was having a bigoted rant due to her abhorrent prejudice against the traditional Islam as faithfully followed by the Muslim Brotherhood…or savages as you call them?
You are the perfect example of the BBC mindset….someone who refuses to admit that there might be somethings that are questionable about Islam and then calls anyone who does start asking questions a racist or a biigot.
The prejudice is all in your own mind.
By your logic no one could criticise the Nazis for fear of labelling all Germans such.
Alan,
It is unreasonable to criticise a whole religious community because of the actions of a small minority of them. Criticise the Muslims that do wrong not all Muslims.
Tarring a whole group by highlighting the extremes is a very BBC thing to do.
I think you misinterpret Alan’s post. I don’t see it as tarring all Muslims, but as arguing that the BBC has tried to tar the whole army. Much as it tries to tar all Muslims with the “religion of peace” tag, in the face of much evidence to the contrary.
Because the average guy in the street has been kept in blissful ignorance of the true state of affairs, the large task of pointing out what misery and horror caused by the doctrines and sacred texts of Islam are deliberately ignored by the Beeb, may well come across as bigotry. Just to pander to this lacuna in their perception of reality I’d be quite happy to take a week off from contemplating the religion of violence -on the other hand, in its current state of recrudescence, you never know what enormity (for the Beeb to ignore or gloss over) Islam will come up with next, that will be impossible to keep quiet about.
Ralph, the elephant in the room here is “Islam” itself.
There is no cherry picking allowed of the nice or nasty bits of that religion, you take the whole package or none at all.
If you think that the majority of folk who follow Islam can do so with adherence to standards of decency, you are mistaken.
People making the excuses for the murderous terrorists always make excuses that they have misunderstood islam.
Go read Robert Spencer’s excellent book: a politically incorrect guide to Islam. Clue in the title.
Once again, there is NO moderate islam only islam itself.
as somebody who spent many years playing cricket in the midlands league, where half the players are muslims, i think you have a very small minded view of what islam is. your loathing of an entire religion, without any shades of grey permitted, is the very definition of prejudice. all I’m saying is that this could be a mainstream site with a far greater readership than it has at present, if it stuck to politics/climate change etc and laid off the nick griffin-style rants.
If I paraphrase the ignorance you appear to express, it would go like this:
“Since the Muslims that I know seem to be good guys, I am uncomfortable engaging on the topic where they appear to have negative attributes”
The only thing is we are not talking about the Muslims you know, although it could be. I remind you of the story this week where one Muslim who used to be a police support officer, and another who used to be a security guard for the BBC, were found guilty of attempted terrorist attacks.
While the BBC did report this story, they don’t report the fact that since 9/11 there have been 20,539 separate deadly terrorist attacks, where each at least 1 person has died, and sometimes hundreds.
If you Google ‘Raymond Ibrahim – Muslim Persecution of Christians’ you will see monthly accounts round the world where Christians have been killed, tortured, and persecuted by Islamists in Muslim countries.
Then see how many of these are reported by the BBC, that is if you are interested in THE TRUTH and not just YOUR FEELING COMFORTABLE with the little you know.
You have to be aware that the longer our (Western) society remains quiet about these goings on, in an effort to appease these Muslim extremists, the more people will die and suffer.
We consider this element important enough to keep showing examples of how the BBC avoids making this information public if we are to avoid a future conflict that will claim far more lives than it is doing already.
If you still don’t get it, too bad.
So, Tim, any explanation as to why the religious satire beloved of the BBC’s left-wing comedians (because they can’t find any right-wing ones) is so Islam-lite but Christianity-heavy?
Or why the BBC seem so reluctant to tell us about the intimidation and murder of Christians in so many Muslim countries yet lie about Israeli air strikes killing a Palestinian child?
Some of the views on here do go beyond the robust, I’d agree, but blame the BBC because their biased stance/preferential treatment breeds resentment.
Balance is all this site is asking for and on Islam, as with every other left-wing cause, the BBC is about as balanced as John Prescott and a budgie on a see-saw.
