Theresa May said some sensible, measured and balanced things about immigration. The world went mad.  And the BBC gave the world a helping hand.

John Pienaar and Co told us that May used a tough tone, a hard, uncompromising message, she was deliberately setting out to polarise opinion.  Really?  Wasn’t she just saying the absolute truth about uncontrolled mass immigration, a truth that most people in this country understand?  The BBC might like to characterise that as a ‘hard message’ and ‘polarising’ but that is the BBC deliberately trying to paint May’s opinion as extreme, on the fringes and not supported by the mainstream.  Five Live told us that May once called the Tory Party the ‘nasty party’…and you know what?  She risks turning that label upon herself…says the BBC.  At least we know how the BBC views any open and honest debate about immigration….if you dare to say you want controls on it you’re basically a Fascist or as near as makes no odds.

Pienaar selected a wide range of opinion on May’s speech…or rather we heard of the ‘backlash’ from certain interested parties….the Institute of Directors, fervently pro-immigration, the Telegraph’s Kirkup. again fervently, if not rabid and dementedly pro-immigration as his frenzied attack on May illustrates, and of course not forgetting those immigration charities and NGOs (oddly the BBC’s complaints guru, Fraser Steel, is director of a company that helps immigrants).  Anyone not in favour of uncontrolled immigration?  Ermmm…no.   No inkling that the vast majority of the Public think that migration should be controlled?

So that’ll be the IOD whose members are more than happy to sack British workers and replace them with cheap migrants, who indeed are more than happy to sack British workers, pack the factories up and ship them to Poland or China or India…that’ll be the IOD members who haven’t bothered to go to the effort, expense and time to train British workers preferring instead to rob other countries of their trained workers.  I don’t think I’ll be taking any lessons on ethics from the IOD whose sole concern is the bottom line.

Strange we didn’t hear the same wild accusations for the same speech from Labour’s Andy Burnham not even a week ago….

EU migration hits low paid – Andy Burnham

Free movement of workers in the EU has made life tougher for low paid workers in the UK, Andy Burnham has said.  He was making a pitch to win back Labour voters from UKIP in his first big speech as shadow home secretary.  He said it was “not true” that free movement had benefited everybody as Labour had claimed in the past.

Mr Burnham said in his speech that Labour had not “faced up” to some of the impacts of EU migration and consequently appeared “out of touch……To win back the voters we lost to UKIP, I want to reframe the debate about immigration and the way Labour approaches it”.

“For too long, we have argued that free movement across Europe benefits everyone and affects all areas equally. That’s just not true.

“In places, a free market in labour benefits private companies more than people and communities. Labour hasn’t faced up to that and that’s why we look out of touch.”

“The truth is that free movement on the current rules is widening inequality. It has built the economic power of the big cities and that is good. But it has made life harder for people in our poorest communities, where wages have been undercut and job security lost.

Curious Pienaar didn’t reference Burnham’s speech especially in relation to the IOD as Burnham spells out who benefits the most from cheap, imported labour……..’a free market in labour benefits private companies more than people and communities.’

Note he also states that this cheap labour undermines British wages and jobs lost….two things May also pointed out and yet the Telegraph’s Kirkup savages her for…and not Burnham.

Pienaar has been highlighting the extremely negative reactions to May’s speech without any balancing pro-comments, or none that I heard…..though at least Tony Livesey on 5 Live (16:14) took the IOD to task and pretty well discredited their stance…accusing them of using the same inflammatory language the IOD accuses May of using.  Livesey also raised the point that even immigrants are concerned about immigration.  I well remember a Polish builder complaining that the next wave of East Europeans who came to the UK were undercutting him…after he had undercut the natives.

I can’t say I heard the BBC making such a fuss about Burnham’s speech, certainly not in the tone they use to describe May’s (Livesey aside). Pienaar has always leant towards Labour, Miliband could do no wrong and walked on water, Labour policies were always well thought out and workable whilst Tory ones were usually dismissed as far fetched and unworkable.  If I relied on Pienaar for the news I’d think May was striding around the stage in jack boots and a tiny moustache….Max Mosley’s dream come true?

