Careful What You Wish For


This is what happens when you have only one hand clapping…applauding its own genius.

The BBC banished the climate sceptics to no man’s land where their voices went unheard whilst climate lobbyists could get  reports altered to suit themselves.

Those supposedly with the best interests of the environment in mind, those with vested interests, those with an eye for an opportunity, the green lobbyists, the charities, the politicians, the scientists, the journalists….joined up in one big conspiracy…

…and they went practically unchallenged as the sceptics and the critics were silenced.   Climate scientists could make their claims unopposed, the green lobbyists could take that science and package it into persuasive presentations and politicians could nod wisely and grandstand as they ‘saved the world’….and pocketed a few bob as well.

They knew what they wanted and were determined to get it whatever the cost in integrity and ethical behaviour…. shameless fixing of the science and the politics…..and able to do so because mainstream media giants like the BBC either stayed quiet or actively participated in conning the Public…not doing their job of challenging received wisdom and holding those in power to account.

Journalists like Richard Black (and here a grudging, very grudging,  admittance that he had failed to report the truth…forced by reader pressure) and Roger Harrabin were never standing on the side lines looking in observing and reporting the news…they were on the inside creating it, fixing the stories, working with the scientists and the green campaigners to silence critics and pressurise governments.

Had the sceptics been allowed a place in the debate perhaps things could be very different….not all opposed the idea of man made climate change…many accepted it, to a degree.  What they did disagree upon were the measures that could be taken….suggesting it maybe better to adapt to the changes rather than try to  prevent them….especially as the causes were not certain.

Now we’ve had a stand still in global temperature rises…everyone’s got an explanation…but the truth is no one can explain it.

Which kind of makes you think they can’t explain the temperature rise either….there’s absolutely no proof that CO2 is the cause….it’s pure conjecture.

Now everyone’s running for cover….it’s lower than expected sensitivity, it’s an unexpected negative feedback with clouds blocking the sun or it’s the oceans suddenly absorbing a lot more heat.

Could all be making fools of themselves once again…if the temperatures start to go up again…but that just confirms…no one knows nothing.


However the consequences…as always, those unintended consequences of their good intentions, are beginning to bite.

We all know that electricity prices are being hiked to pay for a parallel system of  green electricity generation…whilst still maintaining the full capacity of conventional generation.

That’s just one massive cost….and how do you price the lives lost as fuel poverty forces people to turn off their heating in the ever colder winters?

Food prices are ramped up as land is hijacked for biomass growth for conversion to fuel….and it’s the third world that suffers the most….curious for an ethical policy that was always based upon punishing the West’s  guilty and selfish industrial development which was destroying the third world’s environment, we are told.

But the pricing of food out of reach of the poorest is not the only problem with biomass.

Roger Harrabin reports without a glimmer of remorse, a pang of conscience….Forests in the US are being destroyed to feed power stations in the UK to meet our renewable energy commitments…

And it’s not just the trees that are being ravaged by the Greens….a policy ironically opposed by the …er…Greens:

Back Away from Big Biomass


Perhaps if Harrabin and his CMEP  (CMEP seminar 2006)hadn’t worked so hard to exclude the sceptic voices we could have had a more balanced and planned approach with the consequences of various solutions worked through and tested…instead we have a ‘gold rush’, a green gold rush…tearing up the planet to save the planet.

If the BBC is to actively campaign to achieve a particular objective then the BBC should be held responsible, accountable, answerable for its actions when those actions have serious and damaging consequences.

The BBC is supposed to report, inform and educate…not manipulate, deceive and manufacture the news.





Daily Mail Socks It To The BBC


The Daily Mail takes a closer look at the BBC’s coverage of what they termed the ‘British Guantanamo’.

Farce of ‘British Guantanamo’: Lawyers (with BBC help) demand 90 Afghans be freed but now say they’re better off IN prison


The BBC teams up with lawyers and the Taliban to fight the British Army. 

