Daha Mohammed….you know…you must have heard about him…he cut the throat of a wheel chair bound man.
I’d never heard of this….thanks to Oldbloke for raising this in the comments…though Reed mentioned it way back when on another Open Thread.
On May 22nd Lee Rigby was hacked to death.
On June 15th Colin Greenway had his throat cut.
Most of us have probably never heard this news. It doesn’t seem to have been reported in the national, mainstream media.
Why? Because the ‘Establishment’ fears an adverse reaction from the general population…fuelling further unrest?
The BBC also failed to report this in any meaningful way. It seems that any Muslim violence in the aftermath of Lee Rigby’s death may have been ‘magicked’ away. Just what else is out there that we don’t know about?
The BBC reported the initial crime in a full report:
Murder probe in Thamesmead after man has throat slashed
The BBC then slipped in a mention of the man caught and charged with the murder but only in its local London ‘Live’ news feed…there doesn’t seem to be a proper article:
A man has been charged with the murder of a 56-year-old who was found with his throat slashed in south-east London.
Daha Mohammed, 51, of Abbots Close, south-east London, was charged with the murder of Colin Greenway.
He’s due to appear in custody at Bexley Magistrates’ Court today.
It seems the BBC has done the absolute minimum to enable it to say it has ‘reported’ this murder whilst doing the maximum to ensure the absolute minimum of people see that report.
Is this a case of a blackout imposed upon the media for the sake of ‘community cohesion’?
So much for the BBC’s much vaunted ‘independence’.
You will only get the News that is good for you…in ‘Our’ opinion.
Daha Mohammed? …….‘Sorry, there are no results for your search’
“Daha Mohammed….you know…you must have heard about him…he cut the throat of a wheel chair bound man.”
Sorry to be picky here, but has he already been found guilty? Or admitted it? If not, you’ll likely have some purported legal advice heading your way.
Is this on the BBC yet?
Gang chanted ‘Lee Rigby’ as they kicked soldier in Exeter underpass
A SOLDIER was attacked in an Exeter underpass by a gang who chanted “Lee Rigby” as they kicked him on the floor.The 18-year-old, known as Alexander, has been a member of the Coldstream Guards for six months.
But on route to his home in St Thomas, Exeter, he said he was targeted by the hateful mob as he is a serving member of the armed forces.
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Gang-chanted-8216-Lee-Rigby-8217-kicked-soldier/story-19601547-detail/story.html
Is there a civil war in progress, or is it that one side is attacking, while the other refuses to acknowledge its existence?
Ooops, my mistake. Didn’t see that this has already been posted.
I may be mistaken but I think this story was reported and then pulled from The Daily Mail because it was untrue. Of course they would say that wouldn’t they etc, but according to supposed locals no such attack took place.
The indigenous population of this country is indeed involved in a civil war. One which has been openly declared upon us by the very people our Quisling so-called “elite” brought into our country without ever so much as asking or consulting us. It is fought overtly, with hideous violence on our streets, by attacking our children and by thrusting their medieval belief system into our country with ever more insistence. it is also fought subtly, with a demographic timebomb which means the longer we allow it to continue, the weaker we become and the stronger they will be.
Our enemy have been granted special privileges, in that even openly pointing out the problem can lead to ridicule as a “far-right extremist”, official harassment, loss of your livelihood and even imprisonment.
It is a war whose existence is studiously ignored by the Establishment “elite” and their propaganda mouthpieces, the BBC-NUJ and the other MSM, because they stupidly and short-sightedly believe it will never affect them and their families personally, only the “plebs” for whom they have nothing but contempt and disdain.
As a result, many people in the UK are unaware that the war is taking place, except when it impacts upon them personally, at which point it is often too late. Consequently, they do not know they should be fighting for their own survival, as well as that of their children and their way of life, so they do not fight and continue sleepwalking towards the precipice.
There’s a word for a war where one side stops fighting while the other continues.
It’s called……….”losing”.
This thread is only repeating what’s already been reported (subtly) in the news.
Plea set for September 1st. So since the case is active nothing can really be reported until then. Journalists don’t want to risk contempt of court and a fine or even a jail sentence.