Tonight Panorama broadcasts this: The VIP Paedophile Ring: What’s the Truth?

What’s the truth?  Good question.  Will Panorama provide the answer?…We know that the BBC grandees have been panicking about this Panorama programme lest it bring into question the BBC’s own reporting of ‘Nick’ and his allegations….and judging by this trailing article for the programme by Ceri Thomas I have my doubts….search for ‘BBC’ and you’ll get one reference in the article….‘They included places where Savile had done dreadful things – the BBC and the NHS’.

So things happened at the BBC but that’s just geography?

Thomas doesn’t seem to want the BBC to get any of the blame, at least in this article…that goes to the police, the Press and the politicians….those ‘Big Institutions’….hmmm…doen’t he mean big institutions like the BBC as well?

What we’ve found while we’ve been making this Panorama is a concern that all those big institutions – the police, press and politicians – are so determined to atone for the sins of the past that they’re in danger of inventing whole new categories of mistakes. The motivation may be good, but the outcome can be awful.

And look at this….Thomas claims the police have been spreading highly damaging allegations as they are…..

….giving up on even-handed, evidence-based policing at enormous cost to the reputations of people who’ve been accused – people like Harvey Proctor, Leon Brittan, Sir Edward Heath. How much responsibility do the police bear for smoke-damage when they light the most enormous fire?

Oh and the politicians?  …Why didn’t they catch old Savile out?…..

They’d been far too cosy with the media and the police – the same police who’d failed to collar Jimmy Savile.

And the Press…..

And then there’s the press…….miserably incompetent at investigating Jimmy Savile’s crimes.

And check this out….the wild west of the internet is blamed for lynching politicians without evidence…

And so, parts of the media – particularly the online, alternative media – raced down that road, publishing wild stories without pausing to check if they were true. A lot of things have been published that should never have been.

Hang on right there…..wasn’t it the BBC that hung Lord McAlpine out to dry on utterly false allegations?

Laughably Thomas ends on this….

[Are the allegations true?] A better answer might be to say that the real problem would be if the police, politicians and the press have decided that it doesn’t matter either way.

If the priority for those institutions has become patching up their battered reputations, then victims of abuse could be vulnerable again – pawns in the game – and the reputations of the accused would be acceptable collateral damage.

The police, press and politicans guarding their reputations?  Maybe…but this is all about the BBC really…..how can Thomas manage to write an article that in essence revolves around Savile and the BBC’s reaction to that, their reaction, or lack of, as he was committing the abuse and in the fallout afterwards when it came into the open (I won’t say ‘discovered’ because the BBC knew about it long before it was common knowledge) and the BBC ducked for cover.

For the BBC this has always been about guarding their reputation not about the truth, protecting themselves much as they, and those ‘big institutions’ protected the abusers in Rotherham and Rochdale, covering up for them in order for the pretence of ‘social cohesion’ in a wonderfully diverse and yet magically integrated society to be kept up…never mind the hundreds and hundreds of young, white girls that were sacrificed on that PC altar.

Perhaps the actual programme mentions the BBC’s role in all this.  If so why not in this article that seems to be deliberately and very carefully worded to avoid any blame going to the BBC?

Time for a fresh open thread……a Tory conference in full swing, mass Muslim immigration, a war in the Middle East with the Turks and Russians curiously bombing everyone except the one target they should be hitting…the Islamic State, Europe in turmoil and Peston’s hair….the BBC newsroom must be working full-steam ahead, all hands to the pumps, to keep up with all that and shape it into a narrative that pleases the left-wing sensibilities….

John Whittingdale confirms that the BBC is to lose its power to judge whether the BBC is biased.  Good.  About time.

From the Guardian:

John Whittingdale, the UK culture secretary, has confirmed that the BBC will be stripped of its power to adjudicate on allegations of political bias in its coverage. 

Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, he said the public should have confidence that complaints are examined independently and carefully. He said it must no longer be the case “that if you make a complaint against the BBC, the decision on whether it is justified is taken by the BBC”.

Whittingdale first signalled such a move in an interview with the Telegraph in June, in which he said he wanted to think about the way questions of impartiality were judged by the BBC Trust.

In his address to Tory conference, Whittingdale said the BBC was the finest broadcaster in the world at its best, but claimed many people feel it had “not always been as fair and impartial as it should [be]”. He said this was one of the key issues being considered in his review of the future of the corporation, which has already had 80,000 responses.

In a green paper published in July, Whittingdale’s department said the BBC Trust model needed to be reformed, with its regulatory functions given either to a unitary board, a new standalone oversight body, or a third party regulatory body such as Ofcom.

It is of interest that there are 80,000 or so responses to the Charter Review from the Public so far…..the BBC and its hangers on constantly claim that the Review Panel is anti-BBC (it is definitely not that….some worked for the BBC and one is from the the Voice of the Listeners and Viewers group of which David Attenborough is a supporter…”If you want to help ensure its quality, please join me in supporting VLV which is doing so much to protect the principle of public service in broadcasting”  and which has many ex-BBC types on its board).  So apart from much support on the Review Panel itself, the BBC and BBC Trust have a huge voice in the Review along with many, many other interested parties….and here we see evidence that the Public also get a chance to voice their opinions.

The BBC has been extremely dishonest in attacking the Review Panel and trying to suggest the Panel is anything but impartial and that it is the sole arbiter of what happens to the BBC when that is far, far from the truth.

It is interesting also to note that the BBC’s seeming biggest fan, Tory Lord Fowler, who is one of those who maligned the Review Panel so mendaciously, pops up in the Sunday Times letters page to attack the Government’s proposal to subject the BBC Charter to review every five years instead of ten…this he says will increase the control of government.  He doesn’t like the Royal Charter in itself saying it is ‘a cover for political meddling…..thoroughly undemocratic and hands power to whatever government is in power at the time’….paradoxically suggesting that the answer might be that huge changes to the BBC should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and  approval….not sure how that isn’t a BBC still under a level of political control.  Not sure though how he thinks the current review process is undemocratic and unaccountable as it seems open to anyone to have a say and for Parliament to speak up for or against as the members wish.  Lord Fowler’s ability to comment doesn’t seem to be too constrained by the ‘undemocratic process’.  It’s not as if the BBC itself isn’t political, apart from its proven left-wing bias, it wields enormous power of its own over politicians…as Fowler admitted in 2012…’Surely the corporation has a massive political influence, for why else would cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers queue up to be interviewed on Today or Andrew Marr’s Sunday programme?’

No link to the Times article but essentially Fowler only repeated what he said in the Lords last month…

The Government, in their consultation on the BBC royal charter, skirt around the most basic question, the 20th question: do we need a royal charter at all? The noble Baroness touched on that. It all sounds very grand. It sounds as if it is a defensive mechanism against political interference—the kind of recognition that should be given to an organisation as important and venerable as the BBC. In fact, the royal charter means that the BBC is the plaything of any Government who happen to be in power as the 10-year renewal comes around. It is not just Conservative Governments, but Labour Governments as well.

“Europe You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahedeen Come Roaring”

The BBC is indulging in a very dangerous and dishonest attack on British society and in particular white British people, pushing the narrative that they are all racist based purely on the fact that they are white and that other races, and the BBC inlcudes Islam as a race for some reason, are always victims of white peoples’ prejudice thus sowing the seeds of increasing ethnic anger, dissent and ultimately open conflict…note Darcus Howe’s threats in the programme discussed below (8 mins in).

The BBC is highly irresponsible and dangerous, not only stirring up race conflict but religious based terrorism as well as it continually jusitifies and excuses Muslim terrorism and radicalisation.

Perhaps it is about time someone in ‘authority’ started looking at just what the BBC and its employees are doing as they whip up race hate and incite radicalisation.