Is it any wonder that British forces have such little regard for the BBC?

I still remember with a big grin John Humphrys’ interview with a British Army officer a couple of years back when the officer laid into the BBC for its ever present negative outlook on Afghanistan and the work of the British forces there…if it hadn’t been for Humphrys’ sudden outbreak of indignant huffing and puffing he would have been utterly speechless.


ARRSEpedia’s Official definition of the BBC:

British Broadcasting Corporation

Or Bliar’s Bullshit Conveyor (you can obviously replace Blair with Brown!)

Either way, always the first on top of any news, anywhere, anytime. Once a beacon of sensibility, neutrality and objectivity in an otherwise mad world, ‘Aunty Beeb’ delivered the news in a clipped, brylcreemed, dinner-suited and quintessentially English way. Now hideously politicised by Neu Arbeit and its Leftie cohorts, and staffed by war heroes and liberators like John Simpson and (formerly) Martin Bell.

These typically like to journey to the most dangerous, smelly places on the planet and then whinge to the MoD when the Army doesn’t turn up to save them from the natives with the sharp fruit. They occasionally get slotted, whereupon there is much hand-wringing and inquests as to how the tragedy happened. For happening tragedies read foreign policy… or rather lack of.


Not quite in Neutral

The BBC was extremely surprised (the only people who were) and took it quite hard when they were told they are a biased, liberal bunch of pinkos.  Of course they did F all about it and if anything the Beeb is even more in the pocket of the leftie liberals now than then and so further out of step with the Brit in the street.

Increasingly embarrassing for a supposed quality news source is the promotion of Hamas as something other than terrorists. During recent rocketing of Israel which preceded a major retaliatory raid you would, if you listened only to the beeb, believe that Israel had kicked off for no reason. Giving air time to Muslim groups who scream Nazis to everything and everybody who doesn’t worship Allah simply made them look like they are pandering to militants… THEN they did a complete and unexpected U turn and refused to broadcast a tear jerking demand for money from a collection of charidees intent on paying for Hamas’ next generation of rockets.

As it all goes tits up with its reputation, the BBC is desperate for scoops to show it is still number one. Since the Hutton report, sucking up to labour has become blatant with ministerial interviews turning into party political broadcasts. BBC Political editor Nick Robinson is so up liebors arrse, you cant even see his feet. Its actually embarrassing to see him fawn over labour ministers. Worse still – BBC Business reporter Robert Peston blatantly leaked secret briefs from No 10 which promptly crashed the market. When asked if he had crashed the market he rather arrogantly, and apparently without care in the world, shrugged.

Quite simply the once great Auntie Beeb is now nothing more than a publicly funded (with menaces) Labour party mouthpiece for whatever kneejerk reaction Brown has today.

The Holy Ghost Not In The BBC Machine


Two reports about Christianity that hit the BBC cutting room floor:

Leading Anglican bishop: British Churches have ‘capitulated to secularism’ and politically correct lessons that whitewash Islam

I can’t imagine why that was kicked into the long grass by the BBC….a BBC all too keen usually to report the word of the Godly …as long as they are slagging off Bankers and Tories.


Yesterday we had a tsunami of stories about 85 Afghan Taliban…held, for their own safety, by the British.

Nothing about the report that came out of the 100,000 Christians killed every year…yes, that’s 100,000 Christians killed every year….for their faith.

100,000 Christians are killed every year for their faith, says Vatican archbishop as Iran shuts down country’s biggest Pentecostal church and arrests pastor mid-service


The BBC are on the ball as always when it comes to reporting death and destruction in Iraq…the message…‘look at Bush and Blair’s legacy’ (No thought that what is happening in Syria would have happened in Iraq had it been left under Saddam…with almost certainly a regional war bringing in Turkey, Iran and the rest):

Iraq violence: Bomb blasts leave at least 11 dead

Iraq’s reminder of the worst of times



BBC Logic


This via Guido:

We know that the BBC lost £100 million on its failed digital media project.

