I’m guessing BBC’s Mark Easton must be feeling low this morning with the news that vile Islamist Anjem Choudary is behind bars. Remember how Easton lionised Choudary last year?
Following a lengthy report on BBC News at Ten about Choudary’s ‘radicalising force’, Mark Easton appeared to question whether there were similarities between Britain’s most famous extremist and two of history’s greatest civil rights campaigners. Referring to Theresa May’s pledge to clamp down on extremism, the journalist said Gandhi and Mandela had been seen as extremists and that those stances ‘are sometimes needed to challenge very establish values’.
Effortlessly proselytising for radical Islam from the safe distance of a license tax funded Cappuccino.
Just as Mr Choudery has eventually got what he deserves, surely the same fate will eventually befall the bbc as an organisation and individuals who propagandise for it. What goes around comes around.
John in cheshire
I am afraid that the ‘powers that be’ just don’t have the balls at present . But post Brexit we can live in hope .
Personally I believe that the BBC fanatics and terrorist sympathizers deserve worse than Choudary it is because of the BBC he has thrived so much here in Britain with free publicity, and sympathetic reviews.
The BBC has far more blood/hate/division directly on it’s hands than Choudary does.
I agree; Mark Easton should join his hero behind bars – iron bars, that is.
Mark Eason is a disgrace. He openly campaigns and advocates open borders using his position at the BBC as a platform. He is one of many pro-immigration, blindly pro-Islam and anti-Israel bigots calling the shots at the BBC. This cannot go on and the Conservative Party will rue the day they didn’t wind up the Cultural Marxists running our broadcasting cabal when the paedo-left finally gets back into power. Easton was brilliantly exposed by David Vincent’s book 2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain (Amazon, Nook, Kindle) a must -read for anyone who wants to understand the undercurrent of the Left’s relentless attempt to destroy Britain.
Choudary off to prison, to be treated with respect by servile prison guards mindful of the legal consequences should his hooman rights be threatened. There he will be treated as a religious and political leader among fellow inmates of which many share his beliefs. This guy is not going to be punished; he will have great rewards. Expect the BBC to find a way to continue interviewing him, whilst hooman rights lawyers and academics wallow in the sufferings of Moslems in our prisons.
While he is being looked after and pampered in ‘Hilton’ who is looking after his family ?
You are!
Yes & now Chowdary has a captive audience of inmates to radicalise to while away his time. Talk about an academy of terrorism! When all that scum get out we had better beware. You know, I am beginning to think our predecessors had the right idea with capital punishment.
He ought to be kept in solitary confinement for his whole stay with no access to computers or newspapers whatever. Visiting should be extremely limited and very, very carefully supervised. He should then be thrown out of this country at the end of his sentence – with no appeal against it allowed – and permanently. If his family wish to follow him (or any of his sicko disciples) they too should have no right to ever return and again with no appeal.
Yes I think all Muslims should be kept in solitary confinement for the entirety of their stay. This is for their own good as we know they are psychologically very susceptible to ‘radicalisation’ as it is known, or ‘learning the true facts about Islam’ – as it should be known.
It is about time the west started to stand up for our superior culture against inferior and incompatible ones. There is no shame in this – just as there is no shame in me locking my front door when I go out at night. It is a sensible precaution against clear and verifiable risks, it does not prove I am a dangerous ‘strangerphobe’ as the BBC would no doubt call me if it had any wit at all.
Yes, the punishment should fit the crime – parachute him into the Islamic State, where he belongs. Hopefully a Russian missile will send him quickly to his god (in hell).
Maybe there should be sweepstake on when the first accusations of police brutality or prison abuse are made by Choudary. After all, it is his duty to engage in Taqiyya whilst in prison and I’m sure the likes of CAGE will be willing to provide him legal representation when he makes his accusations whilst the BBC produce documentaries about institutionalised Islamophobia in the Prison Service.
Choudary despite being challenged has never once condemned the attack on the ‘twin towers’ or ‘7/7’. Indeed he states that he will never condemn a fellow Muslim.
I don’t know about anyone else here but I am very happy not to re consider my very ‘established values’ that the murder of innocent men women and children is wrong. I am happy in this instance to be labelled old fashioned!
These.Traitors.Will.Not.Be.Forgotten….
For the sake of contrast I would like to point out that THIS man is NOT a traitor.
I do hope people can understand the distinction.
A BBC spokesman said: “The news story reflected the deep concerns over Choudhary and the extent of his influence and Mark Easton reiterated that point in his live broadcast.