I don’t disagree, but alan’s post wasn’t prompted by anything of that nature. if his posts stuck to bias and weren’t so violently anti muslim I wouldn’t be complaining.
If it’s wrong to be prejudiced against anti-semitic mysogynists and the ever growing influence of their religion of intolerance aided and abbetted by assorted leftists, well sign me up and send me the t-shirt.
It would be nice to have a one week moratorium on posts about the religion Mark Thompson said the BBC treats gently because most adherents have darker skin than he does.
I think the entire world would welcome a week without that cancerous ideology.
People choose their religion and they choose to make it what it is. Islam seems to be generating a lot of bad news at the moment – not just here but in countries as far afield as Thailand as well.
If people choose to criticise or even mock a religion – any religion – as far as I’m concerned they should be free to do so. I’d even suggest that religions benefit from a bit of mockery. I think it undermines some of their more ridiculous, bigoted, pompous, and self righteous tendencies. We used to understand this but now, instead, we’ve abandoned our principles and kowtow in a way which is positively sickening, as the segregation of the audience at UCL for the “Islam or atheism” debate demonstrates.
Are you happy paying your jizya tax to al-Beeb, then?
never said that. but alan’s view of the subject would get him evicted from the edl for being too extreme.
Would you care to publish the evidence for your extreme view?
“i’m an occasional reader of this blog but haven’t commented here before” Why not? if you dont like whats being said say so. Even if its only to try and silence heretics by shouting ‘bigot’ ‘racist’ ‘non-believer’
You might tell me though, if I believe (note: I believe) that islam is an intrinsically and irredeemably destructive ideology,why may I not say so?
As for this sites apparent obsession with islam (as it happens as much comment seems to have been expended on battle ships as islam in the last few hours),well if the BBC didnt spend so much time and effort obfuscating,censoring and eulogising on islams behalf and just reported the unvarnished truth,then maybe ‘knuckle-drggers’ like me might not get so angry with it (the BBC)
No Charge
Well said.
You are free to say so. But you have no more right not to be angered by people criticizing what you say than a Muslim has. Don’t like it when people complain about the endless “Islam is vile!” screeds? Freedom of speech works both ways. Don’t confuse disagreement with an opinion and disagreement with the way it’s expressed. And even then, it’s a shame people sometimes seem more concerned about freely expressing their hatred for something than about pointing out the BBC’s bias. If expressing hatred of Islam is more important, surely there are other sites to do that.
Having said all that, I agree completely with the notion that a lot of this anger is caused or made worse by the BBC’s intellectual failure on the issue, and their obvious attempts at social engineering. If the BBC wasn’t so clearly biased about it – as Mark Thompson has admitted, so there’s no way we can be told we’re imagining it – there wouldn’t be such a backlash. I get it. I was telling that to BBC producers who used to engage with us here years ago, so nobody can tell me I don’t understand the point. But surely there are better ways to express it.
“Don’t like it when people complain about the endless “Islam is vile!” screeds?”
When have I said so?
When have said anything that does not support freedom of speech or freedom of conscience?
In fact the last time you took me to task it was because I thought that trawling through peoples ‘tweets’ was contrary to that concept
Several people have objected to complaints about their freely expressing hatred of Islam, and that bit was meant as a general statement. The fact that you felt the need to stand up for that right shows just a little bit of that. I’m not saying you don’t support freedom of conscience. But it’s all just a series of “I don’t like the way you said that” versus “I have a right to say it” gainsaying, and nothing is accomplished.
Exposing the biased tweets of BBC employees isn’t about stifling their free speech but about revealing the groupthink and that the Corporation is riddled with them. It then becomes a foundation which to build evidence of how their known personal opinions are reflected in BBC reporting. But by the same standard, the increasingly significant number of comments on this site freely expressing hatred of Islam without a single moment spent on evidence of BBC bias (i.e. something more detailed than “The BBC are shoving muzzies in my face again!”) is leading people to similarly assume a groupthink here and the ensuing attacks from defenders of the indefensible and personal exchanges has been hijacking thread after thread. The impression is clear to people who only come here occasionally. Same thing about homosexuals.