But it’s worse than that.

William Foxton in the Telegraph says:

We may never know the true cost of the BBC’s latest disaster – but it’ll be a lot more than £100 million

 ‘I heard that, over the five years of its life, factoring in staff costs, consulting fees and the money paid to Siemens, the contractors fired for failing to deliver the project by 2009, £150 million had been dumped into DMI. It’s always been the tradition at the BBC to calculate the value of a project in terms of how many licence fees it costs; to put this into context, £150 million is more than a million licence fees wasted.’


He also reveals that an  ‘off the shelf” system would have cost around £1 million…plus a bit more to adapt it.

But here’s the funny BBC logic:

The BBC claims it didn’t lose more than £10 million on the Siemens deal – in its accounts, it says it paid the extra costs of the Siemen’s failure by extra “savings” (cuts) across other departments.

It didn’t lose money because it made cuts elsewhere.  Well done.

Ahh…but…if you, the BBC,  hadn’t lost that money you could have then spent it on programmes and not made those cuts…and sacked all those people.

No digital media system and no extra production…lose/lose all round.

Bit like saying I’ve lost a shoe..but it’s OK…because I’ve cut off one of my legs so I now only need one shoe.

Still, lots of archive material to keep the constant repeats going on the Beeb…if only you can find them now and get them delivered…hope there’s no Tube strikes.




Taliban Get Legal Aid Whilst Cuts Here Undermine ‘Rule Of Law’


I mentioned this tagged onto the end of the ‘Afghanamo’ post but ‘Emerson v’ in the comments says that when he posted a comment on the BBC site asking who was paying for the legal assistance to some Afghan detainees the comment was deleted so I thought I would highlight it.

Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond said in an interview on the Today programme this morning that Britain was funding the legal defence for Taliban detainees through legal aid.

The BBC  have ignored that…the only comment is a mocking one at the end of one report:

‘The defence secretary was keen to point out the Afghans’ case was being brought “at the expense, of course, of the British taxpayer, because Mr Shiner’s actions are funded by the legal aid system.’


You might have thought that it would have been of some interest especially on the day that Barristers have written to the government complaining that cuts in Legal Aid will seriously undermine the rule of law” and the ongoing debate about how much money should be sent overseas in development aid whilst massive cuts are made at home.





The BBC are going into overdrive  on the story of some Afghan detainees, held for their own safety and that of British troops, beyond what is claimed to be the legal time limit.

Excited claims of a British Guantanamo are being bandied about….the detainee’s lawyers making sure they hype that line to generate a bit of ‘shock’….the BBC were happy to play along at first…but all mentions of Guantanamo seemed to have been scrubbed from the latest reports…maybe someone had a little word.

I mentioned earlier that perhaps the ‘failure’ of MI5 to pick up the two killers of Lee Rigby may be in part linked to the knowledge that as soon as they do detain someone the BBC and human rights lawyers will blitz them.

When you see the coverage that the BBC is giving to a detention centre in Afghanistan you may think I had a point….already being billed as a mini Guantanamo.

It’s the top story on the web and had been a constant thread throughout the Today programme.

Suspected or known Taliban captives are held by the British…they are supposed to hand them over to the Afghan judicial process but do not because that is prone to using torture and violence….not only that but a bundle of Afghan dollars soon wins the captive’s release and they are back on the battlefield.

So essentially the Afghans were being held by the British to prevent them being abused by the Afghan authorities…and to stop them walking out of prison, picking up a rifle or a bomb and setting off to kill a British soldier.  Controversial.

Evan Davis on the Today programme (about 08:15) had on lawyer Phil Shiner who is acting for 8 detained Afghans…detained because they are believed to be Taliban.

Shiner was allowed to deliver his well rehearsed spiel unchecked.  Davis had no relevant questions challenging anything he claimed.

