https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aqNBEpdao4
The BBC is being strangely quiet about events surrounding the three little Jihadis who skipped off to join Isis. The BBC has until recently been bombarding us with tales of distraught families and police and security service failures.
What anyone with a questioning mind might have asked is how the parents of these girls remained in the dark about their intentions, or possible intentions, when their close friend, Sharmeena Begum, had already left for Syria in December.
In light of the fact that she was a close friend of the girls and that the parents must have known each other, especially in such a close community in which news would travel very fast, is it really likely that the three girl’s parents had no idea that the friend had left to go to Syria and that therefore their own daughters might be susceptible to whatever ideas led to that friend leaving to join ISIS? Apparently it is entirely possible they knew nothing….and the BBC reported such blessed ignorance without challenge.
The BBC was more than happy to swallow whatever guff the parents came up with about their own lack of knowledge and how it was all the Police and MI6’s fault. Yet another example of the BBC looking to absolve the Muslim community of any blame….the BBC’s thinking is that if the parents are found to be at fault it will reflect badly on the whole community and Islam itself…therefore don’t turn over any stones and uncover anything uncomfortable.
Not all people are so deliberately naive….the Telegraph reports that Social Services, again not the parents, had to intervene in yet another case of ‘radicalisation’…
Mr Justice Hayden made the move following an application from social services bosses at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
He was told that social workers had raised concerns that the girls might flee to areas controlled by the Islamic State
The BBC hints at the parent’s part in events..
A number of adults involved in their care have also had their passports seized.
There was evidence to suggest family members in the case had not been “full and frank” with social services, the judge said, and that the girls were becoming “more radicalised”.
Why no mention of Abase Hussen? (see below) It would seem to be an ideal place in a BBC report to mention his own extremism.
The BBC are themselves being less than ‘full and frank’ with us…it’s not as if it isn’t an important subject…the reasons behind the radicalisation of British Muslims….something which is central to all debate on this subject.
Why for instance do they make no mention of this story from the Mail?….
Father who blamed police for not stopping his daughter joining ISIS, attended 2012 rally led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary and attended by Lee Rigby killer
Sensational footage has emerged showing the father of one of the three schoolgirl ‘jihadi brides’ at the head of an Islamist rally led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary and attended by Michael Adebowale, the killer of soldier Lee Rigby.
The video shows Abase Hussen marching at the front of the demonstrators, behind a banner reading: ‘The followers of Mohammed will conquer America’.
He was filmed chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ amid dozens of protesters and standing just yards away as the American flag is burned.
Kind of an important revelation that the father of one of the ‘radicalised’ Jihadi Brides was himself a ‘radical’. The BBC has been trying to downplay the part Islam has to play in the radicalisation of Muslims and by distancing the girls’ radicalisation from their families and their own culture tries to place the blame elsewhere..on internet extremists, MI6 and the Police, or foreign policy….never putting the blame where it belongs.
The BBC’s lack of interest in the father’s extremism is strange when you consider their recent indepth look at Jihadis…
Tracking Britain’s jihadists
Guess they’ll be adding him to the list one day.
The BBC’s ‘tracking’ of Jihadis is yet another attempt to mislead the audience…the BBC presenting the ‘radicalisation’ merely as a result of people in one location who are friends with each other and encourage each other to join up…failing to mention the underlying reasons that make them decide to do that…
So what does the data tell us? For a start, many of those who have gone to Syria or Iraq have done so in clusters.
Take Ifthekar Jaman’s hometown of Portsmouth, for example.
This cluster relied on friendship and geography – but there are also ties developed via social media.
We know that Jaman played a key role in the movement of a cluster of young men from Cardiff and Manchester.
Friendship and online links have both played a role in the decisions of 11 girls and women to travel to the region, such as the four teenagers from east London who went missing in recent months.
….but it’s not some ‘Famous Five’ adventure as the BBC wants to portray this as…the radicalisation has ideological roots based on well known Islamic obligations put upon Muslims by their religion that the BBC doesn’t explore.
