I bet Israel was DELIGHTED by this news from our strictly impartial National Broadcaster….Honest Reporting has the details
“With the announcement of the Iranian nuclear deal, there’s plenty of media coverage including Israel’s reaction. BBC Newshour on BBC World Service radio interviewed Israel’s Minister of Science, Technology and Space, Danny Danon. Danon stated that Israel was “keeping all options on the table.”
The presenter asked Danon to explain. Her reaction is both shocking and disturbing (click on the image below to listen):
But you’re not under threat by Iran. Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time. You’re harking back to a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel directly.
I wonder did Danon manage to miss Iran’s “Death to Israel” joyous celebrations from….er….last week?
I took part in a debate on BBC5 live today regard the future of the BBC. One of my opponents was the rather plummy voiced Sir Christopher Bland. In essence, my argument is that the BBC’s method of funding is an anachronism and that it is grotesque it can extort over £3bn a year via the License Tax. I pointed out that the difference between myself and Sir Christopher was that I believe in choice whereas he believes in denying choice and enforcing this tax on people. Tomorrow evening’s “Moral Maze” will also discuss the future of the BBC and either Alan or myself will be on it.
My argument is that the BBC should admit is has a deep bias – we ALL do – it should stop pretending it is this impartial broadcaster – and unhook itself from the narcotic of the license tax and move to a subscription model of funding. THAT way, those who enjoy the serial bias of the Today programme for example – can PAY for it. Thoughts?
You don’t know whether to laugh or cry when you hear the Beeboids scuttling from the light of a new dawn in the BBC world.
There’s danger ahead for the BBC we were told this morning, by the BBC, on the Today programme (08:43) as they discussed the bleak future of the BBC with Ben Preston from the Radio Times and Tory Jesse Norman, chairman of the culture and media select committee.
Preston told us that the BBC was great value for money….‘one and a half copies of the Guardian newspaper a week…or, dare I say it, 3 Daily Mails….by any reckoning a bargain rate.’
Guardian always first port of call for Beeboid types of course but love that guilty little mention of the Mail…we know they all read it behind the cover of a well thumbed Guardian.
We were told that essentially the licence should be here to stay…no other option to keep the stability of the BBC…and the commercial companies would all hate a subscription funding model as it would compete with them…hmmm…not really…advertising would but not subscription….we already ‘subscribe’…whilst in an armlock….choice might be better for say Sky….I may choose not to buy the BBC and spend what I save on more from Sky.
Norman thinks the BBC does too much entertainment….getting ‘out of whack’ apparently. That however is a large part of the BBC’s remit….and so it should be for it provides ‘entertainment’ to all those who can’t afford commercial providers and would therefore have no ‘entertainment’ if the BBC were to limit that service.
The problem isn’t the structure of the BBC, or rather the concept and the level of ‘education, informing and entertainment’ we get…the problem of course is the content….all too often the popular programmes are used to push a political or social message….ones that are at odds with what the majority of people think.
If the BBC wants to entertain, educate and inform us do so, just don’t peddle ideology as news or entertainment treating the viewer as an idiot, probably racist or otherwise unenlightened, who needs to be educated to think the right thoughts.
PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA:This house also represents a complicated history of the United States. We just visited downstairs, where we know that slaves helped to build this magnificent structure, and the complex relations that Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, had to slavery. And it’s a reminder for both of us that we are going to continue this fight on behalf of the rights of all peoples, something that I know France has always been committed to and we are committed to, as well.
As the country marks Presidents’ Day, we turn to an aspect of U.S. history that is often missed: the complicity of American presidents with slavery. “More than one-in-four U.S. presidents were involved in human trafficking and slavery. These presidents bought, sold and bred enslaved people for profit. Of the 12 presidents who were enslavers, more than half kept people in bondage at the White House,” writes historian Clarence Lusane in his most recent article, “Missing from Presidents’ Day: The People They Enslaved.”
Once again we take a look at the BBC’s policy of rewriting history to suit their narrative, in this case that of slavery and the wicked Southern Confederacy and the enlightened Union. But as always it’s more complicated than the simplistic, one-sided narrative that the BBC serves up….they seem pretty shy about revealing who supported what back in them thar days.