The BBC thinks ‘Britain’ is racist.  But just what do they mean by ‘Britain’?  Or rather, we know they mean ‘White’ Britain, the question is why is the BBC pushing that racist, stereotyping conclusion about white, British, people?

Sian Williams tells us that there is a 20% leap in race crimes in London….but fails to tell us the truth about who is committing those crimes letting us think they are being committed by white people….the Independent gives us the figures that count…

Overall, the number of hate crimes reported in the capital rose by more than 20 per cent since last October, to a total of 11,400.

The majority of hate crime victims are male, and are aged between 20 and 49. Meanwhile, most offenders are male and aged between 20 and 29, around 45 per cent of who are white and British.

45% of offenders are white British.  Hmmm….that means 55% are not white.  So just who is being racist?

And what about this…a Ukrainian migrant, in the UK only a week attacks a Mosque and stabs a Muslim…..

A Ukrainian student has admitted murdering an 82-year-old man who was walking home from a Birmingham mosque.

Mohammed Saleem was stabbed by Pavlo Lapshyn in Small Heath on 29 April, less than a week after Lapshyn had arrived in the UK.

The attacker was a migrant, not British.  Are all migrants racist now then using BBC logic?  Why does the BBC usually underplay migrant crimes and the downsides to immigration in the UK whilst on the other hand always telling us of the supposed benefits of immigration?

The BBC are basing their programme on a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who thinks that ‘Fear of Muslims has stirred up division between neighbours in Britain in a way not seen in living memory, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.’  The Telegraph reports…

The BBC’s curious notion that ‘Britain’ is racist, ie white Britain, is highly prejudicial and inaccurate, an inaccuracy made all the worse because we know that it is a deliberate choice by the BBC to present the ‘facts’ in a way that makes white Britons out to be racist purely on the basis of their skin colour…you’re white therefore you must be racist.

The BBC is deliberately stirring up race hate against white, British people as it falsely accuses them of being some sort of white supremacists.

The BBC narrative is intended to influence politicians and any other organisations in positions of power so that white people become ‘suspect’ and in need of control and oversight with the policing of their thoughts and perceptions, and of course a necessary increase in the resources and power of non-white communities to help them combat and overcome such prejudice.

The fact is that Welby is right about rising tensions, but who and what is at the centre of that? The starting point for any investigation should be Islam itself. Welby doesn’t start from the right place, blaming people’s reaction to Islam rather than blaming Islam to start with.  People are increasingly and jusitifiably concerned about Islam and the beliefs and actions of Muslims in this country, and that will only increase as Muslim migrants force their way into Europe and those at Calais, who are mostly Muslim, actually attempt to ‘invade’ Britain.

Samira Ahmed, in The Big Issue not on the BBC, tells us we should be concerned about the influx of Muslim men….

Polling here shows a large number of Britons, the majority even, are at best cautious about taking in refugees from Syria because of the fear of conservative Islamic attitudes. Some readers might want to dismiss this as a cover for racism, just as in the 1930s the Daily Mail warned of the “threat” of so many Jews coming from Hitler’s Germany.

But just as in East Germany, looking at gender opens up a legitimate question about how you build a strong and stable society.

The BBC is being entirely dishonest in this programme in not revealing why people have concerns about Islam and the fact that Muslims themselves are the perpetrators of much of the hate crime…not as if the BBC doesn’t know as this BBC report from last week illustrates...The ex-Muslim Britons who are persecuted [by Muslims] for being atheists…

It sounds like a crime from a medieval history book. Apostasy is the decision to renounce a faith and/or convert to another religion. Among some of Britain’s urban Muslims – nearly half of whom were born in the UK and are under 24 – there’s a belief that leaving Islam is a sin and can even be punished by death.

An investigation for the BBC has found evidence of young people suffering threats, intimidation, being ostracised by their communities and, in some cases, encountering serious physical abuse when they told their families they were no longer Muslims.