“Is this a case of a blackout imposed upon the media for the sake of ‘community cohesion’?” No. It’s the law of contempt.
You talk nonsense. Why don’t you check the dates we’re talking about. Regardless of any appeal we’re looking at the reporting from June….or the lack of reporting.
The media is perfectly at liberty to report who has been arrested and charged.
The BBC decided not to give this case a high profile. Why would that be?
Alan you appear to see some massive conspiracy to cover up a crime. I look and see a pattern of perfectly normal reporting. Clear reporting of the crime when it happened (including on the BBC), a note of the arrest and the man being charged (also once again also on the BBC) and now a period of silence before any potential trial. Breaking that silence would be contempt.
The only difference between our two viewpoints is that I know what I’m taking about.
I refer my learned friend to my post below ,perhaps you should have read it before deepening that hole
What the local paper report? That all seems reasonable too. Contemporary reporting of the crime which mentions the arrest. Now the case is active and we wait for the court date for more. I’ve explained how the law works several times. Which bit are you having a problem with?
short attention span? let me help you by moving the pertinent post up where you can see it
@ A Journalist Perhaps you could give me your professional opinion of this sequence of reports
A Lawyer can jump in to if he/she wants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16351780
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16380066
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18972079
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19872854
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20442548
Steady. George R may have posted a fact 2 years ago (satire) Guest Who will shoot you down If you show evidence. (You are on a night shift ‘beeboid’ )
Vance will call all dissent as trolls. Freedom of speech is close to his heart just as long as it is not off message. Chip away at islam, gays and Roman Catholics, you are in.
Stop with the facts though. Biased BBC can’t be doing with those.
Facts? To what facts do you allude?
Must I c&p the discredited facts on this site. Being a regular reader I have the impression you aren’t daft, Stewart.
But lawyer hasn’t presented any facts
just an opinion and one that is not shared by the BBC as I have demonstrated (try reading my post and check the dates on the links)
Now clearly the BBC have chosen to report two horrendous crimes in totally different ways. One hardly at all the other in great detail.
Now if its not fear of legal retribution that makes chose in such a way
Well what could it be?
And if you have been on this site often you will see that there are many other examples
many facts are disputed on here but discredited? Again that’s just an opinion
@Stewart.
I came in late and will catch the links. I have a huge problem with liars. Left or right we should always be truthful. When links are never challenged. I scratch my bonce.
Looks like Scott is now posting under the name of Gomez. Don’t encourage him.
“Looks like Scott is now posting under the name of Gomez”
No, I’m not. Chalk another one up in the “Andy S makes stuff up to try and discredit people he disagrees with”. What is it about Biased BBC commenters that they rely on fiction so? What is so frightening about being disagreed with that they just can’t face?
It will be very tedious (for they are legion) but maybe we need to keep a tally of ‘inconvenient facts’ that don’t get challenged by the beeboids.
But we could try starting with 28gate (again – how many times have I asked for this?). Ok, Gomez, Scott and co, one more chance to defend that particular secret BBC meeting with climate change activists or we can safely assume even you find that primest of prime examples of BBC agenda-setting indefensible……
‘I came in late and will catch the links. I have a huge problem…’
—
Indeed you do.
Especially if you also invoke my name (morning all!) in some daft perceived distraction whilst digging yet another credibility hole as the waffle Stewart already has your tag team spinning up shows.
As a regular reader (new name… Very tired old pack drill) you may appreciate how this ends for your efforts.
I think A Journalist may suddenly become An Absentee.
This is a reply to
Stewart says:
August 4, 2013 at 12:53 am
That seems to be a perfect example of how a case is reported.
29 December 2011: report of the crime, five people have been arrested. No one is named. At this point if someone is a key suspect and is being held for questioning (but not charged) you might expect “A 23yo man is helping police with their enquiries”.
1 January 2012: Kiaran Stapleton is charged. Now there is very little that can be reported for fear of prejudicing the trial. Most of that story is background or information that is non prejudicial
26 July 2012: Stapleton is found guilty. Up to this point only information that comes to light in the trial can be reported. Now he has been tried and found guilty you can report far more – backgrounders will be run, stuff about Stapleton that you could not run (previous convictions etc) during a trial.