The BBC has been gloating over the success of the campaign to pour scorn and opprobrium upon the Confederacy in the US. For the BBC it’s a big, big story. On the Today programme today (08:40) they enthusiastically reported that there is a move to remove statues of those associated with the Confederacy from Congress…..’In the United States a group of Democrats has discussed removing and relocating several statues from the rather grand halls of power in Congress. For among the tributes there to former presidents and civil rights leaders are those celebrating former leaders of Confederate states – who fought in the civil war to keep African Americans enslaved.’ What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that that would probably require most of the statues to be removed in truth….was it just ‘former leaders of the Confederate States’ who supported slavery or kept slaves? And of course it’s the heroic Democrats leading the way…big cheer from the BBC….wouild they have shown as much interest if it had been Republicans making this ‘Populist’ move?
Here it is again, the intersection of Presidents Day and Black History Month. Eight of our early presidents, beginning with George Washington, owned slaves during their tenure in the nation’s highest office.
Jefferson and Madison thought that people of color should enjoy the same individual rights as white citizens. But not here. They averred that black and white could never live harmoniously in America together.
“I Ulysses S. Grant…do hereby manumit, emancipate and set free from Slavery my Negro man William, sometimes called William Jones…forever.”
What of the Republican Party? Those nasty right wingers……
In the 1860 presidential election, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. The party, dominant in the North, secured a majority of the electoral votes, and Lincoln was elected the first Republican president, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy.
What of the Democratic Party? Those lovely cuddly lefties……they created the Klu Klux Klan….
The first African Americans to serve in the United States Congress were Republicans elected during the Reconstruction Era. After slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights, freedmen gained political representation in the Southern United States for the first time. White Democrats regained political power in state legislatures across the South and worked to restore white supremacy.
The situation that the Greeks find themselves in and the one the BBC finds itself in bare a great deal of similarity.
The Greeks are at the mercy of the politicians of the EU whilst the BBC, despite Tony Hall’s claim that he is going to ‘fight the politicians’, is in reality at their mercy.
The Greeks are financially bankrupt and utterly unable to accept that they might have to leave the EU whilst the BBC is morally bankrupt, utterly unable to accept that it is in any way biased or left leaning, treating those who raise any objections with disdain and contempt.
Hall, the Guardian tells us, has pledged…
‘ to ensure that last week’s hasty deal with government to secure stable funding for the corporation will never happen again.
Writing for the Observer, Lord Hall, who has been forced to accept responsibility for the £750m cost of free licence fees for the over-75s, argues that key negotiations about the financial basis of the BBC must now be taken out of the political arena for good.’
Which is strange as writing in the Observer he also said…
‘As the dust settles after a challenging week of negotiation over funding and debate about the future of the BBC, three things are clear.
First, the BBC has negotiated a strong financial settlement from the government that gives us stability and clarity, but we should be in no doubt that the charter process will be tough.
Second, despite noises to the contrary, the BBC is as independent today as it has ever been. There has been no fundamental change in the relationship between government and corporation. Nor will there be under my watch.’
So that’s clear then….must fight those appalling politicians…and yet….all is good.
He continues...
‘Now we have fixed the funding settlement, the debate moves on to what the BBC does with that funding. We have never been afraid of debate about our future…..So what is most important is that the voice of the audience and the voice of people who care about the BBC are heard in the debate. The public are our shareholders. Their view will always be the most important.’
Hmm…right….just like those Greeks voters who voted in an anti-austerity party and then, just to make sure, held a referendum to dump austerity…and yet…..they got even more austerity. Like those Greek voters the BBC’s audience might feel like they’re being taken for a ride…..and oddly, like the Greek debts the BBC’s costs have mysteriously grown…once the cost of over 75’s licences was a mere £650 million, now it is very definitely £750 million. Curious that one, how it has suddenly gained so much traction.
Hope and joy at first flush of being asked for your opinion…..“It was an expression of the will of the people,”
Now….“I feel like a slave. They do what they want, and we can’t participate.”
I have every confidence that the BBC will listen to its audience…those it finds ‘acceptable’ and banging the same drum as the BBC.