The Mail from two days ago reports that  ‘Muslim family are driven from their home… after they converted to Christianity: Neighbours vandalise car and call them ‘blasphemers’…

An Asian family who converted to Christianity claim they are being driven out of their home for the second time by Muslim persecutors.  Nissar Hussain, his wife Kubra and their six children said they have suffered an appalling ordeal at the hands of neighbours who regard them as blasphemers.

They claim they are effectively prisoners in their own home after being attacked in the street, having their car windscreens repeatedly smashed and eggs thrown at their windows. Mr Hussain, 49, has even given up his career as a nurse due to the effect on his health.

Police have been called numerous times to deal with the trouble but are said to be reluctant to treat the problem as a religious hate crime. 

The BBC is reluctant to tell us the truth about Muslims and the effect they have on society….where are the BBC reports on the migrants who attack Christians in Germany or the plea by German police to separate Muslims from Christian migrants as the Muslims attack the Christians?  And very reluctant to mention threats like this….

Imam tells Muslim migrants to ‘breed children’ with Europeans to ‘conquer their countries’ and vows: ‘We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing’

Interesting to see someone thinks as I do about New Labour.  I constantly hear on the BBC and elsewhere that Blair and Co were right-wing whilst I was always of the opinion that Blair was in fact extremely left-wing and smashed those left-wing  policies into the British Establishment, culture and society…yes he cosied up to the banks but even Lenin told us that Capitalism was a necessary part of establishing Communism…it needed the funds Capitalism provided in order to fund the revolution…and of course we had the massive expansion in tax/borrow and spend…so very old socialist Labour.  Blair turned democratic government upside down with his sofa powered cabinet, the evisceration of the civil service, the attempts to undermine just about every national institution and the infiltration of those institutions with Labour placemen and women…never mind the huge project to ethnically cleanse the British population and change not only its physical makeup and identity but also the political views and outlook that the population would then hold..for example importing millions of Europeans would probably ensure any referendum on Europe keeps us in Europe, whilst Labour’s open door to world immigration meant that grateful immigrants were likely to vote for Labour.  Blair’s apparent centrist politics were a means to an end.  The reality can be judged by what he actually did.

Peter Hitchens thinks Blair’s New Labour was as much a menace as Corbyn’s brand of far-left politics….

The hard-Left menace we ignored

The continued rage about Jeremy Corbyn’s rather dated Leftism baffles me. Most British journalists weren’t (as I was) members of the Labour Party in the 1980s. In the months before I quit, I used to be angrily called to order by the chairwoman of my local party. She was cross with me for (as she put it) provoking too much heckling from noisily pro-IRA, ban-the-bomb types.

Meanwhile, the real Left worked by stealth. That is why our political media never understood that the Blairites were in fact far more Left wing than Jeremy Corbyn. The Blair faction’s ideas came from a communist magazine called Marxism Today. The magazine, in turn, got the ideas from a clever Italian revolutionary called Antonio Gramsci. He wanted a cultural revolution, a Leftist takeover of schools, universities, media, police and courts (and of conservative political parties too). That is exactly what New Labour did.

An astonishing number of senior New Labour people, from Peter Mandelson to Alan Milburn, are former Marxist comrades who have never been subjected to the sort of in-depth digging into their pasts that Jeremy Corbyn faces. Why is this? Is one kind of Marxism OK, and the other sort not? Or is it just that most political writers are clueless about politics?

 

The BBC has always opposed a change to the licence fee funding model on the grounds that subscription would be technically too difficult and would cost too much…..not to mention of course that the licence fee is easy money at the moment and a guaranteed source of income regardless of what they produce and who watches.

On the other hand it has decided that it is technically feasible and presumably financially sound to make viewers of the iPlayer abroad sign in with a special code….how then is that model not transferable to British viewers in the UK who can choose to pay a lump sum up front or pay on a subscription basis daily/weekly/monthly or per programme?

From the Mail:

The BBC is planning to allow licence-fee payers to access its iPlayer abroad, it has emerged.