The other two stories, 8 October 2012 and 22 November 2012 relate to his appeal. He is a convicted criminal and an appeal takes place in front of a judge rather than a jury so different rules apply.
This is a very good case study of correct reporting of a criminal story. Everything the BBC did was correct and by the law.
It is true that reporting of proceedings have changed. Ian Huntley and the Ipswich rapist both saw some curious reporting. The AG has commented on this but we still see people being named after arrest but before charged. The worst example of trial by media was Christopher Jefferies (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12100015). He won substantial damages.
Reporting is covered by the Contempt of Court Act (and this blog is subject to it) and it is a criminal, not a civil, matter. People can go to jail for breaking it.
So why is the alleged crime that forms the subject of this thread reported so differently (ie barely) at the same stage of the investigation?
Actually that’s a very fair question. A(nother) Journalist has taken Stewart’s post and explained how it fits in with the typical contempt framework I’ve outlined.
So why did the case of this pensioner get less coverage (and it clearly did) than other cases? Well often it’s logistics, so if someone is arrested and charged pretty rapidly (as happened here) then there’s simply less coverage. No emotional pleas from family members or for the police to advance a theory about the crime all of which would generate extra coverage.
There’s a separate and perfectly legitimate discussion to be had about why some court cases are considered more newsworthy than others. I would suggest that’s a more fruitful area to look for BBC bias rather than this sort of paranoid post generated by a misunderstanding of the law.
(By the way if it’s going to come up every time I post; I feel “28gate” showed the BBC at it’s worst and clearly in the wrong and I also think they should publish the Balen report. But I’m a journalist and think such information should be in the public domain especially if it relates to the publicly funded BBC.)
So let me get this straight .In the case I selected (there are many others) Reporting (in great detail) a murder as a hate crime before the is a suspect let alone a proven motive . After a suspect has be charged but not tried. But giving name and details of suspect.
After conviction but before sentencing including his statement “To be honest, I’m not bothered. I love prison. Lock me up for 65 years.”
And then again after sentencing but before appeal.
None of this is illegal or even prejudicial in this case but would be in the case of a man in wheel chair who has his throat cut
That don’t forget is the contention of your colleague .
And the reason? logistics. some how I’m not convinced
‘A Journalist’ writes ‘By the way if it’s going to come up every time I post; I feel “28gate” showed the BBC at it’s worst and clearly in the wrong…’
The problem is, Mr Journalist, the BBC continue to be in the wrong on climate change day after day, programme after programme, as countless posts pointing out AGW bias on this site testify.
Until the BBC and its supporters own up publicly to this (and 28gate) and start to provide more balanced, and therefore more informative, coverage on ‘climate change’, thus meeting the remit as laid down in its charter, you will continue to hear and get challenged about it on this site – day after day.
Faactsssss.Why? We get by without that left construct. What a troll. Run for the hills. Lest ye be bleck or muz. We aren’t ‘waycist’ .
Soooooo, Gomez……facts and 28gate -what’s your view?
Thought not.
Stop mouthing off about ‘facts’ if you can’t back up your argument.
anybody remember these scumbag animals that supposedly enrich us culturally? they got a minimum of 27 and 23 years. In my view their crimes were even worse than the nutcase listed above but whitey gets 30 years minimum.
I’m not trying to belittle the sad story of the poor Indian guy getting shot and killed randomly but merely pointing out the sentencing anomalies.
‘The only difference between our two viewpoints is that I know what I’m taking about.’
You sure you don’t work for the BBC?
Gomez -“Chip away at islam, gays and Roman Catholics, you are in”
😀 hmmm
while the bbc continues its blatant
bias against the UKs host religion, and our home culture, replacing genuine faith airtime with sh-t like this :-
the Biased Broadcasting Cresent, and its multi-faith outreach in recent times
Do we demonise muslims?
Is islam a better guide for live?
Why convert to islam?
Should we have sharia courts?