Hall launches a highly political attack blaming the proposed changes on ‘politics’ and the ‘narrow self-interest’ of those politicians…
We should be under no illusion that this is a period of high risk for the BBC. While no one wants to abolish the BBC, there will be some who want to diminish us for their own narrow interests. We must remind them that the British public do not share their views.
So we’ve gone from listening to the British public to already knowing what they think…no need to call the BBC with your opinions thanks….they’ve got all the ones they need right now.
Hall says…
With public support, this is the chance to renew and enhance an organisation that we all deeply care about.
…and of course that’s what a lot of the BBC’s latest PR campaign has been about….persuading the Public that the BBC is in mortal danger and the world will be a worse place without the BBC…..and a lot of people will have to find proper jobs not cushioned by guaranteed funding and then do them properly without bias if the BBC goes under.
Have to say it is galling to hear the cheek of Hall and Co all desperately pleading for public support when they have spent years deriding the majority of the public and their views on Europe, immigration, Islam, climate change, Israel and economics.
Keep the BBC, boot out the people who have been the source of the institutional malaise, the ideological corruption, the divisive anti-white, anti-British, anti-Western narrative that has undermined society, and those who look the other way when the criminals or terrorists are ethnic.
Hall keeps saying that the BBC is essential for Britain, part of its fabric, maintaining cohesion and a better society.
Really?
The BBC has been the champion of radical Islamists, even as the bodies were being returned from Tunisia the BBC’s Phil Mackie was at Green Lane Mosque, a hardline Wahhabi institution, telling us how wonderful it was and how they were ‘fighting radicalisation’…the same mosque at the centre of the ‘Under Cover Mosque’ scandal!, and of course the champion of Palestinian terrorists, it has attempted to destroy Israel with all that that will lead to, it has encouraged mass immigration and the subsequent huge costs and damage that has come with that to society, it has undermined British identity and vilified British history in order to help along Labour’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the British population of those ‘horribly white’ British people and their dreadful culture, it has hidden the truth about the racial or religious identity of criminals and terrorists making sure the real solution to the problems that they bring with them cannot be dealt with as the problem is not recognised or admitted, it has relentlessly promoted climate change costing us billions and forcing the poorest to make that famous choice of ‘eat or heat’, it has promoted Europe regardless of what anyone else thinks, it has set out to smash political parties or groups that it doesn’t like such as UKIP or the EDL and they sacked Jeremy Clarkson.
We here at Biased BBC ‘Must keep reminding them that the British public do not share their views.’
‘This isn’t just about history, this is about now.’
This video was included in the last post, Srebrenica…A Deadly Myth From The Ashes?, but as that was such a long post I think it deserves a place of its own….the video is from Sky News and shows another side to the events in Bosnia and paints a different picture to that peddled by Muslims and the BBC of innocent Muslims, victims of genocidal murder, whilst they themselves did no such thing…an important narrative to challenge as it feeds into the Jihadi recruitment process….and reveals what plans the Jihadis had beyond the borders of Bosnia…
A story a ‘lot of people don’t want to be told’ as Sky News said….
When you know the history of Bosnia and the context of events in Srebrenica you get to understand that the BBC is hiding an important truth about this conflict….the result of that deceit and that false narrative will be more radicalisation of Muslim communities and terrorism as it perpetuates a myth of Muslims persecuted and ‘under siege’. The BBC takes the easy, non-controversial line that also suits its own narrative.
Fraser Nelson in the Spectator criticises the BBC’s failure to challenge the ‘consensus’ and air controversial subjects or opinions…
Benefits St was indeed a landmark in the debate; she’s right about that. But wrong to suggest that it somehow backfired on Ch4. Its documentaries are distinguished by picking controversial topics that the BBC shies away from: Ch4 lives up to its remit of challenging, rather than reinforcing, the consensus….[the BBC] lives in fear of the inevitable complaints. Ch4 has no such fear.
In 1995 around 8000 Bosnian Muslims were killed in a massacre by Bosnian Serb forces.
This has become a ‘genocide’, a ‘Holocaust’…..a deadly narrative pushed by Muslims and picked up by the BBC and promoted with a relentless and deadly determination….a narrative that serves to radicalise Muslims.