“He then made a wider point that the definition of extremism can change over time. He was not suggesting that the views of Anjem Choudary will be thought of differently in the future and we believe this was clear to the viewer.”
Not clear to all viewers obviously.
The usual BBC blather to cover their sins. WHAT was the point of the stupid discussion anyway? How can the statement that “the definition or extremism can change over time” be in any way relevant to Choudhary’s case – it could only mislead. The perception of his brand of extremism will NEVER change for the better among sensible, sane and civilised people – ridiculous to mention Ghandi and Choudhary in the same breath if there is no connection – he would better have likened his extremism to that of Hitler or Pol Pot. It is disgusting and objectionable to talk about extremism that is ‘sometimes needed to change established values’ while discussing Choudary, especially when the established values are ours, and the challenger of them is a demented, vicious, ruthless zealot such as the detestable Choudary.
Well said Benjy. The comparison to Gandhi is as odious as it is spurious.
Here here.
Thanks Mike. If only common sense, logic, reality and any feeling and respect for our own culture could guide the BBC, wouldn’t our country be a different place! The huge power that is handed to them, enshrined in the very culture they appear not to value, is grossly abused.
If you’d watched the report, presumably you’d know what the point was.
‘How can the statement that “the definition or extremism can change over time” be in any way relevant to Choudhary’s case ‘
It was relevant to reporting on the Government’s anti-extremism proposals.
I appreciate that for some, facts are irrelevant too.
Please see Johnny’s comment Kikuchiyo – it nicely shows why this report by Easton was inappropriate and misleading. Does Easton believe we should sit back and do nothing about extremism until posterity can label it evil or good? Such inane, dangerous twaddle! Meanwhile innocent people are terrorised, injured and killed. BBC apologists for vile murderers!!!
Like talking to a brick wall.
A bit like trying to deal with the legions of anonymous spokespersons then.
You know, the ones sent out to explain what senior news editors meant.
Kikuchiyo: “I appreciate that for some, facts are irrelevant too.”
Yes you are quite right. That’s the BBC for you.
Mr Easton said: “It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.
“I was in Parliament Square today – a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.
“History tells us that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge a very established values that people at the time hold so dear.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11605852/BBC-criticised-over-comparison-of-Anjem-Choudary-with-Nelson-Mandela-and-Mahatma-Gandhi.html
The comaprisons are pretty clear as is his view that Choudary was challenging (and what a special kind of challenging it is, eh?) ‘established values’ – in other words, Western values – with his own, which as we know align with those of Islamic State. Easton’s choice of moral equivalence is vile.
Subsequent BBC weasel words – thanks for those – are just as illuminating and oh so predictable from this filthy, stinking nest of student union subversives.
Easton’s only mistake here was not taking account of how morons would interpret what he was saying.
‘It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.’
The one being banned for inciting hatred or violence would be Choudary. Passing a law that silences anyone who challenges established values, would be Mandela and Gandhi.
Stick to Newsround.
Completely daft! There will be no law silencing everyone! To preach against such a thing, to try to hold back the powers to combat the evil designed by the likes of Choudary for the sake of flimsy liberal arguments, in our democratic and very tolerant society, is completely odious and plays into the hands of terrorists who scoff at our democracy and freedom. You are the one who needs to stick to newsround.
I’m afraid that you continue to misunderstand what Easton said.
‘But for all the frothing over what he said, Easton has a point. He isn’t claiming that Islamist oddballs like Choudary are waging a justified struggle against western racism and imperialism…but is instead trying to draw attention to the draconian potential inherent in legislating against the expression of ideas – dangerous and nasty ideas, but ideas nonetheless.
Prior to Wednesday, terrorism was considered a criminal matter whereas extremism was not. And for a fairly sound reason: the accusation of extremism has historically been applied in a crude and catch-all manner. Suffragettes, trade unionists and campaigners for gay rights have all at one time been dismissed as nuts and fanatics by the authorities only to be exonerated by ever-evolving public opinion at a later date.’
One man’s failure to understand is often another man’s failure to make themselves clear.
Ironic GW.
Well, one person agreed with you.
Possibly without understanding.
Which would be ironic.
Seems I’m up to 3 now. I know how much those Likes mean to you.