Are we islamophobic,(dinnertable test Warsi)
Are muslims under attack?
what is islam?
Religions should have equal status?
Do we misunderstand islam?
Do we over criticise islam?
Does Britain have a problem with muslims?
Are we partly to blame? (islamic terrorism)
are muslims too easily offended?
should we ban …. kosher 😀 meat? 😀
Should free speech be allowed to offend?
is? … islam intolerant?
did the Vatican create islam? !?!?**!?
(don t believe me just check youtube) … and sadly an overt bias in favour of homosexual issues
… they deserve harsh criticism …
oops nearly forgot
oh on the usual ad then go in the junk pile
oh on the usual ad homs … save it or send an e-mail, it can then go straight in the junk pile
Gomez – The BBC is generally more hostile towards the RC Church than it is towards Islam, by far.
And that’s despite there being twice as many RCs in the UK as Muslims (5.5m vs. 2.7m).
“Plea set for September 1st. So since the case is active nothing can really be reported until then”
the ‘mighty’ News Shopper don’t seem intimidated be the force the of law
Plea set for September 1st. So since the case is active nothing can really be reported until then
Sorry this should be link
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/10488082.Disabled_man_had_throat_slit_in__brutal_attack__in_Thamesmead__Murder_probe_underway/
(Oh for that post publish edit facility Joshaw)
Journalist “Is this a case of a blackout imposed upon the media for the sake of ‘community cohesion’?” No. It’s the law of contempt. ”
bollox. the bbc scumbag journalists have a long history of failing to report on white victims of racism in the interests of community cohesion. one amongst many is Kriss Donald
“The case, which featured the first ever conviction for racially motivated murder in Scotland, is cited as an example of the lack of attention the media and society give to white sufferers of racist attacks compared to that given to ethnic minorities, with organisations such as the BBC later admitting failing to cover the case sufficiently.It is also suggested the crime demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald
BBC still not implementing the lessons they’ve apparently learned
So what have you got to say about this example you BBC supporters ?
Nothing?
What a surprise !!!!!
If I’m totally honest I was completely unware of Kriss Donald’s story at the time. I think you could certainly say it was comprehensively missed by all the media (I believe the BBC apologised eventually for their coverage?) But certainly a massive failure on the part of all journalists.
have you heard of Charlene Downes? she ended up as kebab meat. funny how if ppl rely on al beeb for news they’ve never heard of her
“The Telegraph reported that Mick Gradwell, a former detective superintendent with Lancashire Police, had told another newspaper that the investigation into sexual abuse in Blackpool was being “hampered by political correctness””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Charlene_Downes
You are spouting unadulterated garbage. There is absolutely no legal restriction on the naming of a suspect in a murder case. Assuming that a suspect is necessarily guilty is another matter. Since you’re only a journalist, you probably will need to get a colleague to google “Peter Sutcliffe” for you, but I can promise you that he did not benefit from anonymity before his trial.
Even when you search ‘Colin Greenway’ on the BBC website there is no result.
Just to contrast here is another story of a similar nature that they seem to have no difficulty reporting. Spot the difference:
Man detained over pensioner Eleftheria Demetriou killing
A mentally-ill man who stabbed a woman to death in north London after he stopped taking his medication has been detained indefinitely in hospital.
Hakim Abdillahi, 38, repeatedly stabbed Eleftheria Demetriou, 79, in Morant Place, Wood Green, last August believing her to be the “antichrist”.
Abdillahi, of Morant Place, admitted manslaughter at the Old Bailey.
The “gentle and quiet” man had been friends with the victim and called her “grandma”, the jury heard.
Sentencing, Judge Richard Hone QC, said: “What you did almost defies rational explanation.”
‘Acutely psychotic’
The killer, who was being treated for personality disorder, had come to the UK from the African country Djibouti in 1999 pretending to be six years younger.
A month before the attack the killer was discharged from St Ann’s Hospital in Haringey and his behaviour soon became increasingly erratic.
In the weeks before the attack, Abdillahi had turned to cannabis and khat after he stopped taking his medication, the court heard.