This is what the web story reports he said, and as also said to Davis:

 “This is a secret facility that’s been used to unlawfully detain or intern up to 85 Afghans that they’ve kept secret, that Parliament doesn’t know about, that courts previously when they have interrogated issues like detention and internment in Afghanistan have never been told about – completely off the radar.”

He also claimed that the British were not doing anything to solve the problem such as setting up a monitored Afghan facility.

You might have thought Davis would have had a bit of research to check his claims before speaking to him…and the web site to delve deeper….but no…it wasn’t until Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond came on that we learned the truth.

Hammond  told us that he had informed Parliament…so no ‘secret‘ facility then……he also revealed that there was an ongoing programme to improve the Afghan judicial system and implement a proper overwatch and judicial process to allow a safe transfer of detainees…he also revealed that Shiner’s firm had actually been involved in legally blocking the transfer of Afghans to the Afghan authorities.


You wonder just what Shiner would have got away with if Hammond hadn’t also been on to correct his misinformation….would Davis have challenged him? 

The web site’s initial report still has the wrong information in it and is still on the front page….claiming Parliament didn’t know of the facility and missing out the essential fact that the UK had been working with the Afghans to introduce a system that would ensure the safety of detainees.

There is a new updated report now headlining…it’s obviously a very important matter for the BBC.

 This reports that the UK is ready to hand over detainees to the Afghans:  ‘The MoD said it had now found a “safe route” for their return’….the BBC claiming: ‘The move came after the BBC was shown documents detailing how 85 suspected insurgents were being held at Camp Bastion, the main British base in Afghanistan.’


Is that the BBC trying to claim the credit?

They do now note that: ‘Mr Hammond said the UK government has been working with its Afghan counterparts to find a safe way to resume transfers of detainees to the Afghan judicial system.’

But then report the opposite: 

“The UK could have trained the Afghan authorities to detain people lawfully with proper standards and making sure they are treated humanely,” Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, told the BBC.

“They could have then monitored that, including with ad hoc inspections, to make sure the Afghans were obeying the law. They have chosen not to do so.”

He said the UK was acting in an “entirely unconstitutional” way.


A final point…Hammond revealed that the work of the likes of Phil Shiner was being funded by British legal aid.  I would have thought that was almost as controversial as holding detainees beyond the legal time for their own safety and that of British troops.  Wonder what the Great British Public think of that…funding the legal defence of foreign terrorist suspects in a foreign land whilst Barristers only today have sent a letter to government detailing  how cuts to legal aid will damage the provision of justice.

The BBC don’t think it worth serious comment…mocking Hammond for raising the matter:

T’he defence secretary was keen to point out the Afghans’ case was being brought “at the expense, of course, of the British taxpayer, because Mr Shiner’s actions are funded by the legal aid system”.




Something about bears and woods…

“The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.

The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.

It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.

Spot on. The BBC has disgusted me in recent days as it does EVERYTHING possible to downplay the Woolwich Jihad. It has gone along with the “lone wolf’ theory, it has suggested that Islam is REALLY the true victim here, it has implied that the hostage taking in Sutton Prison was non-Islam related, it has implied that the Parisian stabling was also non-Islam related.

Is The BBC Biased Against The EDL?



“Nothing of importance will not offend somebody, somewhere.”


Is the BBC biased against the EDL?

I think it is…though arguably justifiably. The EDL does get a lot of airtime and coverage…but there is definitely not a neutral stance from the BBC when it talks about them or to them, there is always an undercurrent to every BBC report on them…the default approach is always that the EDL is extremist, violent and racist, that their anti-radical Islamist rhetoric is just an excuse to have a go at Muslims rather than to reform the ideology as they claim.

Regardless of the actions of some EDL members at demonstrations the EDL would have a problem…that problem being the fact that the vast majority are white, working class and Christian. The BBC takes one look and shudders.  Someone like Tariq Ramadan though can say the same things and get a warm welcome at the BBC…as noted later in this post.