Yes, but why is Easton complaining about draconian laws inhibiting freedom of speech when no such laws exist or are proposed? The reason for bringing this argument up while reporting on the trial of Choudary was inappropriate and shows what lies behind the reason that this hate-preacher was able to carry on for so long, airing his vile views on the BBC often enough too. GIven, the BBC website article was pretty good – I posted it myself on another thread – but there is no good reason to start griping about clamping down on terrorist activities, and bringing up Ghandi and Mandela, in a report on Choudary. Tolerance is a good thing, but we should never tolerate Choudary’s kind of talk, never soft pedal in the fight against these inhuman people. If Easton wants to campaign against the government attacking free speech, he shouldn’t link it in any way to Choudary. Personally, I think he was just trying to be clever and controversial, but it was ill judged. Even if you were enlightened by the report, many will take it another way. Anyway, it is just an example of the BBC trying to influence public opinion, which is not their prerogative.
But Benjy, the report was about laws being proposed. That’s what the report was about.
‘The reason for bringing this argument up while reporting on the trial of Choudary was inappropriate ‘
The report was about laws being proposed…..what trial are you talking about? You’re labouring under some misapprehensions.
Ever read Don Quixote?
But Benjy, the report was about laws being proposed. That’s what the report was about.
Not in fact.
Mark Easton discussed government’s new terror laws on BBC News
It came after a special report on whether Choudary is a ‘radicalising force’
Civil rights campaigners said apparent comparison was ‘completely false’
Following a lengthy report on last night’s BBC News at Ten about Choudary’s ‘radicalising force’, Mark Easton appeared to question whether there were similarities between Britain’s most famous extremist and two of history’s greatest civil rights campaigners.
Speaking after a ‘special report’ which gave further airtime to Choudary and his radical views, Mr Easton said: ‘It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.
That last sentence is Easton’s. It’s a value judgment based on no factual evidence of what future laws might contain (subjective theorising is not what he’s paid for). He conflated a report on Choudary’s ‘radical views’ with his own interpretation of what might happen, and made comparisons with Ghandi and Mandela and, of course, made no attempt to give examples of the ‘established values’ which at some future point we will all be so willing to rid ourselves of – apparently. What might these be – the illegality of gender-based abortions? the unacceptability of gender segregation? animal rights implications of halal slaughter? no face covering when in the witness box? etc etc. Of course, Easton doesn’t tell us – just sits back after his cleverly sublimated piece of leftie subversion and opens another bottle of his favoured Tuscan red – job done. Or so he thought.
I have to bow to your superior knowledge here Kikuchiyo – a Judo bow and shake hands. If I am labouring under some misapprehensions I apologise profusely. The trial came after this report, the report was last year. My lance is bent and Sancho Panza is pointing to his donkey. You may shoot me down in flames, but surely “Following a lengthy report on BBC News at Ten about Choudary’s ‘radicalising force’” (of course, not the recent trial – I was carried away on that tilt) to then be “trying to draw attention to the draconian potential inherent in legislating against the expression of ideas – dangerous and nasty ideas, but ideas nonetheless” is agitating for the government to adopt a more liberal approach, to hamstring those who can fight the unacceptable ideas of hate-preachers – worse – terrorist recruiters. To allow freedom of speech when the speech is more than just speech – in fact the blatant call for a foreign force to overcome and ultimately destroy our culture and put to death all who will not submit – is just wrong. That is far beyond the definition of free speech and certainly not the kind of message Ghandi or Mandela would have tolerated. Therefore I still believe it was not correct to mention the two together, nor is it in the remit of the publicly funded BBC to present such arguments.
Benjy,
” Kiku ” means “little flower ” in Japanese, and he is aptly named. He and his fellow Trolls, do not do history, humour nor irony. Can anyone here ever remember if any of these angry teenagers ever told a joke here ?
“Can anyone here ever remember if any of these angry teenagers ever told a joke here?”
Yes – Jerrod once claimed to be on the site to expose BBC Bias………how I laughed.
Grant,
I think the name is female. If so we must not be sexist. I have met women who tell fantastic jokes, but female trolls don’t. Perhaps this troll is transgender.
Please, please read again, kichukio, if you ever did in the first place, Johnny’s extremely valid comment below and try to digest..
‘The perception of his brand of extremism will NEVER change for the better among sensible, sane and civilised people – ridiculous to mention Ghandi and Choudhary in the same breath if there is no connection – he would better have likened his extremism to that of Hitler or Pol Pot.
‘It is disgusting and objectionable to talk about extremism that is ‘sometimes needed to change established values’ while discussing Choudary, especially when the established values are ours, and the challenger of them is a demented, vicious, ruthless zealot such as the detestable Choudary.’