Days before the attack he called the police and told them he was being “picked on” and a few days later he called officers again to say “the holy spirit was in him” and he had been taken by demons.
After the attack it was Abdillahi who called 999 and when police arrived he told them: “I was told to deal with her – you should be happy the antichrist is dead”, Kaly Kaul QC, prosecuting, said.
The grandmother died from multiple wounds to the heart and spleen.
In a victim impact statement, the pensioner’s son Marios Demetriou said he was heartbroken and his whole family was in counselling.
Mr Demetriou said his seven-year-old daughter was so affected by her grandmother’s death she could not go to school and had nightmares that Abdillahi would kill her.
Defending Abdillahi, Ross Johnson said the defendant had a history of self-harming and depression and had been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder.
Mr Johnson said the killer had a “catastrophic collapse in his mental health” and was “acutely psychotic on the day of the killing”.
“But he currently has no insight in to what he has done,” he added.
They also reported the story a year ago when he was first charged.
Only one way to explain their ‘overlooking’ the Greenway/Mohammed incident.
SCUM = SUCCUMB
Let’s get things straight guys:
A MAN IS DEAD – MURDERED – THIS CAN BE REPORTED.
A MAN IS CHARGED WITH HIS MURDER – THIS CAN BE REPORTED.
Don’t justify the BBC scum agenda.
Yes – but you cannot hang, draw and quarter him by implying his guilt before due process (like the left do). Occasionally they are innocent.
When a white male is charged with an offence – or sometimes, merely fingered by the police – the BBC will often go large on his presumed guilt. As Daha Mohammed only ticks one of these boxes, the corporation will be careful not to prejudice the jury against him in the run-up to his trial.
@ A Journalist Perhaps you could give me your professional opinion of this sequence of reports
A Lawyer can jump in to if he/she wants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16351780
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16380066
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18972079
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19872854
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20442548
@all.
I am Scott because I am anti eejit. Typical. I have read enough to know that his anger is a product of nasty homopobia. Deny it or peruse the archives.
@Stewart
Vance says (and agreed with by bBBC dim bulbs) ‘Fox news is the objective unbiased news we need’
Do you, or anybody else agree?
Does he say that? I say fox news is the balance that we need to counter weight the BBCs perpetual fauxcialist orthodoxy ,that’s plurality.
Is it your position that because fox is unrepentantly ‘right wing’ it must therefore be evil and dishonest? (” Freedom of speech is close to his heart just as long as it is not off message.”)
The difference dear Gomez is this neither you or I are forced to pay for fox news, (except in the most fundamentalist Marxist sense)
Re- your original post Here’s a tip that I try to follow myself, though sometimes fail
Prohibit posting, post pub.
A nonsense argument, Stewart. He said it and idiots agree. Contrary is his ouvre. Would you object to a black or gay Dr Who? (That is his latest bug bear) Have the honesty of your conviction.
P.S Do not try to take the piss out of someone smarter. It is unseemly
For someone who claims to be smart your grammar leaves much to be desired.
Noted. Android and grumpiness are not fine bed fellows. Looking forward to being a pedant about your ‘verse’
Sorry to be a pedant, Gomez, but anyone with a GCSE in French or English should know it’s “oeuvre” not “ouvre”.
Mod. Fr. oeuvre < Lat. opera, works;
Mod. Fr. ouvre < Lat. aperire, to open.
Would you object to a black or gay Dr Who?
Not one bit but I would object if those two aspects were used to proselytise a political position. That is against the BBC’s charter.
I’d like to see an Hasidic Dr Who.
Not going to happen because he wouldn’t be able to work on a Saturday …
“Next week, Dr al-Who packs the Tardis with C4 and changes the outcome of the Siege of Vienna….”
He could time shift, silly.
Good idea,an Hasidic Dr Who would have all the right clobber, already
‘Do not try to take the piss out of someone smarter….’
Still waiting for your 28gate defence, Gomez, the chance of a lifetime for you to prove your superior smartness and show how this site is completely lacking in facts to support its accusations of BBC bias – in this case, yet another example of it’s self-confessed pro-AGW agenda.