This would enable British holidaymakers to watch award-winning programmes – including The Great British Bake Off, Strictly Come Dancing, and Match Of The Day – on sunny, foreign beaches.

At present, the licence-fee-funded iPlayer is supposed to be watched by only UK TV viewers.

Under the proposal, licence-fee payers could be given a secret code to log on to the iPlayer while abroad – but this code would be designed to expire within several weeks, according to The Times.

This would prevent non-licence-fee-paying expats from illegally using the code, it is reported.

A BBC spokesman told MailOnline in a statement: ‘While there are a range of technical and legal complexities, this is an area where we’ve already started work and agree with the idea of licence fee payers being able to access programmes on BBC iPlayer when they’re on holiday overseas. 

‘We’ll carry on considering how this can be made to work.’ 

Late with this…..the floor is yours….

The BBC’s ‘Sunday’ carries on as usual with its unusual world view that is at so odds with everyday folk.

We had a piece on the pages of the Koran found at Birmingham University.  The BBC did ask some very awkward questions for Muslims that these Koran pages raise…such as the carbon dating may show that this Koran may show that ‘Islam’ may have been in existence before Muhammed, the man who allegedly ‘invented’ the Koran…which is kind of awkward.  However the carbon dating was only done on the paper used for the Koran, and there was no control reference material to compare the dating process results with….so there could be few genuine conclusions about this Koran either way really.   Anyway all that was dismissed by someone expert from Birmingham who said, in his opinion, that he didn’t think that any of that was true….the Koran couldn’t predate Muhammed.  Yes…‘in my opinon’ or ‘I think’.…..a valuable ‘expert’ insight.

We then had a Muslim councillor from Birmingham tell us that this showed the Koran was unchanged for 1400 years…’unlike’, he slipped in, ‘other religions’.  Now that is kind of aggressive isn’t it, a bit unnecessary.  Why mention that?  If I was a Jew (Though I believe the Torah is itself unchanged and considerably older than the Koran) or Christian living in Birmingham I would be thinking that this councillor clearly has no respect for other religions and looks upon them as false….therefore what does he think of ‘us’?    Curiously the BBC didn’t ask, or didn’t broadcast the question and answer, about the questions raised of the authenticity of the Islamic narrative about Muahmmed and the Koran.  Possibly the answer was somewhat detrimental to the tolerant image of ‘Islam’..much as the ‘unlike other relgions’ is.

We also had a piece that portrayed East Germans as prejudiced, backward hill-billies who hated religion and immigration…and hating immigration and religion was a bad thing, not allowed in the BBC’s view (an irony really when the BBC has spent so much time and effort trying to smash and discredit Christianity despite the lip service of Songs of Praise).  Who did the BBC have on to discuss the issues, and it all related to immigration of course, a Christian and a Muslim, Rev Dr Christophe Tylermann and Dr Riem Spielhaus, no other voices appeared to put any view other than the one that said East Germans were essentially racist,  atheist barbarians….unmentioned went Hungary, which I suspect was the real target.  Curious how you are not allowed to have anti-immigration views.

We also had on Alister McGrath, an extremely aggressive Christian (a fanatical convert from Atheism justifying his own personal journey?) who steamrollered Atheism, shouting it down in effect, ironic in that he attacks Dawkins for being an ‘extremist’.  The presenter seemed to be in happy agreement with him as he claimed and wished for the end of Atheism….the presenter suggesting Atheism perhaps, as a ‘movement’, was a ‘busted flush‘ and asking when we might expect the ‘funeral of the new Atheism’.  Colourful eh?

McGrath said that Atheism was a ‘hopelessly outdated way of looking at things’….unlike the 2000 year old Christian world view?  No explanation of what Atheism actually represents and why it critiques religion, and no reasons why religion is good for the world, better than Atheism.  We also heard that there was no contradiction between science and religion.  Somehow that doesn’t seem to be the real picture does it?

No voices putting the other side here which would have been fascinating given the aggressive, bombastic nature of McGrath.  Christopher Hitchens is well missed.

