Don’t know if you watched the Andrew Neil hosted This Week last night? Mr Neil continues to be the exception that proves the rule regarding BBC bias. He is scrupulously even handed and should be what all BBC journalism aspires to. Instead, he is the aberration but nonetheless always worth watching. Last evening he interviewed Asim Qureshi, the “research director” at “human rights” organisation CAGE. Asim is a vile piece of work, in the view of many, and Neil allowed him to dig a grave for himself with consummate ease. However what struck me as the MOST telling comment was when Michael Portillo wondered out loud WHY the BBC had allowed Qureshi show a free reign across its airwaves for the past week? In the case of This Week it is clear he was there to be dissected – and a good thing – but on the majority of BBC programmes he has been able to get away with his deplorable and appalling excuse making for Jihad. Thoughts?
WHEN MICHAEL PORTILLO IS RIGHT YOU KNOW THINGS ARE WRONG
Bookmark the permalink.
The programme demonstrated the sort of Islamophobia that we have to put up with every day in this country.
“… Islamophobia that we have to put up with …”
But Shami darling, I thought you were a Hindu … ???
Yes but most muslims are brown which seems to be the most important factor when prioritising human rights for Shami
Maybe she ought to realise that millions of Christians are not white, and many being butchered by Boko Haram are black. These apologists for Islam try every trick to defend them, including the race card. But Islam is not a race. How many times do we have to say this?
Islamists caused murder and mayhem in a Sydney cafe.
Islamists caused murder and mayham in the Canadian parliament.
Islamists shot dead journalists at Charlie Hebdo.
Islamists shot dead Jews at a Paris kosher deli.
An Islamist beheaded Lee Rigby in Woolwich.
Islamists were behind 7/7 in London.
Islamists were behind 3/11 in Madrid.
Islamists were behind 9/11 in New York.
Islamists are taking part in brutal, bestial and barbaric atrocities in Iraq, Syria and Libya at this very moment.
That could be a reason for our “Islamophobia”.
Haha. I get it but the real Chakrabati keeps her head down when it requires any comment about Muslim activities. Where was she and Liberty during the Paris Charlie Hebdo censorship discussions? You would have thought discussions about freedom of expression would have been precisely the issue for Liberty. But, of course, this absence demonstrates that Liberty is just another agitprop left cultural and political agitator. Speaks truth to power only when the left wing agenda is being promoted and the target is the “right” or the state attempting to protect citizens. Am reminded of Cage here and the parallel is that Liberty’s absence of comment makes it clear that they are part of the problem and certainly not any part of the solution. Liberty to do what precisely?
http://islamqa.info/en/20214 Take a peak at this Shami .
I’m not Islamaphobic myself, but could be forgiven because, as far as I know, it’s only Muslims in ISIS. And I hear such moronic answers to why they were recruited, such as ‘it was exciting’! Something a bit wrong with the faith if ISIS can recruit so many so easily don’t you think? -because that implies there are millions of potential Muslim-ISIS candidates out there and you wonder why some of us are a bit wary now?
Personally, I don’t trust a morality happy with beheadings and stoning women, but then I’m a peace loving aetheist.
Madam..you have a serious problem if you consider this program
Islamophobic.
His own words condemned. At last somebody had the courage to not pussy foot around the issue but to insist on an answer to a direct question…even thought the answer could well be in essence one of Taqiyya type!!
You don’t have to put up with it Shami.
You could vote with your feet if you are so upset.
Have you read the Koran, and it’s violent verses…….is it okay to preach them, u are more worried about self censorship of charlie hebdo………..and u do not want to censor religion…………Try to be honest
@ Shami Chakrabarti – the presenter was endeavouring to clarify whether his “guest” supported such charming activities as Female Genital Mutilation, the stoning of gays, adulterers, and non believers, and a little light beheading. All good wholesome human rights supporting activities. The best you can come up with is to bleat that any right thinking person who finds those activities abhorrent is Islamophobic. What on earth is wrong with you? Might I suggest that in future you at least make an attempt to fire up your lone brain cell, before posting such a crass and inane comment.
Rather than highlighting Islampaphobia, the interview highlighted what just what unspeakable, despicable creatures the apologists for fundamental Islam are. This can only be a good thing.
Watching that interview it becomes ever more apparent that if the programme was Islamaphobic, being Islamaphobic is a positive thing – the sign of a balanced, rational mind.