Now the 28gate posts go back at least a year and there has not been a single squeak of a defence from you or any of your fellow BBC-worshippers/colleagues – and the posts have been legion.
So…….here’s your chance (again, yawn). Away you go now, you have our undivided attention…..
Honesty. Anyone? Weed is tumbling.
Gomez,
Must you post such utterly infantile comments? I don’t doubt that you believe your opinions are correct, however I live in the grown up world and boorish people such as yourself are treated with the contempt they deserve.
What kind of reply is that, Gomez? Are you going to answer a perfectly reasonable question or has your self-proclaimed reign as ‘someone smarter’ suddenly come to an end?
From disproportionate reporting of crime to the next doctor who (without addressing the issue) how very Derrida of you
Nonsense, smarter. More of your facts
Gomez? or just your opinions ,perhaps the two are inseparable for you.
As to doctor who, frankly my dear I don’t give a damn. The whole thing has become a piece of sub Brechtian agit-prop (just my opinion if you’ll allow)
Now while we are posing totally random questions let me ask you.
Are you now, or have you ever been, an associate of Emmanuel Goldstein?
I understand the law on contempt and why there are restrictions on reporting. But imagine if a member of the EDL was arrested for killing someone, or if six members of the EDL assaulted a muslim. The BBC would repeatedly cover the story with headlines like EDL killing, EDL assault, Tommy Robinson would be possibly interviewed and his organization accused of stimulating violent attacks, Cameron would give a statement to the BBC describing how the EDL attacks made him feel sick. And so on it would go.
No that’s a very fair point. To be very honest some murders are just more newsworthy than others. It’s a function of those involved, what other stories are going on at that time and sometimes the politics. And sometimes the BBC and/or others make the wrong call.
But I think in news terms I can say it would be hard for six EDL members to murder a Muslim without it being pretty newsworthy. Once arrested though all the same contempt rules would still apply.
A man in a wheelchair has his throat cut, a Muslim man has been charged, and this is not ‘newsworthy’!
Muslim gangs specifically targeted young girls, and for the most part the BBC preferred to avoid this connection and saw it as not ‘newsworthy’.
The majority of taxi rapes here are perpetrated by Muslim drivers but the BBC deems it not ‘newsworthy’. They did however fire a radio host for ‘racism’ who was found to have requested a ‘non-Asian’ driver, preferably a woman, to take her 14 year old daughter to her grandmother.
We can also go into the huge increase of Muslim persecution of Christians throughout the Islamic world, especially since the ‘Arab Spring’ that the BBC finds not ‘newsworthy’.
I just showed where a year ago a 79 year old woman was stabbed to a death by an illegal immigrant from Djibouti, but he was a deranged Christian. Somehow the BBC found this story ‘newsworthy’ – both at the time of the incident, and the court findings.
Are you seeing a pattern here to what the BBC call ‘newsworthy’?
This is what we call bias.
Still want to call yourself a journalist?
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Garbage. Compare the murder rates to the number of murders reported in the media. There’s a massive disparity. This is because a) there are a lot of murders; b) some are more newsworthy than others. I attended the trial a couple of years ago of a man who’d beheaded a neighbour with a sword. Only the local paper reported it. There are many other murders that barely merit a few lines in the national press. Woolwich was hugely newsworthy because there were lots of witnesses and the government declared it a possible terrorist incident. This killing on the other hand… beyond the fact that the accused is called Mohammed you don’t even have proof he’s a Muslim. Deciding this is an Islamist killing on zero evidence is contemptible, and asking why it hasn’t been reported more widely is utterly naive.
Get somebody to read you the whole of my comment you moron.
beyond the fact that the accused is called Mohammed you don’t even have proof he’s a Muslim.
Yes he could be a Teddy Bear.
My guess is you were related in some way to the accused who beheaded the neighbour.
Let’s see, what type of mindset seems to think beheading is a fitting type of execution…hmmm?
You add to my point – but you’re still an imbecile.
Childish name calling. The sword murderer and his victim were both white men and the killing was the culmination of a long feud. No Muslims anywhere near that courtroom. You really do see nasty bogeymen in every woodpile, don’t you?