There is another narrative….’the crimes were quite “extraordinary in the region committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable…… the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. He stated… “One can’t be bothered with prisoners” .
The narrative of innocent Muslims being victims of murderous non-Muslim Serbs is incredibly important to both Muslim activists and the BBC. Muslims use a narrative of Muslims being persecuted and murdered as a recruiting tool for the Jihadists and as a stick to beat the West with to induce feelings of guilt and Liberal angst…this serves two purposes, firstly to give Muslims political influence and secondly to try to close down debate about the incompatibility of Islam with a Western society by claiming that any such talk will lead to another ‘Srebrenica’ which gives a free ride, cover, to Islamist who work to Islamise Europe. The BBC is fully on board with that second narrative but also knows that it is a recruiting tool for the Jihadis and yet the BBC made the decision to carry on pushing the narrative knowing the consequences…as I’ve said before the BBC is prepared to see ‘collateral damage’ on the streets, and beachs, of Europe and beyond, if it means that Muslim sensibilities aren’t upset in any way by a good dose of reality….
The BBC has decided that a bit of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable…the BBC has decided that in order to maintain that fiction about Islam it is willing to sacrifice, not just that very precious liberal, free, democratic society that is increasingly the victim of creeping Islamisation, but it is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.
Journalist Myriam François-Cerrah travels to Bosnia to mark the 20th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II.
In July 1995, in the midst of war in the former Yugoslavia, around 8,000 Muslim men and teenage boys were massacred at Srebrenica.
She tells us ‘how easily prejudice can take hold and why this story has important lessons for us all in multicultural Britain today.’
Firstly to describe Myriam François-Cerrah merely as a ‘journalist’ is the BBC hiding an important fact…she is a fanatical convert to Islam who is a ‘professional Muslim’ making a living campaigning and agitating for Muslim influence. To allow her to front this programme on such a sensitive and highly politicised subject is unforgiveable….why not let David Irvine do a documentary on the real Holocaust? He wants to deny it ever happened whilst François-Cerrah wants you to believe in one for highly problematic reasons.
Second..how about that title, A Deadly Warning: Srebrenica Revisited? Fairly obvious what that is intended to say…and if you weren’t sure here’s that end sentence again….‘how easily prejudice can take hold and why this story has important lessons for us all in multicultural Britain today.’
It’s been 20 years, with paltry recognition meanwhile of something that should be memorialised, at the very least, as a cautionary reminder. A reminder that Europe has not learned from the Holocaust. A reminder that the idea of Europe is created by the idea of unity against a heathen Muslim and Jewish ‘other’, and that it does – it must – repeat its cycle of violence periodically to cleanse its soil of the ‘undesirable’.
By all means remember and respect Srebrenica’s dead in Westminster Abbey, the Vatican and wherever else will acknowledge their names. But understand that this is neither enough, nor good enough, because Europe and its minions repeat – in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, in DRC, Pakistan and well beyond. Not to understand that fails to respect the dead. It simply keeps that ‘potential for future atrocities’ alive.
Ironically the BBC is right in a way about that ‘Warning from History’ (Curious how the warnings are all about the Right and not the Left which has killed millions upon millions with its ideology)… it’s not though the warning that they intend.
What lessons can we take from the history of Bosnia?
That a small group of fanatics, prepared to use terror and murder to further their aims to impose a regime upon a reluctant populace is a danger we must all watch out for.
The title of this post is ‘Srebrenica-A Deadly Myth’. Certainly 8000 or so men were killed at Srebrenica but does the BBC narrative tell the real story or the story that they and the Islamists want you to hear?
For instance…genocide? The people killed were all men, supposedly those considered to be of fighting age…the women and children were not killed in this massacre. So mass murder not genocide….not an attempt to wipe out a race or ethnic group.
Muslim?
The BBC et al refer to the murdered men as ‘Muslim’ but they were Bosnian Muslims…the BBC refers to their killers as Bosnian Serbs so why use the term ‘Muslims’?