Here is Sarah Montague talking on the Today programme about such groups:

Montague says: ‘It’s one thing to say these are extremist groups on the fringes…but it’s the extent to which they pollute the rest of the population I suppose in terms of how you deal with it is the concern and how much pollution do you think has gone on?’

What other politcal group would get spoken of in such terms?  Their ideas ‘pollute’ the rest of the population?  Can’t imagine her saying that about a religion.

Of course the EDL do themselves no favours by presenting a certain ‘face’ to the world….however that is almost inevitable given the demographic that they mainly spring from and the method of passing on their mesaage…but is that any reason to discount and ignore their beliefs?

This was John Simpson’s reaction to riots in Paris a few years ago:

‘The riots in France by the Muslim immigrants were due to Muslim’s fury and resentment, bitter grievances, ignored and demeaned, kept in poverty by a system which cares very little about them.’

There is a similar BBC reaction to the riots in Sweden….and of course to the ones the UK recently.


 It would be interesting to  see the BBC’s reaction if the EDL adopted the ‘Sinn Fein/IRA’ approach and separated the ‘direct action’ protest group from the political…and got themselves some media savvy spokesman with some gravitas and stature….perhaps even a Muslim.

The BBC were always ready to talk to Gerry Adams…going so far as to evade a government ban on broadcasting interviews with the IRA…despite his links to the murderous IRA who tortured, bombed and killed so many.


A few facts about the EDL:

The EDL has just over 30,000 members.

The EDL’s basic values are laid out in this document:

Memorandum of Understanding relating to the formation of a European network of advocates for human rights and personal freedoms, in opposition to Sharia Law and other forms of oppression.


The EDL’s avowed intention is to stop radical Islam, which they believe stems from the Koran which they view as ‘barbaric’ and out of date…they want to see the Koran reformed and brought into the modern , progressive world…controversial stuff.

How different is that to the call by highly respected, and controversial, Muslim ‘reformer’ Tariq Ramadan who says Muslim communities must take immediate steps including facing down literal interpretations of the Koran that bear no relationship to modern life?

The BBC is quite happy to chat to Ramadan and accord him the greatest respect….

Islamic extremist or the man leading reform of the faith? Professor Tariq Ramadan explains why his critics are wrong and why the London bombings mean more than ever that Western Muslims must split from the East. 

Muslim communities must take immediate steps, he says, including facing down literal interpretations of the Koran that bear no relationship to modern life.


So is Tariq Ramadan a ‘far right extremist’ then?  His views are the same as the EDL’s…expressed somewhat more diplomatically.

Dr Usama Hasan is also allowed a voice on the same subject:

‘Specific examples of literalist, fundamentalist readings that still dominate Muslim attitudes worldwide are manifested in the resistance to progress in human rights, gender-equality and democratic socio-political reforms that are too-often heard from socially-conservative Muslims.’

Is he on the ‘far Right also…is he ‘polluting’ the population?


How popular is the EDL and just how many people agree with their views?

Matthew Goodwin, a leftwing academic has made it his job to study the ‘far Right’ and the ‘Counter Jihad movement’……from his work we can see that 50% of his poll agree that there will be a ‘clash of civilisations’ between white Britons and Muslims…36% disagree.  Further more 52% of Conservatives, 33% of Labour, 18% of UKIP and 24% ‘other’, and only 5% of the BNP agree with the EDL.

So there is a large ground swell of opinion that does think the EDL have something worth saying…Goodwin himself admitting:

‘Their beliefs about the threatening nature of Islam have wider public support.’


Having said that the EDL say it came into existence precisely because the voices of those people were being ignored:

We’re English, we’re working class, millions of us out there, we’re not being listened to.

The BBC followed the EDL in a film: ‘Young, British and Angry’ from which that quote came.

The film maker, Ben Anderson, concluded that they may still not be listened to…not because the message is wrong…indeed many Muslims, as shown above with Tariq Ramadan, support the reform of Islam but the violence and abuse at EDL marches turns people away:

‘I was in a Luton pub with two of the founding members of the EDL, who had been celebrating St George’s Day.