Give us their names!
While you’re at it – find a Mohammed that ISN’T of Muslim origins.
You’ve still avoided relating to my complete post, and using ‘victim status’ to do so won’t wash here.
If the shoe fits – wear it!
‘Some are more newsworthy than others.’
Who decides?
It’s a mistake to feed the bbc trolls who infest the host, attempting to secure it’s demise.
It’s very like an infestation by incomers who seek to destroy the host nation, whilst all the time drawing support and sustenance from the invaded country.
Parasites ought not to be fed.
How strange that no one here has compared the reporting of this case to that of the 71 year old Muslim murdered on his way home from the Mosque.
Mohammed Saleem killed leaving prayers in Small Heath, and hasn’t the BBC made a meal of it? We were even told the ethnic background of the attacker, something which never happens when they’re one of the lefts brown eyes boys.
Nearly every day in the local news to me there are headline reports of Asians (well I say Asians a catch all which had to be coined because of their misbehaviour). They are not Chinese nor from the Eastern Pacific Rim, 99% of the time they are not even Indians. The words Pakistani & Bangladeshi (somewhat less so) are now unutterable anathema to the PC left, they daren’t let the people know the truth.
So this week we’ve had sexual offences, a 165mph idiot who said in court he would do it again! Drug dealing, and a 7 strong gang of illegal immigrant traffickers , the scale of the corruption was truly breath taking, and involved people who had been held up by the fools in power as pillars of the local community.
We know that there are particular problems associated with the Pakistani community, especially with corruption. Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and yet those with the rose tinted glasses and blinkers, believe that some kind of miracle occurs when the plane from Pakistan lands in the UK and all thoughts of corruption is dispelled. No kind of special intervention is made to tell them that corruption is not allowed in the UK, because that would be to admit that there is an issue, and we can’t have that!
So instead the BBC attempts to cover up and supress the degree of crime committed by this (thankfully) minority ‘community’.
I think that really reinforces my earlier point. With Mr Saleem’s murder there was quite a while before an arrest was made, so there was a lot more reporting of the investigation itself. Apparently random killings of pensioners tend to be quite newsworthy because pensioners buy papers.
A Journalist,
Your comment reinforces the general consensus that you are nothing less than A) hypocrite and B) using your parents computer without permission.
Without doubt a genuine journalist would never make such obviously incorrect legal claims as you spouted in some of your earlier posts, and I imagine would also be able to hold a conversation without resorting to sock puppetry and ad-homs. hang on perhaps your one of those CiF contributors who thinks that having an article published on the website makes them a genuine journalist.
Do feel free to list any “obviously incorrect legal claims” in detail. Contempt of Court is a complicated aspect of law but since no one here has so far grasped the basics there doesn’t seem much point moving on to the advanced stuff.
Don’t piss on our leg and tell us it’s raining!
A MAN COLIN GREENWAY HAS BEEN MURDERED IN HIS WHEELCHAIR!
ANOTHER MAN – DAHA MOHAMMED HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH HIS MURDER.
There is nothing illegal about reporting it and your idiot attempt to claim this is the reason for not doing so is getting tiresome.
There is indeed nothing illegal about saying that. But that’s pretty much all you can say at this point. I’ve made this point several times now.
Do you really not understand what this topic is about?
Alan showed in his opening paragraphs that the BBC DID cover the story, but without giving any names.
The following day they gave the names, but only in their local news feed, which doesn’t show up in their search engine.
So it’s NOTHING to do with any legal matter – but purely to avoid bringing Islam into further disrepute, as we detail all too often here.
It’s called dhimmitude!
One would think that ‘a journalist’ would have looked properly at the details presented here before commenting, and then trying to claim bogus legal reasons to justify his reasoning.
My point is even if this crime is part of some grand sweeping plan by all Muslims to murder their way to a global caliphate… you can’t say that now because we’re waiting for the trial. Although for some bizarre reason LLB (Hons) disagrees with that. So perhaps you and he would like to setup a website where you fling around all these exciting accusations around under your real names?
The only one seeing or linking this murder as part of a global terrorist threat is you.