They weren’t killed because they were ‘Muslim’ but because they weren’t Serbian…an important distinction, one to hide if you have a narrative to spin of Muslims being persecuted for their religion. Here’s one quote that illustrates this…
Throughout the afternoon of 12 July 1995, Serb soldiers mingled in the crowd . One witness recalled hearing the soldiers cursing the Bosnian Muslims and telling them to leave; that they would be slaughtered; that this was a Serb country
A Serb country not a Christian country. If the ‘Muslims’ had been Methodists or Protestant Christians their fate would likely have been the same.
The BBC conveniently forgets history.
The Balkans has always been a boiling pot…
It was here that the First World War began with a Bosnian Serb terrorist, Gavrilo Princip, murdering the Austro-Hungarian ArchDuke Ferdinand.
Why? Here’s a quote from the Telegraph in 1914 that reports his actual words and reasoning:
‘Although I was born in Bosnia, the Big Servian idea has always existed in me since my earliest childhood. I considered it unjust that a foreign power should be established in Bosnia, where the Serbs, on account of their numbers and commercial economic position, should take part ingovernment. It pained me that Austria should oppress us, for she is the old and eternal enemy of Servia. I also knew, though, that the first place amongst those who were hated by Serbs was occupied by the Archduke, Franz Ferdinand’
I knew that he is the sworn enemy of all Servian aspirations, and that he had sworn to destroy Servia and the Servian dynasty. I hope that the fatal revolver shots will open the way to the Servian army to march here to occupy Bosnia, for this land is destined by its inclinations and traditions to belong to Big Servia.’
That makes it quite clear the context for Serbian aggression against anyone it considers not Serbian and in the way of Serbian rule over Bosnia….nothing to do with religion or a particular hatred of Muslims. The old and eternal enemy were the ‘Austrians’. It also makes it quite clear how the Serbs view Bosnia as part of their territory.
Do the Austrians now also have to be aware of this ‘warning from history’?
For the Bosnian Serbs, control of this region was necessary in order to achieve their minimum goal of forming a political entity in Bosnia. As stated by General Radovan Radinovic, the Defence military expert:
Serbs intended to preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina as a component part of the former state. That was indeed their fundamental, long-term, and political objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why? I don’t think it is very difficult to understand that. They wanted to live in the same state with other Serbs, and the only state that could guarantee that was the former Yugoslavia.
And what was the reality of Srebrenica?
Were the Bosnian Muslims the innocent victims of a genocide?
Srebrenica was a Bosnian Muslim military base that was supposed to be demilitarised but wasn’t….‘a consistent refusal by the Bosnian Muslims to abide by the agreement to demilitarise the “safe area”.
What was the catalyst for the massacre? The Bosnian Muslims had just massacred thousands of Orthodox Christians in surrounding villages…the BBC doesn’t seem too interested in that fact.
Here is a Sky report from the time that illustrates some of what was happening……
A few inconvenient facts for the BBC and the Islamist narrative of innocent Muslims….
Shortly before the Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica, the Muslim troops stationed in that enclave carried out murderous attacks on nearby Serb villages. These attacks were certain to incite Serb commanders to retaliate against the Srebrenica garrison.
Meanwhile, the Muslim high command in Sarajevo ordered the Srebrenica commanders, Oric and his lieutenants, to withdraw from Srebrenica, leaving thousands of his soldiers without commanders, without orders, and in total confusion when the foreseeable Serb attack occurred. Surviving Srebrenica Muslim officials have bitterly accused the Izetbegovic government of deliberately sacrificing them to the interests of his State.
And…
Here is the report of French General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR commander who first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave, he is adamant that the crimes were quite “extraordinary in the region committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable. He testified at The Hague Tribunal on February 12, 2004, that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.”
Morillon also recounts how “the Serbs took me to a village to show me the evacuation of the bodies of the inhabitants that had been thrown into a hole, a village close to Bratunac. And this made me understand the degree to which this infernal situation of blood and vengeance […] led to a situation when I personally feared that the worst would happen if the Serbs of Bosnia managed to enter the enclaves and Srebrenica…I feared that the Serbs, the local Serbs, the Serbs of Bratunac, these militiamen, they wanted to take their revenge for everything that they attributed to Naser Oric. It wasn’t just Naser Oric that they wanted to revenge, take their revenge on; they wanted to revenge their dead on Orthodox Christmas.”