Two childhood friends of theirs arrived, brothers, and African Muslims. One was practising, the other wasn’t.

“We agree with you about Islamic extremism,” they told their EDL friends.

“We’d be side by side with you at those demos, but there are just too many idiots there, we’d end up in fights.”

This summed up perfectly the problem the EDL has – as long as you can hear and see racism and violence at its demos – as long as its main tactic remains organising what is essentially football awaydays – where hundreds, and sometimes thousands of young men get tanked up and march into town centres, looking and sounding like they want that civil war they have predicted, it’s difficult for many people to take any political point seriously.’


That is a dangerous game though from the BBC to join in…to dismiss the EDL because of their ‘football hooligan’ image only serves to further their frustration at their views not being taken seriously…once they believe that democracy  and the politicians have failed them some on the Far Right might eventually conclude that the IRA or Islamist approach is the only one that gets respect and results….everyone takes what they have to say seriously….before 9/11 no one cared a jot about ‘Muslim issues’…no one even knew what they were…now everyone listens.

As I say a dangerous game to keep denigrating, demonizing and whipping  up hate against these people because of their views…views which coming out of the mouth of a Muslim the BBC respects.


Mathew Goodwin himself admits  in a letter to the Labour Party advising it on its immigration and identity politics that faith in politics will fail if such issues are not addressed ….though he is no friend of the EDL:

‘You [Labour] will be nervous about the conversations above. But not having them may well undermine your longer-term goals. The same applies in Britain, where academics such as Lauren McLaren have shown how feelings of cultural disunity do not apply only to feelings toward other citizens: they also stretch to feelings about political elites and how the overall community is governed. Put in other words, by ignoring these concerns over immigration and identity – and in particular getting to get to grips with the cultural dimension – you risk undermining not only your own goals, but broader trust in the British political system.’


It is perhaps ironic that I use those figures from Matthew Goodwin because he is someone who is engaged in a battle against the EDL…not the Islamic radicals though…just the Far Right and the EDL.

All the more ironic when he lectures Labour on the need to listen to the ‘people’ about immigration and national identity when Goodwin seeks to push the EDL out of the debate.

In his study : The Roots of Extremism: The English Defence League and the Counter-Jihad Challenge, he makes the case for an intensive campaign against such groups:

‘Few mainstream voices in Europe are actively challenging counter-Jihad narratives, or the surrounding reservoir of anti-Muslim prejudice among the general public, but this is an essential part of any successful counter-strategy.’

 ‘The paper takes the English Defence League (EDL) as a case study to reveal the drivers of support for counter-Jihad groups, which can assist in designing effective and appropriate responses to the counter-Jihad movement.’ 


So rather than believe that the EDL may have something to say Goodwin has immediately decided they must be silenced.  You have to wonder how much the BBC has bought into Goodwin’s ‘strategy’ and shapes its approach to reporting on the EDL based on ‘countering’ their movement as he suggests.

Goodwin has of course made regular appearances on the BBC promoting this approach.…on the Big Question, on Today, on various news programmes.

How much can we trust Goodwin?  Is he a disinterested bystander?

He is pro Labour as noted above…

and Pro Islam

What is it that he claims about the likes of the EDL?:

‘They are not simply anti-Muslim or overtly racist, but xenophobic and profoundly hostile towards immigration. They are more likely than others in society to expect inter-communal conflict and to believe that violence is justifiable.’


That’s taking a pretty broad brush to a whole organisation…the ‘silent majority’ of whom do not shout racist abuse or engage in violence.


Back with Montague on the Today programme we are told:

Muslims are scared…they are gripped by an endemic fear after this attack…which alienate and isolates them from society.

Not only that but:  There was a general fear of [British] society…not just of the EDL and the Far Right.

The EDL are exploiting the murder [of Lee Rigby]…aiming to be ‘at war’ with Islam…encourage low level conflict and tension in communities.