Please keep in mind that some of us are stupid enough to use our own names (started years ago by accident, and it seems chickensh!t to stop doing it now, and I don’t think I have much to be ashamed of), and being associated with relentless anger with zero discussion of exactly how the BBC’s bias works can affect people personally in real life. It’s all very easy to post anonymously and claim free expression rights without considering how it affects other people.
I’m just hoping that at least one person will at last attempt a different approach to discussing the BBC’s bias on the issue of Islam in Britain and the Western World. When I think about how this blog used to attract serious attention, and has had actual affect on the BBC, as small as it may have been, I despair at times.
To some extent I take your point on the issue of arbitrary or random criticism of islam.However I have to say that for me the
British Broadcasting company’s virtual news black-out of the on going ,organised,industrial scale sexual abuse of,almost,exclusivley working-class white girls by,almost. exclusively muslim asians,and subsequent demonification of those who protest it, as far greater crime (yes crime) than say,their warped reporting of Palistine/Isreal conflict
or their pathological bias in reporting
U.S. elections.As they are betraying the very people they are supposed to serve,the british citizen and they cannot be reminded of that too often
But yes arbitary attacks on muslims or homosexuals is wrong in evert way and I encourage you to take issue with those that do it as and when.
Rather than take the Miller-esque (arthur not frank) approach,as in “The fact that you felt the need to stand up for that right shows just a little bit of that”
Respectfully Mr. S.Somerton
I agree with everything you say. That’s the original reason for this blog’s existence. My real point is that this blog needs to stick as much as possible to what it says on the tin in order for it to have any impact. After all, there are plenty of other places on the web for people who want only to express personal opinions on whatever they like.
Well I’m genuinely glad we can agree on something
The part we agree on is the original purpose of this blog.
yes
incidentally i’m not attacking the people who comment here, i’m saying that the editorial focus of the blog is the problem. to somebody who visits the site occasionally there are four recurring topics: politics, climate, multiculturalism, islam. i suggest that the editorial obsession with islam (i mean, there was a whole post a while back comparing nazism and islam, for god’s sake) scares a lot of people like me off. i’ll take a more active part in proceedings here if the shrill islam hatred drops in pitch a bit.
fair enough, but alan’s post was about a phone in about the army. it was only because he has an obsession with islam that the subject was crow barred in in the first place. it’s totally irrelevant. my point was only that the people who share his views of islam are a very small proportion of those who think the bbc has a liberal bias. if you ditch the muslim rants you’ll get far more interest.
There is too much talk about Islam on this blog -it offends my sense of moderation and I’m trying to cut down drastically on my mentions of it. It could do without quite a few links to stories whose sole connection with the Beeb is that you can bet your precious dollar it won’t be covering them.The fact that the BBC, by its protective attitude (sometimes tipping over into propaganda in its favour) has made itself a virtual ally of Muslims ( with your obviously wide study of the subject you will realise that unlike any other religion, power is a key objective in Islam) makes this difficult. Having said that, I find your constant references to rants and bigotry concerning Islam offensive, all apparently based on a pollyanna attitude acquired during your cricketing days: “comparing Nazism and Islam for God’s sake”, when Ahmedinejad belongs to a political faction which believes in the physical extermination of the Bahai, Hamas has a genocidal charter concerning the Jews, Sudan until recently was conducting two genocides simultaneously, moderate Indonesia is just beginning its third genocide in my lifetime, Turkey refuses to admit that a classic jihad against the Armenians was a genocide at all. It’s obvious that you are of the mindset that would dismiss that as a bigoted rant but ,in fact, it is just a collection of facts.
Being in a war zone, whoever you are, can have a negative effect on you for obvious reasons. That isn’t helped when the state broadcaster does its best to tell them that it was an illegal and unjust war. Perhaps Campbell might like to do a ‘phone in on that.
Maybe the bBC should be Does working at the bBC mess you up?
Jimmy Saville
Dave Lee Travis
Stuart Hall
Dan Penteado (Benefit fraud)
Ashley Blake (GBH)
Grooverider aka Raymond Bingham
Peter Rowell (indecent assault)
Lubna Qazi (benefit fraud)
James Raven (torturing a man to death in front of the victim’s family.)