The Bosnian Muslim commander, Naser Oric, stated that “One can’t be bothered with prisoners” .
From the the U.N. Secretary General’s 1999 Report on Srebrenica, it emerges that the idea of a “Srebrenica massacre” was already in the air at a September 1993 meeting in Sarajevo between Bosnian Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic and members of his Muslim party from Srebrenica.
Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people.”
Izetbegovic later denied this, but he is outnumbered by witnesses. It is clear that Izetbegovic’s constant strategy was to portray his Muslim side in the bloody civil war as pure helpless victims, in order to bring U.S. military power in on his side. On his death bed, he readily admitted as much to his ardent admirer Bernard Kouchner, in the presence of U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke.
It goes on…
Like the Bosnian Serbs, the Muslims also herded their adversaries into “horrible” camps at the start of the civil war, on the way to expulsion. Unlike the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims enjoyed the services of high-powered U.S. public relations experts in the Washington-based Ruder Finn agency who knew how to “spin” the Bosnian conflict in order to equate the Serbs with the Nazis-the quickest and easiest way to win public opinion over to the Muslim side. The news media and political figures were showered with press releases and other materials exaggerating Serb atrocities, whereas Muslim atrocities (such as the decapitations of Serb prisoners, fully documented) remained confidential. To the public, this was a one-sided conflict between a Serbian “fascist aggressor” and innocent victims, all unarmed civilians.
And…David Owen knew of this other narrative….
The general public did not know that Srebrenica, described as a “safe area”, was not in fact simply a haven for refugees, but also a Muslim military base. The general public did not know what Lord Owen knew and recounted in his important 1995 book, Balkan Odyssey (p.143), namely that in April 1993, Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was extremely anxious to prevent Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning Srebrenica. “On 16 April I spoke on the telephone to President Milosevic about my anxiety that, despite repeated assurances from Dr. Karadzic that he had no intention of taking Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb army was now proceeding to do just that. The pocket was greatly reduced in size. I had rarely heard Milosevic so exasperated, but also so worried: he feared that if the Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica there would be a bloodbath because of the tremendous bad blood that existed between the two armies. The Bosnian Serbs held the young Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, responsible for a massacre near Bratunac in December 1992 in which many Serb civilians had been killed. Milosevic believed it would be a great mistake for the Bosnian Serbs to take Srebrenica and promised to tell Karadzic so.”
So there we have an important context for explaining the Bosnian Serb actions and mindset….were they ‘anti-Muslim’? No….just pro-Serb. Certainly they wanted to clear the area of anyone not Serbian but that is not the same as being ‘anti-Muslim’. Were the Bosnian Muslims innocent victims of murderous Bosnian Serbs whilst they themselves committed no such crimes? No, they were also the perpetrators of massacres and the running of ‘concentration camps’. To ignore the crimes of the Bosnian Muslims whilst only reporting those of the Bosnian Serbs is to paint an utterly false picture of events and more importantly the motivations and reasoning behind them allowing Islamists, unhindered by the facts, to conjure up that politically useful myth of Muslim persecution.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Bosnian Muslim leadership wanted a massacre and they got it with 8000 unsuspecting ‘Shahids’ sacrificed for political ends….and now the same can be said for the BBC and the Islamists who know that they can use this event as a lever for political, cultural and religious influence.
Every cloud has a silver lining. Every dead body a currency.
Congratulations to Joe Root for being named ‘Man of the Match’ in the Ashes…have to say it here because you’d hardly know it if you relied on the BBC’s website which hasn’t got a single headline about his achievement.
England 430 & 289 beat Australia 308 & 242 by 169 runs: Man-of-match Joe Root takes final catch as hosts thrash tourists in opening Test
It was not so much a pigeon that came home to roost as a pterodactyl. Brad Haddin had dropped Joe Root before he had scored on Wednesday morning, when England would have been close to capsizing at 43 for four. Instead, England won one of their most surprising and flawless victories, and Root was the Investec player of the match.
It had to be Joe Root…He had set up the victory with a first-innings century of cathartic abandon, and eased fourth day nerves by taking two wickets, moonlighting as a part time off-spinner. There could be no more appropriate man of a match.