And talking of ‘Pots’, I suspect the ‘kettle is calling pot black’ here, regarding your diatribe about ‘news round and brick walls’…
Thanks Dykevisions, but those are my words, not the estimable Johnny’s! I appreciate your comments though 🙂 I fully see what Easton was saying, the ‘point’ he was making, and I realise he isn’t supporting Choudary particularly, but the principle still remains: that it was very wrong, and very unecessary, to link the two ideas. And also wrong of the BBC to voice an opinion, in effect to campaign against the clamp down on extremists, when they are supposed to be impartial.
Many apologies, Benjy in Blighty, I typed in haste and will repent at leisure …but again you are cementing the issue with truth.
However, I must listen to Grant in future and not feed the Troll!!
Dykevisions, (Oh dear – I just accidentally hit report comment instead of reply – I’ll email the website to tell them it was a mistake).
Absolutely no need for apologies. Johnny’s words are very good.
(I wish I’d used that name, Benjy in Blighty, sounds much better.)
You can take a horse to water………
….. but a pencil must be lead.
Or, supposedly, Dorothy Parker’s answer to saying a sentence including the word “horticulture”:
You can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think.
Demon,
Dorothy. How the stunted Beeboids would hate her now ! Joke about another woman ” She can speak 10 languages but does not know the word ” no ” in any ” .
Kiku, little flower, will love that one ! Dorother was a real feminist, not like the faux ones today , who lick the muslim ass. Do you agree, Kiku ?
He obviously has no faith in the British legal system and the elected government. Does he really believe our freedom of speech will be seriously affected by government laws on extremism? And I still believe it was inappropriate to bring up this topic in a report on Choudary – it implies, though not stated, that it was wrong to imprison him for what he said, because he did not commit any physical acts of terrorism himself. We are now so far from the days when established attitudes brought about the official ill treatment of suffragettes and gays etc. that we are in danger of tolerating overtly evil ideas in the name of freedom of speech. The danger is not from the government here, it is from the terrorists, and the BBC should get its ideas into proper proportion, better still, keep them to itself!
I still do not understand why anyone on this site wastes time on Trolls. We all know which side they are on and nothing will change their perverted minds. You are all just feeding their egos.
Mark Easton’s report was in May 2015.
Choudary was convicted last month.
Ah! yes of course..Choudary didn’t have those views in May last year!
Toddle off troll.
‘it implies, though not stated, that it was wrong to imprison him for what he said, because he did not commit any physical acts of terrorism himself’
Mark Easton’s report was in May 2015.
Choudary was convicted last month.
Mark Easton cannot predict the future. We can agree on this.
Face it Kikuchiyo, Al Beeb is Biased .
Why do you continue to defend it?
For many years I too was of the opinion that it was ‘squeaky clean’ but gradually it it has become blatantly biased and gets more so every day.
Kikuchiyo commented:
I’m afraid that you continue to misunderstand what Easton said.
‘But for all the frothing over what he said, Easton has a point. He isn’t claiming that Islamist oddballs like Choudary are waging a justified struggle against western racism and imperialism…but is instead trying to draw attention to the draconian potential inherent in legislating against the expression of ideas – dangerous and nasty ideas, but ideas nonetheless.
Prior to Wednesday, terrorism was considered a criminal matter whereas extremism was not. And for a fairly sound reason: the accusation of extremism has historically been applied in a crude and catch-all manner. Suffragettes, trade unionists and campaigners for gay rights have all at one time been dismissed as nuts and fanatics by the authorities only to be exonerated by ever-evolving public opinion at a later date.’
Beness Asks:
Would you afford the same aproach to Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farrage?
“‘It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.’”
But this is precisely his mistake, and perhaps a deliberate obfustication of the actual issue.
Odious hate-preacher Anjem Choudary was not convicted because “he challenged established values” but because he swore allegiance to ISIS – a clear terrorist offence.
The spurious comparison to Gandhi and Mandela is simply a nauseating ploy based on fallacious reasoning, designed to garner sympathy for the accomplice to mass murder, rather than to engender rational debate.
And I thought the BBC were supposed to report accurately, and inform us?
Mike,
I love your posts here. But why are you wasting time on people who are so demented that they can’t see the difference between Stalin and Florence Nightingale ?
Thanks – appreciated 🙂
And, loving your comparison there, Stalin and Florence Nightingale, LOL!
To answer your question, truly I know that I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but then I start to think that there may be people reading this thread who might start to be taken in by the selective logic of their posts.