The BBC also looked at this  ‘Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, expresses his concerns on the latest stage of the government’s plans for ‘countering extremism’ which will be discussed at the Conservative Party Conference this week’  which I’m sure we’ll hear a lot of as it is a narrative that the BBC seems all too ready to follow…that it is the government’s anti-extremism programme that is driving radicalism itself….a BBC narrative that we have just looked at.

The BBC was sure that Clockboy was the victim of  injustice, prejudice and misperceptions perpetrated by a society that has been polluted by an Islamophobic narrative driven by the right-wing press.  It seems that ‘Chopperboy’ in the UK may also be a victim of similar prejudice, his threats to behead and murder so many people merely an articulation of his rage against a society that doesn’t value or accept  him.

The BBC’s Domininc Cascianni tells us the boy was angry with his teachers and that the threats to kill were merely a negotiation tactic to pressure them to allow him to phone his mum.  Sweet.

“I felt angry, very angry with all of them,” the boy has since said of his school, according to defence submissions.

“I just wanted to get excluded. You couldn’t run away, it was secure with locked doors. The best way to get out and go home was to threaten staff with beheadings.

“I found the more I did this the more free time I had and I could get home on my phone.”

Of course family circumstances meant he was ‘vulnerable’ to exploitation….and he took up a deep interest in ‘foreign affairs’.  Really, he was a scholar? Does Casciani really mean he was watching beheading videos on the internet and soaking up the anti-Western propaganda that pours out from Muslim sources, and not just the recognised ‘extremist’ ones, propaganda that pumped out images of Muslims being killed…though not who really kills them…as it is usually other Muslims, the same people pumping out that propaganda ironically….of course he could just have been watching the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East, that would warp anyone’s understanding of the world….

A boy who attempted to incite a man in Australia to carry out an Anzac Day “massacre” has become the the youngest person in the UK to be convicted of a terrorism offence.

But could more have been done to challenge and stop the development of his violent mindset?

The boy’s slide into extremism began more than two years ago, at a crucial period in his development.

His parents had separated, he changed schools, and he was developing a deep interest in world affairs.

It’s always someone else’s fault….there doesn’t seem to be any recognition from Casciani that it might well just be that the boy was so disposed as to want to do these things and follow that path willingly and that his perceptions of the world have been long shaped by a narrative he has been brought up with all his life…Islam.  It is remarkable that there is no mention by Casciani of the role of Islam in his ‘indepth’ exploration of the issues….surely that is at the heart of this…the explicit Islamic obligation to fight for the religion.  To fight for the religion against those who allegedly attack it.  So you have to ask is Islam under attack?  Unfortunately if you watch news from organisations like the BBC which give credibility to the Jihadi narrative, such as Iraq was an illegal war against Muslims, a ‘crusade’ as the BBC often called it, and that Mulsims in the UK are under an Islamophobic assault, then the narrative of an Islam under attack is all too easy to believe and then act upon especially when reinforced by bloody videos purporting to show Western forces slaughtering Muslims.

The major factor in the boy’s extremism is his religion.  It’s an unavoidable conclusion…only Muslims are fighting in the name of Allah.  The connection is undeniable.  Which is why the BBC presumably avoids that connection.

Casciani scripts a long tract explaining away the boys behaviour blaming the anti-radicalisation programme for its ‘failure’ and then disingenuously asks…

Did Channel make mistakes? Could it have done more or were its officials simply confronted with someone they could not turn around?

He has the grace to add this get out clause after having spent the majority of the piece blaming Channel and the authorities….

Well, we don’t really know.

Casciani could ask ‘What did the Muslim community do to change its own anti-Western narrative, to change the Muslim grievance narrative about Islamophobia, to change the Islamic religion itself and its extreme teachings all of which fed the boy’s mindset?’  But no.  That’s not open for discussion.  Casciani knows who is at fault and its not Chopperboy himself that’s for sure.  He’s the real victim here.  In reality the only thing he is a victim of is a theology that predisposed him, primed him, to be a martyr for the cause.