The BBC dismisses claims that they are ‘hard-core’ jihadis if they travel to Syria…
Late last year, some security chiefs across the West thought that the numbers going to the region were levelling off because many would-be travellers had now come to understand the true nature of the self-styled Islamic State’s aims and barbarity.
That meant those still determined to go were hardcore jihadist sympathisers – and they were presumed to be a small group.
Whether that analysis still stands is open to question.
You know what, I don’t think it is open to question…if you travel to the Middle East to join an organisation whose brutality and fundamentalist ideology is unmissably well known then you have to want to be a part of that….pretty ‘hard-core’ I’d say.
The BBC is playing fast and loose with the facts…giving us ones it wants us to have, hiding less convenient ones and those it can’t hide it tries to bury under equivocations and claims of the facts being ‘open to question’.
i am so shocked at this story it is making me feel ill with anger,this story is so serious it warrants a police investigation,this man lied to the home affairs select committee.he sat there pretending he did know nothing about his daughters radicalisation and in fact blaming everybody else when he in fact he himself was a hard core jihadist,this story should worry us all,i have always said i dont trust muslims because in my view they will lie and decieve non muslims to defend and protect there fellow co religionists,this fantastic investigation of journalism by the daily mail to me proves that i and many are justified to hold them views,come on bbc and the rest of the media,get this man and his supporters grilled by you and find out why he blatantly lied to the home affairs select committee a few weeks ago.this man and his supporters are just a threat to are security now,simple as that .
Yes, indeed. And that would be an entirely different Daily Mail to the one sneered at by our bus riding troll the other day and so routinely disparaged by the BBC, would it?
Excellent work by the Mail and a shaming indictment of the BBC and other Left-wing media mouthpieces.
God is my witness I don’t know why my daughter would want to go to Syria:
Allah Ackba, I really don’t have a clue:
No seriously, I really have no idea:
But you know what? I blame the British police for not stopping her:
The BBC caught, once again, lying by omission to protect the Religion of Special Pleading. It’s a disgrace. Does the BBC understand at all the concept of truth, or does it just suffer a severe shortage of actual ‘journalists’? Because on this evidence it would appear the hateful Corporation has no intention of actually reporting facts, but rather reporting its own version of events to serve its own particular agenda.
Remind me: why am I compelled by law to hand over the best part of £150pa to these sharlatans?
Sharialatans FTFY
You’re not. Don’t watch the BBC and don’t pay their fee. That’s the only way to bring about change.
And the BBC website review of the morning papers excludes the Daily Mail which covers this story on its front page. How can they get away with this blatant censorship?
“How can they get away with this blatant censorship?”
Because they can.
The behaviour of the father is another example (as if one were needed) of the fundamental incompatibility of Muslims and non-Muslims; they simply cannot assimilate properly into Western society.
The behaviour of Al Beeb in all this? As expected:
“Multiculturalism preaches that all civilizations are the same, all the religions are the same, all peoples are the same. Is there something about Islam our own society requires protection against? This is very tricky territory for the MSM. The logical answers are multiculturally blasphemous.”
Diana West “No Fear”
The story seems to have disappeared from the Mail online,
it seems that the muslim community seem to have a case of selective amnesia when it suits them.
Will his benefits be reduced?
Likely not but by misleading the Select Committee he is guilty of Contempt of Parliament. Although this is mostly used to discipline Members and staff it also applies to “strangers”. The “stranger” can be called to the Bar of the House and can be imprisoned without further trial. The latter punishment for a stranger has not been used , I think, for about 300 years but still applies. The Chairman of this particular select committee, Keith Vaz, was once suspended for a month for contempt.
Any action of course will need to wait until after 18th May because Parliament has been dissolved. I wouldn’t expect Vaz, if still the Chairman of that Committee, to recall this witness because he is an immigrant and Vaz is all for immigrants. Hence the lying piece of crap will get away with it. I do wonder about the families of the other two girls. Their parents didn’t present themselves at the Committee.