In this case, I don’t think it’s necessarily obvious to an impartial observer that there is hidden BBC bias behind pretending that Anjem Choudary was convicted because of what he thought or said, rather than because of what he did – swearing allegiance to a proscribed terrorist organisation – or in comparing him to non-violent activists like Gandhi and Mandela, rather than to the kind of violent supremacists often tolerated by freedom-loving democracies, such as Adolf Hitler in the 1930’s. (And yes, I claim today’s Godwin Award!)
Mike,
Ah, yes. You are right. I had purely thought of the Trolls, not of the wider implications of other readers. Maybe I shall rejoin the fray !
Florence Nightingale, tsk tsk tsk, this is 2016, don’t you realise she’s been replaced by ‘Mary Seacole’?
Cranmer,
LOL ! Well they were both great and Mary learned from Florence and for me skin colour is irrelevant. But, for the racists at the BBC, skin colour is everything !
Spot on Mike. I had not read this before I posted below, so apologies for the repetition though it does go to show we had arrived independently at the same logical conclusion. As we know lefties suffer massively from Logic Deficit Disorder, which might explain Kikuchiyo’s interpretation of Easton’s reporting, though I suspect it’s probably more down to a case of terminal Guardianitis.
Hey, no problem Johnny. Likewise I didn’t see yours before my later one but as you say it just goes to show we just got to the same result by different means.
Logic Deficit Disorder, Guardianitis… LOL!!
Newsround? Is that the one that brainwashes our kids?
And less of the moron, thank you very much kindly.
Easton was at best conflating two separate issues – one of which he chose to introduce himself as Benjy rightly points out. Plus of course the BBC has given Choudary plenty of airtime for him to ‘challenge’ our values, so the accusation against Easton and the BBC fits the form.
And Easton has plenty of form, but when reporting on Choudary there is no place for obfuscation and moral relativism – though it is a typical BBC tactic and no surprise.
Just because the BBC says that the BBC is in the clear does not mean that everyone should swallow that story whole.
Except the gullible.
And OFCOM.
And the DCMS (and its revolving door of Ministers and committee chairs).
And most of Westminster.
They’re all in it then…..except you of course.
Proving the rule, me.
How Anjem Choudary’s mouth was finally shut:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36979892
The evidence now shows that Anjem Choudary is one of the most dangerous men in Britain. Not a bomb-maker. Not a facilitator. But an ideologue, a thinker, who encouraged others not to stop and think for themselves before they turned to violence to implement their shared worldview.
I notice that he did not ‘practise what he preached’ and leave the safety and comfort of these shores to take up his cause and go out to the turmoil and desolation in the Middle East .
That was obvious to many of us years ago. Pity it took the BBc and the rest so long to work it out.
‘Now shows…’?
No, as others have pointed out the evidence ALWAYS showed that this man incited, encourage and supported terrorist murderers of the Moslem faith.
Only Al Beeb believed he was innocent up to the very last.
Kikuchiyo says:
Not a bomb-maker. Not a facilitator. But an ideologue, a thinker, who encouraged others not to stop and think for themselves before they turned to violence to implement their shared worldview.
Reality says:
Choudary is finally behind bars as police revealed he has links to 500 British jihadists fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) in Syria.
The 49-year-old, who has spent two decades radicalising a generation of would-be terrorists, was convicted after swearing an oath of allegiance to Isil.
But there remain questions over why it took so long to bring a successful prosecution against Choudary after it emerged he has links to 15 terror plots since 2000.
Sounds like ‘facilitating’ to me. Wake up, Kikuchiyo.
I didn’t say it, it’s a quote from the article I linked to.
I’m wide awake thanks, and I also would’ve liked to have seen him locked up long ago. I’d actually prefer he was in a US prison, somewhere like the Florence ADX with some of his buddies.
I guess one could argue about the definition of a ‘facilitator’, but Choudary was very careful not to incriminate himself by materially assisting followers to travel to Syria, commit terrorist acts etc
He preached hate in mosques and on Youtube etc, and was apparently adept at manipulating the impressionable, but he hasn’t been found to have facilitated an terrorist acts etc in any practical way – which I would take to be what a ‘facilitator’ would be
I didn’t say it, it’s a quote from the article I linked to
So what was your reason for picking out this particular quote?
And I’d argue ‘facilitate’ is exactly what Choudary did. The BBC are always falling over themselves to tell us how jihadists have been ‘radicalised’. Surely radicalising – which is exactly what Choudary did – was facilitating their inception into the world of jihadism.
Hey, Kiku !