Martyn Smith (Child Porn)
Ashley Walters (GBH)
Leslie Grantham (murder)
Benjamin Wilkins (filmed sexual relations with unsuspecting partners)
John Alford (drugs)
Laurence Westgaph (assault)
Desune Coleman(numerous)
Jonny Dymond (drugs)
David Dickinson(fraud)
Stan Collymore (Assult)
Jonathan King (Kiddy Fiddler)
Kristian Digby (No crime, just how he died)
Ray Gosling (Murder)
Nigel Wrench (gay Rape)
Andrew Brennard (sexual predator)
Richard Madeley (Shop lifting)
Angus Deayton, (Drugs)
Jonathan Ross (Abusive phone calls)
Michael Barrymore (Unexplained death in his swimming pool)
Jonas Armstrong (Assault)
Andy Kershaw (sex pest)
Natasha Collins (drugs overdose)
Mark Speight (suicide over the above)
You missed off notables
Richard Bacon (Drug use and being richard bacon)
Chris Langam (child porn)
Also:
Marcus Brigstocke (Existing)
And Uncle Mac
Richard Madeley & Michael Barrymore were ITV stars
Madeley originally worked for BBC radio.
May as well add Andrew Marr (serial adulterer or attempts at it)
Britons afraid to challenge radical Islam, says former Obama adviser – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9932108/Britons-afraid-to-challenge-radical-Islam-says-former-Obama-adviser.html
No mention of this on the BBC news website. How odd…
Jeff
The BBC has already answered Alan’s question. Their answer is no, it’s only extremists targeting the most vulnerable in society who have nowhere else to turn and get caught up in trouble.
Men in Britain approached to fight for jihad in Mali
Although the story is difficult to verify, other people say similar attempts at recruitment are being made.
Mohamed Nacer, who runs charity and translation service the Arab Advice Bureau at Finsbury Park in London, said several of his clients had been approached and he believed Algerians living illegally in Britain were being targeted to fight in Afghanistan, Syria or Mali.
He said the recruiters often came from abroad for several weeks at a time and made themselves known in the community.
“They know exactly where the vulnerable people are,” he said.
He told the BBC they looked for people sleeping rough or hanging about in cafes and then tried to lure them with money.
“That’s the only way to attract them – they say that they will pay for their travel fares and they will give them money to send to their family,” he said.
Notice how blame is placed differently from other “recruiting” incidents, like in Rochdale, for example.
So I wonder who recruited the doctor involved in the failed Glasgow bombing, or the teacher involved in 7/7…..? etc etc
Alan (or should I say David as we all know it’s you but you don’t want to damage your BBC career)
This is a new low.
Pure bigotry of the lowest kind. Substitute Jew or Black or Irish in your scratchings and its the same old rant of hate.
Loser.
Why is it that you think all you have to do is shout “bigot” and that’s an end to the argument? If you think it’s bigotry, explain why or your argument has no substance.
As it happens, I am often uncomfortable with the way some threads about muslims go, but that is no reason not to discuss it. Muslim terrorism is a fact of current life and if people think the BBC sweeps it under the carpet, when they would probe other groups, they are entitled to say so.
‘Why is it that you think all you have to do is shout “bigot” and that’s an end to the argument?’
Because he is a narcissist – his feelings are the only reality that matters to him. He is by some distance the most immature contributor to this site.
Alan isn’t DV any more than Scott is dez. Get a grip, colditz.
Guess they all look the same to him. 😉
“Loser”
And he expects folk to engage in debate with him?
Remember who it is that throws the insults out, like confetti at a wedding, when he gets a barrage of them right back in his direction.
Ad hominem from a defender of BBC bias. Whatever next? Keep up the goo work Scezditz.
“Substitute Jew or Black or Irish in your scratchings and its the same old rant of hate.”
But substituting “army”, which is how it started off, would be OK with you I suppose.
Why are you comparing the army with the religion of Islam?
What has Islam got to do with this story?
The “story” is the BBC, and its highly selective use of generalisations.