Just out of curiosity can you expand and clarify exactly what what was Islamaphobic about it? You seem to be saying that anyone who challenges the ideas of fundamental Islam is an Islamaphobe. Are you saying that your sympathies lie with the likes of Mohammed Emwazi?
I found your comment crass, insensitive and downright offensive.
Rather than demonstrating the sort of Islamaphobia this country has to put up with on a daily basis, it demonstrated the sort of deluded, grossly offensive, individuals who for some unknown reason are permitted to have a voice in this country. I include you amongst that group. I found the fact that you, who purports to be a human rights campaigner, supports these sub humans decidedly worrying.
Agree about Brillo. He must be on borrowed time at the BBC.
As is Michael Portillo I would have thought
Qureshi’s background as a terrorist sympathiser and rabble-rouser is never given the full airing such lethal, anti-British, traitorous activities warrant, especially by the BBC which, when it comes to the crunch, has a responsibility to act in the national interest.
Whatever pretence the BBC put up about giving Qureshi a hard time when they interview him – and they don’t, not by the standards they employ against their sworn enemies on the Right – they always give him plenty of space to get his mendacious messages across which, unless vigorously challenged and debunked will linger in the mind of the less-informed listener and help sow the seeds of doubt.
The BBC deliberately throws up a smokescreen for Islam. It’s pathetic pretence at querying how young Muslims are radicalised, especially the lack of any attempt to get under the skin of what’s happening inside and outside mosques, in Islamic schhols and in our universities, tells you all you need to know about where ‘the home of the world’s best investigative journalists’ stand on this very real threat to our security and democracy.
Close ’em down.
You are absolutely right johnnythefish. The idea that he was on the BBC to be “dissected” is exceptionally naive. Only gullible middle-class “we cannot allow terrorsts to curtail our free speech” types are taken in by this travesty. The BBC, if it believes its own propaganda, must think that the Bearded One is highly unrepresentative of the “peace loving” Muslim community, yet devotes hours of air time to him. Farage represents millions and yet it took years before he was considered by the BBC to be “salonfähig”, as the Germans would say. Where is Geert Wilders on the BBC, for example? He does not advocate murdering anyone. As he has friends who have been murdered by Muslims and has escaped Muslim murder attempts, his views would be more than academic blah-blah. The BBC is not interested. Rather than air the “controversial” cartoons, surely essential to the public’s understanding of the “offence” felt by “peace-loving” Muslims, the BBC bans them. Portaloo’s comment merely adds insult to injury. Why didn’t he walk out?. The BBC tactic is to “dissect ” the arguments of an “”extreme” Nazi to show that other Nazis are cuddly and “moderate”. A moderate Muslim is Muslim that does not kill the Unbeliever himself, but is still rather pleased when a brother does it for him.
Sisi is shutting down 27,000 mosques in Egypt. If a muslim country recognises the problem why haven’t our, so called, leaders woken up to the poison in our midst?
Maybe they could be converted into churches to replace all those Coptic places of worship destroyed by Bowen’s ‘peaceful’ chums in the Muslim Brotherhood.
But who will replace those 21 Copts brutally murdered by Isis-?
Convert the mosques into Bingo Halls and re-name them Mecca.
Meanwhile, let’s see what the BBC make of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11453415/Girlfriend-of-first-Briton-to-die-fighting-Islamic-State-says-she-has-received-abuse.html
‘Jemma Weston, 23, said she was subjected to taunts online and on the street after describing her relationship with Konstandinos Scurfield, who was killed fighting jihadists in Syria….
…..She went on: “There are people near where I live who will be glad he is dead.
“I’m worried that if I’m walking through town there may be repercussions.’
Seems ISIS might have support in this country well beyond the ‘lone wolves’ the BBC – with its 70% news coverage – tells the nation about.
‘In the case of This Week it is clear he was there to be dissected – and a good thing – but on the majority of BBC programmes he has been able to get away with his deplorable and appalling excuse making for Jihad. Thoughts?”
Rather sets the framework for the answer.
‘This Week’ is a niche outlet. Who will have heard of it, and what happened? Few. Versus the wall to wall red crapet afforded during sofa sloth time and the Katz Kindergarden Hours.
Portillo should have very politely told AN that, actually, enough’s enough support by association from the establishment, and he’s going to pull a Gorgeous and excuse himself to leave Mr. Q to get Brillo’d solo.
I feel as though the worm is turning very slightly.
There seems to be a slight change of attitude in the media towards Islam. It is perhaps my imagination, but if the recent Terrorist acts can’t bring change, what can?
I’m looking forward to the May election. Others may not be…
..