Our point is simply that the BBC avoid reporting stories where they have to show a Muslim as the criminal. This is just another instance of it, and we have detailed numerous others, besides the examples I provided above.
Your claiming this instance was due to a legal issue, which has been shown to be patently false.
If you’re still not getting it, it’s only because you don’t want to, and you won’t waste any more of my time.
LLB (hons) means im a lawyer
ok lets move on to the advanced “stuff” about contempt of court like you want
in what circumstances is it permissible for the press to accuse /label someone charged but not convicted of murder as a murderer, without prejudicing the accused right to a fair trial?
there are numerous of precedents. can you name me one?
Are you thinking of the Mail’s rather brave “Murderers” front page about the killers of Stephen Lawrence?
you really havnt got a clue about the law regarding contempt of court have you? i asked you to explain the circumstances and to provide me with a precedent which you havnt done.
to give you a clue, the precedent is from the house of lords a long time before Lawrence was killed.
just to point out, the mail story you quoted was a publicity stunt to get people acquitted of murder to sue for defamation of character and had nothing to do with the laws of contempt of court
no comment eh journalist? i thought you knew the law? if you are a journalist then you’re an embarrassment to your profession. i suggest you pursue a new career, maybe writing jokes for Christmas crackers
I have to confess I’ve no idea what you are driving at. From your previous posts on this topic I dont believe you are a qualified lawyer and I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. Something which could in theory get you into a lot of trouble one day.
‘Whoosh! In from behind with both feet, no attempt to play the ball, surely Journalist has to be red-carded for that one…..’
he certainly has. a journalist who does not know the difference between libel and contempt.
If you are a lawyer you’re sitting in a back office in Dagenham doing conveyancing. You should probably stick to that because it is evident you’re well out of your depth talking about media law.
This is a reply to
LLB(hons) says:
August 5, 2013 at 12:27 am
I am no lawyer, I have a working understanding of the law of contempt. There are times when suspects names are released by the police or CPS for the public interest; Raoul Moat springs to mind. Under those circumstances you have a defence of qualified privilege.
ACPO has also talked of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which someone will be named.
But as anyone who works in a media organisation knows, we employ lawyers for this kind of thing. As a hack you need to know enough to know when a story should be legalled and then get it to the lawyer. They are the professionals.
I couldn’t begin to give you precedents; they are probably in my copy of McNae.
Are you a libel lawyer?
I’m intrigued though, he’s talking about something older “the precedent is from the house of lords a long time before Lawrence was killed.” So he’s clearly not talking about a police presser being covered by qualified privileged that’s a relatively new concept.
Still he’s gone quiet now, so I guess we’ll never know.
I have no idea what he is talking about but I am not a lawyer.
This site has a very confused idea about how the media works.
Being “a journalist” is nothing to be proud about. The fact that this individual actually uses the title on him/herself speaks volumes (amply backed up by his/her comments!).
I think it’s called Leftist Bloated Self-Regard Syndrome.
While BBC-NUJ shows its political sympathy to illegal protesters against shale gas development at Balcombe, will BBC-NUJ report this on wind farm fiasco?:-
“We could soon be paying billions for this wind back-up”
By Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10220083/We-could-soon-be-paying-billions-for-this-wind-back-up.html
BBC, NUJ, Labour Party, et al are terrified that shale gas comes on line before the next election providing a boost for the economy and, heaven forbid, provide some credit for the Tories. Far better production be delayed until the two Eds are elected and the proceeds can be squandered on left wing ideology.
Well, that is one hypothesis. I do remember Jim Callaghan back in the 1970s saying, in respect of the (then) potential North Sea bonanza, “we mustn’t give them [i.e. the Tories] the oil.”
Blimey, I never heard of this but the again I’ve known for a long time that the BBC is heavily influenced (bullied) by the Muslim population in this country and so will not dare to tell the truth over the myriad atrocities of Islam spreading through the west like a cancer for fear of being beaten up. I find Islam and the BBC utterly repugnant myself.
The BBC are like all leftists they cowards.
Isn’t the point of this that had the races/religions been the other way round the BBC would be referring to it daily one way or another?