The BBC’s reporting and non-reporting (when it suits) of this story proves beyond doubt they are doing the bidding of the Hacked Off consortium of hard-left pressure groups – in particular Engage and Hope Not Hate – who wish to see all ‘negative’ reporting of Islam censored from our press. No wonder The Mail is constantly held up to ridicule on the BBC, they want people to believe it has no credibility and worse, is full of lies. In actual fact it is Hussen along with his lawyer and fellow Jihadi Akunjee who have lied and misled, all gratefully swallowed and over-reported by a joyous, multiculti-obsessed BBC. Will the Corporation end up with egg on its face? Will it eckerslike, it will simply ignore it until it has gone away – helped along by a spineless government and an Islam-compliant CPS.
And remember, it’s the BBC that has 70% coverage of our news – not The Mail, not Murdoch. God help us if Labour get in because you bet your life Leveson will be revisited until the Common Purpose mafia get their way, and that will be the end of news as we know it, leaving the BBC and its PC comrades in full control.
Seriously, is something going to be done about this? He must be guilty of something; wasting police time, conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice, witholding information under the Terrorism act 2000, encouragement of terrorism contrary to section one of the Terrorism Act 2006…. Something!
Crown Prosecution Service where are you?
Mind you, lying to infidels is permitted by islam. It’s kitman and taqiyya. Deceiving infidels in the service of islam is a duty.
Where’s dez?
That’s an excellent question. The one thing all our trolls over the years have had in common has been their determination to dodge awkward questions.
Time and time again the BBC has been caught red-handed. When it is, the trolls vanish, popping up a few days later to parrot the same old lines about ‘unproven accusations’ ‘lack of any evidence’ and ‘conspiracy theories’.
They have no answers and deep down they know it.
It’s not just that they have no answers, they know deep down we’re right. That’s what makes them so nasty and hate-filled because they can’t admit it, even to themselves, and that must cause all sorts of psychoses and low-esteem issues.
What is of more concern should be the apology made to the father by Bernard Hogan Howe, who in his role as Head of London’s Metropolitan Police Service must have been aware of intelligence that the father was not the ‘naive innocent parent’ he has been claiming in his media interviews and Select Committee interviews.
The same points are equally valid of Keith Vaz – Head of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who is privy to extremely secret intelligence briefings and analysis.
We know that the Police force are legally required to video any form of demonstration, the fact that this man was associating with people who were on the Terrorist Watch List when he was demonstrating against the West, shows that either A) there is a cover up taking place B) the Met Police, MI5 and other security entities are incompetent or C) the left-wing ideology that connects Hogan-Howe and Vaz has also penetrated the security forces…….this last option should make us all very nervous.
Possibly the sort of questions that our National Broadcaster should have been asking.
Even worse is that Hogan-Howe’s sidekick at that meeting was fawning all over Vaz. He even said that the girls would not face prosecution if they returned because there “is no evidence that they have participated in terrorist activities”. What else I wonder – free housing and benefits for the returning girls and their spawn; automatic visas for their new jihadi husbands (special dispensation)? So not just 3 but likely NINE returning/imported jihadis. Why not just invite ISIS to come here and assume Government?
Will be interested to see what Parliament does. Tying in front of a committee in Parliament is a VERY serious offence. Parliament, quite rightly, regards itself as being the ultimate mechanism of finding out facts of national interest.
But the Committee is chaired by Keith Vaz, who naturally played along totally with the victim-pose of the extremist father – and the extremist lawyer supporting them.
And the cowering performance by the Met in front of the Committee simply played into their hands – the Met must have known some background about the extremist father and the extremist lawyer. If not – why not ?