Mr Portillo might be aghast that the BBC are giving a huge amount of air time to this apologist for Jihadi John and other Muslim murders, but we on this site are not. It is absolutely typical that the BBC run any story which attacks British institutions , in this case the security services, and which seeks to put forward a spurious argument that in some way we are reaping what we have sown. This is all part of the corporation’s liberal left credo of moral relativism , support for what they regard as disadvantaged groups , preference for immigrants , no matter how disgusting ,over native Brits.
People like Portillo should wake up and realise that the BBC and its numerous allies, is hell bent on forcing through a change in the UK which they hope will see the creation of a multicultural society. They regard the ordinary native Brit with at best disdain and at worst hatred, and see ignoring the democratic process as of no consequence. They believe in the rightness of this change with the fervour of religious fanatics. The BBC is a very dangerous organisation of immense power thanks to its state funding and near monopoly of news, and which will lead us down the path which will very likely end in us becoming an Islamic state and not the multiculty one they envision. Whether we are converted by the book or the sword remains to be seen.
I realise that the Portillo’s of this world make a good living out of the BBC but they should stop and think where the BBC is taking us and use their celebratory status to try and act as a counter weight to the multiculty fanatics at the BBC.
The thought of the BBC being given broadcasting levy on every home fills me with horror.
Yes, the BBC seems concerned that agents of Islam, implementing what is written in the book are destroying pre-Islamic cultural artefacts in Nimrud. War crime, etc. The BBC seems to think this is without precedence. The prime objective of Islam has always been to erase whatever is non-Islamic from the face of the Earth. This means both artefacts of past civilisations and living cultures of today. There is plenty of evidence, to the contrary, but the BBC still believes there will be a fairy tale ending to mass Muslim immigration into Britain.
Yes, the BBC seems concerned that agents of Islam, implementing what is written in the book are destroying pre-Islamic cultural artefacts in Nimrud. War crime, etc. The BBC seems to think this is without precedence. The prime objective of Islam has always been to erase whatever is non-Islamic from the face of the Earth. This means both artefacts of past civilisations and living cultures of today. There is plenty of evidence, to the contrary, but the BBC still believes there will be a fairy tale ending to mass Muslim immigration into Britain.
Mr Neil continues to be the exception that proves the rule regarding BBC bias. He is scrupulously even handed and should be what all BBC journalism aspires to.
It’s not a coincidence that his programme is aired after Question Time on Thursday night @11.40pm, when most people have gone to bed, and his views will not be heard.
Teddy Bear
Unlike the rest of the journos at the BBC he doesn’t give us his “views”. That is why he is the exception.
I didn’t see the programme – Question Time was as much as I could take, but going by the article here on what happened, he showed his views by what he said.
Pressed by Andrew Neil, the show’s presenter, to condemn a series of extreme positions, including claims that Jews are descended from pigs and homosexuality is evil.
He repeatedly refused to engage, saying: “I’m not a theologian.”
Pushed to take a stance, he said: “I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.”
Accusing him of using “weasel words,” Mr Neil put it to Mr Qureshi that he had in the past spoken in favour of Jihad and Sharia law.
He said: “As far as I am concerned, Sharia law isn’t practised correctly anywhere in the world. “Jihad is part of the religion of Islam.”
I would say Neil is merely expressing common sense from the values and qualities of what used to be our society, that alas is not common any more.
asim qureshi and anjem choudary,spot the difference,not really,last he probably thought he would get an easy time by andrew neil.oh no.this vile grinning jihadist got exposed for what he is and that is dangerous warper of young muslim minds that leads them on the pathway to terrorism with all this anti western propaganda that he and his fellow cage jihadists spew out everytime they open there big jihadist mouths.well done andrew neil for exposing this jihadist extremist asim qureshi last night,this man and his cohorts should all be put in a cage and its called bellmarch prison.
Did you notice the “zabibah” Quereshi was sporting? That is an obvious indicator that your dealing with a fanatic.
The BBC would, at best, make us all dupes of our enemies.
INBBC’s welcome Islamic guest-
“Jihadi John apologist who said killer was a ‘beautiful man’ sparks new outrage after refusing to condemn stoning of women.
“Cage director Asim Qureshi was quizzed about extremist positions.
“Refused to condemn genital mutilation, domestic violence and stoning.
“Last week he defended the Mohammed Emwazi known as Jihadi John.”