You have to ask, as the BBC doesn’t, just what is the real cause of this supposed ‘endemic fear’?

The non-Muslim’s ‘endemic fear’ of Islam is of course not considered….or just dismissed as islamophobia.

What is it that Muslims fear?  Attacks in retaliation?  Retaliation for what?  Retaliation caused by bombs and a horrifc murder by other Muslims in the name of Islam.

So in other words the problem isn’t really the Far Right…it’s Muslim extremists…who  were the ones who openly declared that they wanted to start a war and went ahead and tried to start one.

As said, no one had the slightest interest in Muslims, or Sikhs, or Mormons, or even Christians before 9/11….who changed that atmosphere of benign neglect and tolerance?

The BBC has carried out many interviews with ‘Tommy Robinson’, leader of the EDL.

The problem is of course that the EDL are mostly white, working class and haven’t been to Oxbridge…not only that but they promote a view that the BBC recoils at.  They lack credibility in the BBC’s eyes to talk about Islam and reform..whatever the actual merits of their case,  Tariq ramadan is ‘brown’ and Muslim…he wears a suit and doesn’t get involved in street demos…the BBC loves him.

Here is one of Jeremy Paxman’s interviews with Tommy Robinson which demonstrates the contemptuous disdain the patrician journalists of the BBC hold the EDL in. Here Paxman is only concerned with linking the EDL to Breivik….Paxman states that no one denies there is lots of concern [about Islam]…but he doesn’t address those concerns at all….I wonder if Tariq Ramadan’s work gets referenced in Breivik’s ‘manifesto’? 

In this other interview Paxman denies the Muslim rape gang theory  (now proven of course)and again treats Robinson with disdain.


Listen to the radio and you will always hear the EDL talked of in the same breathe as the BNP, labelled as extremist, far right and racist.

In this report the BBC side step the EDL’s reason for existence…to ‘fight’ Islamism…stemming from the ‘barbaric 7th century Koran’…instead the BBC declares that its members join up because they are fed up with the mainstream political parties and the economy…nothing to do with Islam… fact it compares the EDL  and the Far Right to the Green Party bizarrely…whilst calling the EDL extremist.

An indepth study of the EDL and its members refutes this:

Widely held assumptions about their supporters – which often stress economic austerity, political protest and Islamophobia as the key drivers – are challenged by new survey data on public attitudes towards the ideas of one leading counter-Jihad group, the English Defence League.


The BBC  has a highly defensive attitude towards Islam….firstly we know that the hierarchy are concerned about violent retribution if they broadcast something Muslims might find offensive:

Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’,” he said. “This definitely raises the stakes.”

Second, the hierarchy look on Muslims as an besieged minority….to allow criticism of Islam would stoke racism and communal conflict.…Mark Thompson refusing to broadcast a play that claimed Islam was damaging free speech…and saying other faiths had “very close identity with ethnic minorities” and as a result were covered in a more careful way by broadcasters.’

 That is why a Muslim like Tariq Ramadan is ‘allowed’ to speak in the subject of Islam, the detrimental cultural practices that result from a literal reading of the Koran and reform of it.


This is the theatrical performance that the BBC wouldn’t show: Can We Talk About This? is a verbatim theatre work investigating the interrelated issues of freedom of speech, multiculturalism and Islam as manifest in Western democracies. How does the West support progressive Muslim voices that want a modern and moderate version of Islam which offers equality to women, homosexuals and tolerance towards other  faiths? If we don’t, won’t or can’t discuss aspects of religions that are oppressive, as we do in debate over secular matters, how does a society, or community, develop?

But who defines what is offensive and on what grounds?

As one of our interviewees succinctly noted: “Nothing of importance will not offend somebody, somewhere.”



Matthew Goodwin says (in 2011) supporters of the far right are generally neither irrational nor isolated, and that a far right party without extremist baggage could be electable in Britain.