Plod and the CPS are behaving more and more like Common Purpose PC footsoldiers. Look at recent events – the BBC/Plod co-operation over the raid on Cliff Richard’s pad, Plod determined to get Clarkson on a charge despite the victim wanting to bring any of his own, CPS deciding prosecuting Muslim gender-based abortions would not be ‘in the public interest’ etc.etc.
And the judiciary are just as bad, the most recent debacle being the decision not to jail an Eastern European who had committed 200 burglaries, instead giving him a suspended sentence and sending him on a ‘rehabilitation programme’.
So he brought up his daughters in a hate of the west filled house , dressed them in clothes from another part of the world and gave them christian names from another culture .
How could these teenagers rebel as normal teenagers are wont to do ?
Perhaps they actually feel safer in ISIS territory than they would in England , where honour killings and abductions to Pakistan for forced marriages happen ?
There is much justified disgruntlement here. I share it. Can I urge you, if you have not already done so, to give the BBC a phone call about this and let them know. You will not have been the only one(s) to have done so. And while the corporation may not wish to report this story, organisations in general don’t like it when people complain about their faults, and tend to get nervous and to reluctantly do something to placate complainers. There is a chance that cumulatively it will have an effect.
Who knows, there may be someone in the chain of communication who actually sympathises with your point. Even if the complaint doesn’t work this time you will have made them aware that you are aware, and this may have a positive effect in future. So please do so, it only takes a couple of minutes. The number is 03700 100 222.
Sadly, the collective experience on this website (and there is a lot of it) suggests that the BBC takes absolutely no notice of viewer and listener complaints. It is a prisoner of the ‘we know best’ ‘progressive’ dogma to such an extent that even when confronted with unarguable facts (such as its tactics over what is known as 28Gate) it is incapable of admitting a mistake.
I do understand that, GCooper, and have had similar experiences, but it is like filling a bath with drops of water – it seems pointless but it accumulates. Organisations often don’t like to mend their ways, but even a slow stream of complaints can gradually put them on edge, because they become aware that at some point someone else may say, “Well, here is proof you were aware of this, why didn’t you rectify the problem?” The BBC’s instinct is to cover things up, but as it is no doubt quite aware at the moment post-Savile, the past does have a habit of worming its way through.
I doubt if my complaint on this subject worked. I didn’t expect it to. But I bet they didn’t like it. It may have puzzled or simply irritated the person at the end of the phone. But it may have led to a grain of doubt or unease forming in his mind. So I’m going to keep at it. Not bothering is not an option if one really wants the BBC to stop or be made to stop its bad habits.
Well said.
They rely on their system of obfuscation, attrition and ultimately zero result to ensure people give up.
Which leaves them the last standing.
But given their obsession with self-justifying (if delusional) paperwork, there must lurk slight concerns at what may happen if all this little pockets of concern do amalgamate and coordinate.
It is worth putting them on notice that they are not the final word, even if for now they have the whole thing rigged.
Sadly a waste of time. I have made several complaints to the BBC. The latest being about the Evan Davis interview of IDS on the Today programme. I never heard what IDS answered because Davis interrupted him every second word. Hundreds, perhaps thousands made the same complaint I hear. The BEEB, as always, came up with a mamby pamby answer which didn’t address the complaint but essentially said “we know what we are doing, we know best, and you will accept our decision”.
If you have complained I assume you will get the same response I always get from the BBC. Dismissal.
This downplaying of the jihadists going off to wage war is endemic in the political establishment. Thus you get Mark Fields, Conservative MP, opining on World at One a couple of months that ISIS Jihadists returning to UK were better understood as “football hooligans” who were not interested in religion. Marha Kearney, when presented, with this grotesque analogy didn’t challenge him. She simply said, “Sure”, and let him continue. I expect he would suggest some counselling when they return. Always refreshing to hear a Conservative MP have a sound sense of proportion and the uncanny ability to reach for the right analogy. He thought that those Jihadists chaps might be interested in helping the British government stop extremism spreading. Of course they would. The extremism being obviously some upsurge in violence at football grounds, presumably. Is this what appeasement looks like?