I thought that was obvious.
The story is that a highly-respected medical journal has published a report (funded by the Ministry of Defence itself) on criminal activity amongst former members of the army.
Where’s the generalisation?
“Where’s the generalisation?”
“Does the Army mess you up?”
I call THAT a generalisation. What would you call it?
I call it a question. To which the answer may well be no.
Not mutually exclusive.
Why ask a leading question at all?
The report suggested that there is a greater risk of violence among former army members. The leading question is a response to that suggestion, asking whether or not it is true.
The BBC isn’t just randomly picking on the army. It’s debating something on the basis of a scientific report.
If you can do a report on the propensity toward violence between ex-members of the army, and people who have never been part of the army then I’m sure the academics concerned and the BBC will be looking tonight at propensity to violence amongst different ethnic and religious identities.
Then if certain ethnic or other identity groups have a higher propensity to violence we can look at what are the cultural specific socialisation methods that produce this unwelcome outcome.
Or maybe we won’t get that academic report followed by lots of BBC coverage.
Again, why does the fact that the Lancet (which has nothing to do with the BBC) decided to carry out research on the levels of violence amongst former army members mean that you than have to carry out a similar report comparing levels of violence between different ethnic groups?
But the Lancet didn’t propose a Nikki Campbell programme, the bbc did.
And for one, I’d damn well like to see an analysis of what you propose, about different ethnic groups. Would you care to attach a racist label to that?
Given that it was pointed out that the propensity to violence either stemmed from the fact soldiers were a self-selecting group, or because of army drill were socialised into higher levels of potential violence. Surely any enquiring mind would wish to do the same about all ethnic and religious groups. Or are you concerned about the implications of the outcome.
I would have thought it was a obvious question for someone at the BBC to raise, or do you think they were concerned about the answer.
Still no reason whatsoever why the BBC couldn’t keep the question neutral and leave it to the public to judge the report. But they just couldn’t remain neutral, could they?
I would hardly call “mess you up” neutral.
Can you seriously imagine the BBC, in similar circumstances, asking something like “does comprehensive education mess you up?” Of course they wouldn’t; they would be meticulously neutral.
‘It’s debating something on the basis of a scientific report’.
Like it does with scientific reports that contradict its AGW message you mean?
You really are avin a larf me old mucker.
‘a highly-respected medical journal has published a report ‘
As it has on matters including climate change & conflict zone casualties, if to varying levels of regard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/10/lancet_iraq_survey_methodology_under_fire.html
‘We will try to keep you informed as to the answers, and the debate as it unfolds, here on the Newsnight blog.’
Interestingly, the blog appears to have remained open from posting on 19 Oct 06 to 11 Oct 07. No evident updates (at least timely, on this topic) from the author.
Looking ahead I stopped at this one as the comments were well worth reading for entertainment value:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/10/stop_whinging.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293786/Former-PCSO-BBC-security-guard-converted-Islam-admits-terror-plot.html….no joking about here comrades,,this is a serious question,,,how many more of these islamofascists working at the bbc unchecked and we dont know about…..
Like the Daily Mail, the BBC described Richard Dart as a white Muslim convert. Now I don’t remember the BBC describing Richard Reid or Germaine Lindsay as black Muslim converts.
A case of double standards or a case of the BBC being controlled by NUJ reporting restrictions?
Oh and on the BBC news they never mentioned he worked for the BBC.
The best way for islamists to get their message across would be to get some kind of studio job at the BBC. They could then shout “bang” just behind the announcer after he delivers a pro-militant, anti-soldier slant on that day’s news. It would have to be a very loud “bang” though, to get the combined islamist and BBC viewpoint through to the infidel viewers. Perhaps Gardeners’ World could supply him with a huge bag of fertiliser. (I think that this would make a “bang” sound when dropped onto the studio floor.)
Of course, in the interests of health and safety the islamist would have to sign for the fertiliser whilst wearing a high-viz jacket, unless he objects on religious grounds..