By TOM MCTAGUE,
DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982765/Muslim-rights-leader-praised-beautiful-Jihadi-John-sparks-outrage-refusing-condemn-stoning-women.html
“The BBC’s Sima Kotecha: Islam is ‘a religion of peace'”
By Paul Austin Murphy.
[Excerpt]:-
“The BBC uses an Islamophile journalist (who nearly always writes on Muslim-related issues) to do a piece on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Indeed her articles and broadcasts are very sympathetic to both Islam and Muslims.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_bbcs_sima_kotecha_islam_is_a_religion_of_peace.html
If they just do not want to be wise making use of their money, so
consequently. The other information can be left blank for your bidders to add their bid amount and relevant details.
There are so many free printable coupons and coupon codes offered at Wow-Coupons.
Even politically meek and mild ‘ The Economist’ criticises ‘CAGE’ and ‘Amnesty’, but Islam Not BBBC (INBBC) will not. On the contrary.
‘The Economist’-
“Amnesty International and jihad:
“A reputation at risk.
“The weightiest human-rights outfit has waded into a moral quagmire.”
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21645806-weightiest-human-rights-outfit-has-waded-moral-quagmire-reputation-risk?
For INBBC:-
‘Daily Mail’ has a 5-page coverage of the links between Rowntree Trust and ‘Cage’.
A sample from ‘Daily Mail’-
“Victory for the Mail as charity is forced to stop funding jihadi backers who described British ISIS executioner as ‘a beautiful young man.’
“Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust had made six-figure donations to Cage.
“But links with the campaign group prompted outrage from Westminster.
“The Mail highlighted criticism of Cage and its statements about Jihadi John.
“The Rowntree trust has now reluctantly agreed to stop bankrolling Cage.
“Officials at Charity Commission threatened an inquiry into its leadership if it refused to give ‘unequivocal assurances’ it would withdraw funding.”
By STEPHEN WRIGHT
FOR THE DAILY MAIL.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983429/Victory-Mail-charity-forced-stop-funding-jihadi-backers-described-British-ISIS-executioner-beautiful-young-man.html#ixzz3TiQHEpzx
Was it because INBBC knew all this about ‘Cage’ and Qureshi that it gave him all that pro-jihad publicity?-
A very privileged apologist for evil: An heiress wife. A £700k Surrey home. How the public school educated ‘human rights’ champion who praised Jihadi John lives the good life in the country he’s trying to destroy”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983427/A-privileged-apologist-evil-heiress-wife-700k-Surrey-home-public-school-educated-human-rights-champion-praised-Jihadi-John-lives-good-life-country-s-trying-destroy.html
Is there any political difference between INBBC policy on GITMO, and that of ‘Cage’?
“Over 100 freed Gitmo detainees have returned to jihad”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/over-100-freed-gitmo-detainees-have-returned-to-jihad
INBBC will not now publicly politically disassociate itself from ‘Cage’, from ‘ Amnesty International,’ nor from Rowntree Trust apparently.
“DAILY MAIL COMMENT:
Terror and how the Left hijacks charities”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2983580/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Terror-Left-hijacks-charities.html#ixzz3TiY3SuiT
[ Note: in second part of ‘Mail Comment’ article, there is reference to Rowntree Trust and ‘Hacked Off’]-
[Excerpt]-
“It is the same free Press they wish to shackle, remember, which this week exposed how Jihadi John’s family had exploited Britain’s benefits and asylum system and which has rightly shone a harsh spotlight on Cage’s vile views.
“Without such newspaper investigations, these facts may never have emerged (the BBC, which has shamefully given Cage copious airtime to spread its poison, certainly wouldn’t have revealed them) and the JRCT could have avoided proper scrutiny over who it was funding.
“This whole shabby affair provides a fascinating insight into how the Left hijacks wealthy charities so they provide the finance to promote its ideological objectives – then ruthlessly tries to silence anybody who disagrees.”
Following on from ‘CAGE’, will INBBC now give its Boko Haram (“militants”), i.e. Islamofascists, some primetime TV slot to propagandise on?
In the cause of INBBC ‘diversity’ perhaps?
“Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Isis in video message”
“The Nigerian terror group has become one of the most organised supporters of the Caliphate established in Iraq and Syria”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/boko-haram-pledges-allegiance-to-isis-in-video-message-10093568.html
-Lots of sympathetic sob-stories for INBBC to come up with?:
“France PM: 10,000” [Muslim] “Europeans could be waging jihad by year-end”
http://www.france24.com/en/20150308-france-pm-10000-europeans-could-be-waging-jihad-year-end/