England close to collapse until Root put some steel into them at the start of the match and provided the base for the victory….he ‘set up the victory’ with his first innings.
The only mention of Root being ‘Man of the Match’ in this BBC match report is a caption on a photograph….
Joe Root was named man of the match after scoring 193 runs and taking two wickets in the match
Not a single headline proclaiming Root’s brilliance on the cricket page even though he’s run up some impressive stats as the BBC admitted …
Joe Root had the highest score for the eighth time in his 28 Test match career (29 %). Don Bradman is the only player in history with a higher percentage.
Have to ask why the BBC has such a different reaction to Root and Moeen Ali.
Wonder what Root would look like in a beard? Might be more photogenic in the BBC’s eyes.
Did the BBC, and much of the media along with it, have a message and what was it ? You, the Public, might have a bad opinion of Islam and lack trust in Muslims due to everything that’s going in in the world but look, here’s a Muslim, with a big beard, he’s playing for England and he’s doing well….you can love Muslims and trust them….ignore the hoax of the Trojan Horse and the bombs and Tower Hamlets and the pressure groups agitating for Islam to be accepted as a parallel system in the UK…ignore all that….a Muslim can play cricket for England…so what’s not to like about Islam!
Sidney Bottocks @arsegrapeFeb 26 @anjemchoudary You need a positive role model for your life. Try Moeen Ali. Opening cricket batsman, devout Muslim and loves this country.
And if you think that that isn’t the message that the BBC wants to impart, or at least a major reason behind the highlighting of Moeen Ali you are mistaken or kidding yourself….
Actually, he’s representing England and himself – and that means he is also representing his faith and using his status as a bridge across some harmful cultural divides. I feel he is very much to be admired.
His quest beyond cricket is to place what seems foreign, or even threatening to western eyes, in the mainstream. He wants to be the friendly face of that Taliban beard.
‘I know people aren’t sure about men who look like I do,’ he says. ‘People don’t see the beard as a bit of hair. I’ve been shouted at, called some horrible names, and when I first came to Worcester I noticed people crossing the road to avoid me. So, yes, there are a lot of bad Muslims giving us a bad name, but all I would say is that it isn’t just Muslims who need to change. There are a lot of ignorant people, too.
There is enormous pressure on the Media to conform and to only show ‘good news’ stories about Muslims…just Google ‘The Media and Islam’ and you’ll get a torrent of articles about the ‘demonisation’ and ‘victimisation’ of Muslims….
A “torrent” of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.
Research into one week’s news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a “damning indictment” of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.
British Muslims should challenge the government and the media without hesitation on its definition of “British values” and “extremism” – terms which have become political yardsticks to censor and criminalise established Islamic beliefs.
Moeen Ali is undoubtedly a good player but let’s keep the politics, and faith, out of sport as well as the BBC’s social engineering and the attempts to ‘maintain civil society and cohesion’ using Moeen Ali as the ‘role model’….or at least not make it so obvious and give the white boy just as much of a cheer and recognition as the Muslim player.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
ScrobleneSep 20, 08:00 Midweek 18th September 2024 Atlas, my wife’s family was RAF, and the term rock-ape was/is still widely used here! Senora O’Blene only told me…
Fedup2Sep 20, 07:56 Midweek 18th September 2024 Careful bias ‘Thought for the day The speaker is introduced as a ‘catholic commentator ‘ yet when the Muslim apologist…
friend of yogi bearSep 20, 07:56 Midweek 18th September 2024 BECAUSE SHE’S WORTH IT…….. There has been a lot of excitement about Sue Grays pay…..l for one can’t understand this,…
tomoSep 20, 07:46 Midweek 18th September 2024 Nowhere on BBC https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1836880157744779296
ZephirSep 20, 07:45 Midweek 18th September 2024 Reeves: “Last year she published a book on obscure female economists, but later had to apologise after it emerged that…
AsISeeItSep 20, 07:33 Midweek 18th September 2024 One tends to applaud the jokey blokey Daily Star for the brevity and pithiness of their headlines. But sometimes, regarding…
Fedup2Sep 20, 07:33 Midweek 18th September 2024 Zephir – how dare you criticise the Great Leaders ‘ chancellor – of course all men should be removed -…