Perhaps being a hard line left wing MP also messes you up. Eric Joyce (ex Labour, now an independent and member of the CRE) finds himself, yet again, in a spot of hot water following a brawl in a Parliament bar. Of course he was arrested for thumping a Tory MP last year.
Everything I read about this bloke shows him to be an absolute charmer. Apart from his bouts of drunken violence he also regularly tops the MP’s expenses list. In one year he took over £180,000! That’s one heck of a bloody bar bill.
Also when hit the Conservative MP last year he shouted something along the lines of ‘there are too many f@@@king Tories in here’, or words to that effect. Something of a hate crime.
‘There are too many f@@@king Tories’ is the unofficial motto of the BBC “Current Affairs Department”.
‘That’s one heck of a bloody bar bill’.
Especially in a bloody bar that’s bloody subsidised by us bloody taxpayers.
typical bbc bias with its ideolical jihad against this great institution in which are young men and women serve are country, the smug and smarmy nicky cambell and his marxist production team knew what they was doing when they coined up this disgusting template for that phone in today aka does the army mess you up,why did nicky cambell and co not use phrase do british soldiers need help after serving there country instead of this hatefull attack on the army by the usual hate filled corn beef commies at the bbc and there usual lefty anti british callers on the 5 live nicky cambell phone ins.
(Sorry, this is a reply to Kyoto’s last point, it wouldn’t let me reply there)
I feel like I’m repeating myself. Why does the fact that (as suggested by this report) army drills socialise soldiers into violence mean that we should therefore investigate levels of violence amongst different ethnic groups? This debate is about the army and nothing to do with any religion. The fact that you keep seeking to bring religions into it, and in Alan’s original post, one religion in particular, implies a certain agenda, when the army is not a religion or an ethnicity. As you point out, you choose to join the army, when you cannot choose your ethnicity.
I would have no problem with any investigation into levels of violence in different ethnic groups. If any such study did reveal a particular problem within a particular ethnic group, it should be published and talked about in public.
“I would have no problem with any investigation into levels of violence in different ethnic groups. If any such study did reveal a particular problem within a particular ethnic group, it should be published and talked about in public.”
If any analysis or studies were done, you would probably be first in the queue shouting RACIST.
And yes you are repeating yourself. But is it religions or ethnicity to which you refer? It doesn’t necessarily follow one with the other. If anyone in this world is unable to see for themselves the disgusting effects of islam across the world I feel sorry for them.
It was written and recorded for the 7th century, and that is exactly where it belongs. Made by savages of the 7 th C and suitable for the time? It has no place in a civilised world.
You may not want to join the dots, perhaps. Some say they can!
How do you know what I would say? Based on my comment you quoted, how on earth can you conclude that I would shout ‘racist’ at it?
I agree with you (to an extent) about some cultural issues within Islam that have no place in our society. But the whole reason I’ve been commenting on this thread is that I do not see why Alan chose to bring it in to a story about the army.
There is no way I could know that, true.
The link in the thread is the propensity to commit violence. Fairly straightforward.
If the bbc can transmit a programme anout the army messing you up and therefore leading to acts of violence, how can anyone not see the tendency to violence from islam?
No you seem to be making me repeat myself. If the report believes that one reason for a higher propensity to violence is because of culturally sepcific socialisation activities (viz. army drills), then it also follows such an approach can be applied to ethic and religious groups. These differences are cultural (not visual) and therefore are the product of socialisation.
The study clearly drives a coach and horses through concepts of cultural relativism (fundamentally we are all the same but just wear different hats), as it indicates methods of culturally specific socialisation do produce unwelcome outcomes, or ‘deficient cultures’ (to use the words of the Rev. Jerimiah (?) Wright [O’Bama’s ex-preacher]).
‘Black’ is a constructed term meaning a coalition of people who are constantly persecuted by the majority (one does not need to accept this), and clearly no one is compelled to belong to their parents religion. One can take one’s hat off (or do you know a religion that is not too happy on that matter).
As I understand it there is a huge amount of data – say on ethnicity and violent crime in London – with one ethnicity having a significantly higher propensity to engage in violence. This data is not published because it says something we are not allowed to hear.
Academic and the BBC are cowards on this matter, you are as bad in that you play dumb, deaf and blind, thus buttressing the deniers. Your quoting back at me that people volunteering for the army (so they are self-selecting) was a typical piece of distraction. I had reported both aspects of the Radio 4 discussion (so make no comment of Radio 5 Live’s coverage), but you misquote me back to say I only considered the army to be a self-selecting group and so socialisation (drills) were irrelevant. That was not pleasant.
An article in the Commentator: ‘The continuing wimpification of America’ may have some relevance to the mindset at play in the Nicki Campbell dicussion.
An Americans schoolchild, about 7 or 8, has a birthday celebration at his school and brings in some cupcakes decorated with plastic toy soldiers. The headteacher removes the soldiers and calls in the parents to tell them that in the light of recent incidents, the mother had been insensitive.
After listing half a dozen similar incidents concerning toy guns firing bubbles and the like, throughout the US state educational system, the writer concludes:
“Actually, I am getting agitated the more I think about this. For all intents and purposes, the principal was equating soldiers with crazy mass killers. Why hasn’t this person been fired?”
You don’t have to be a middle class utopian to consider war an evil – but if you want to draw the further conclusion that therefore all soldiers should be suspected of being brutal and wicked, it seems to help.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2945/the_continuing_wimpification_of_america
muslims do my head in,simple as that.
Surely there are other places to express that, if you’re not interested in discussing BBC bias. I really don’t understand why this is a difficult concept.
Yes david there are places, but many of those going there to complain, end up kind of….errrr…
Dead?m
Please provide an example of someone living in the UK posting a comment on another blog ending up dead.
Did I say it was someone in the uk sir?
Only point i make is folk can end up err…whatever, not breathing.
Complaining elsewhere ain’t he same as in our UK
Okay, but what does that have to do with what I was talking about?
Not much actually!
The army will recruit young men heading towards a life of and try to turn their lives around, often they are successful, sometimes they aren’t. Does Campbell consider that some of the people who come back violent went out violent?
These young men give their bodies, their minds and often their lives so that Campbell can freely spout his pompous, self righteous twaddle.
The likes of Campbell tolerate druggies, petty criminals and other degenerates and blame society for their lifestyle choices, it’s time they learned to accept that men who are trained to be violent and are put into situations of enormous stress while fighting for their country will sometimes comeback with problems that are not immediately apparent. It’s estimated that 264 British Falklands veterans have committed suicide since the conflict ended compared to the 255 men who died in action.
It’s time the BBC gave our armed forces and veterans the respect they deserve, if they haven’t experienced the stress of a war zone first hand they aren’t qualified to sit in judgement.
Reprise, for INBBC:-
“Brits are too polite and scared of offending ‘vocal and aggressive Muslims’, claims former Obama adviser”
By Steve Robson.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294326/British-polite-scared-offending-vocal-aggressive-Muslims-claims-Obama-adviser.html
“The photos Saudi Arabia doesn’t want seen – and proof Islam’s most holy relics are being demolished in Mecca”
From the Independent-
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/48078
Nobody selects soldiers for the gentleness of their souls and I’d be a bit concerned if they did.
Good effort Chris, but you’re clearly banging your head against a brick wall.
The only point I would add, is that I don’t see why the discussion has to be seen as negative about the army. I would think British soldiers would like these difficulties to be discussed, further the debate about what meaures can be taken to reduce such incidences.
Maybe our boys & girls wouldnt appreciate the subject being hidden away, as it probably has been in the past.
SYRIA.
In her ‘analysis’ of Syria, INBBC’s Lyse ‘the humanity of the Taleban’ DOUCET manages to avoid using the words, ‘Islamic’, ‘jihadists’ and ‘sharia’:-
“Syria arms ban debate intensifies in Europe”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21826085
Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
INBBC refuses to describe the murder and persecution of Christians as perpetrated by Muslims; instead, INBBC’s Mr Wooldridge merely describes the attackers as a ‘mob’.
INBBC’s euphemistic headline –
“Pakistan authorities tackle violence ahead of elections”
(video clip)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21827157