Do you agree that Choudary is similar to Gandhi, and Mandela ? Do you think that Gandhi and Mandela were similar to each other. Or do you agree with me that Mark Easton is totally ignorant and juvenile ?
I agree that you have difficulties with the plain meaning of words.
Or maybe you just enjoy a little faux moral outrage.
Kiku,
LOL ! And you speak a little French !!! Well done ! You are a sweet Japanese flower. No I do not know much about the meanings of words. Tebrikler ! Google that one !
Grant, as much as i love reading what you have to say please would you consider dropping the space between ends of words and punctuation, especially the ‘!’ as it makes my brain hurt and i keep thinking it’s an ‘I’. Pretty please…
Bonjour ! Pleased to make your acquaintance !
Interesting how quickly a twatter can go from a dodgy phrase to pokey when the elite squads are so directed by the BBC outrage outriders.
Took a while longer for what some may say were words that did blur into more than harmful sticks and stones, from a chap who often enjoyed the BBC red sofa, along with the benefit of the doubt.
To the paint balling range, Robin!
The problem with vermin like Choudary is that we had to pay benefits to that dirty dog. Now we have to pay for that creature to be in a cushy prison.
Speaking on Twitter, Choudary was defiant, even saying: “The comparison with Mandela & Ghandi are false, they are kufaar heading to hellfire whilst I am a Muslim.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577305/BBC-criticised-Anjem-Choudary-Ghandi-Mandela
Says it all really.
Also: “Of course we preach hatred” – Anjem Choudary
https://twitter.com/anjemchoudary/status/626318382481014785?lang=en-gb
Not much in common with Gandhi or Mandela, then.
The BBC need their heads read, both in terms of the initial comparison and their subsequent pathetic attempt to excuse it.
Good grief.
I believe he also posted on the internet, as you have done. Oops, I’ve gone and compared you to Choudary.
Describing how he had finally been brought to justice, Commander Haydon said: “His mistake was pledging an oath of allegiance [to ISIS]. That was the key piece of evidence that tipped him over the line for a terrorist offence.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/16/radical-preacher-anjem-choudary-behind-bars-after-drumming-up-su/
Swearing allegiance to ISIS is a clear terrorist offence – not really sure what the problem is with that. It’s not about free speech, or extremism – it’s about supporting terrorists via proscribed terrorist organisations.
As others have said, this odious hate-preacher has more in common with mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin than he does with non-violence advocates like Gandhi or Mandela.
The fact that the BBC chose to make the comparison they did – rather than with people who were, and still are, clearly beyond the pale, is what’s so revealing.
The Mark Easton report was over a year ago….this is one of David Vance’s Repeats…nearly as bad as the BBC’s.
You’ve got your timeline confused there. Which renders your point mute.
Do you believe the BBC were unaware of Choudary’s odious views whilst giving him so much airtime to sound like the half-reasonable voice of Islam?
If they were unaware, somebody should be sacked for incompetence as his vile views were plastered all over the internet for everyone to see.
If they were fully aware there should be a Parliamentary enquiry into them grossly misleading the public.
‘Do you believe the BBC were unaware of Choudary’s odious views whilst giving him so much airtime to sound like the half-reasonable voice of Islam?’
Seems doubtful given that he expressed those views when he was given airtime….on the air.
He was never presented as the ‘half-reasonable voice of Islam’. Can you point to where he was?
Ok, that’s a fair point, but having refused to back down on his extremist views why did they continue to give him a platform?
The BBC, too, is responsible for, at the least, turning Choudary into something of a household name. It’s harder to criticise the corporation for inviting Choudary on many years ago. But more recently, in the wake of the murder of Lee Rigby, his message of hate hardened – yet still the invitations from the BBC kept coming. One of the most unfathomable of these was the decision to hand Choudary the prime 8.10 slot on the Today show after Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were convicted in December 2013 of carrying out the Woolwich attack. Inevitably, Choudary refused to condemn the attack during the interview in which he droned on for 12 minutes, a length of time on the Today show which the Prime Minister wouldn’t be unhappy with having been given.
The BBC has defended itself by saying the interview took place nearly three years ago and Choudary was ‘robustly challenged’ throughout. That may be the case, but the question remains: why was a man like Choudary invited on in the first place? Then home secretary Theresa May spoke for many back when she said:
‘Anjem Choudary has disgusting views and I think it is right that we look at how those views are being presented. ‘There were many people who did indeed say, ‘What is the BBC doing interviewing Anjem Choudary?’.’
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/bbc-give-platform-anjem-choudary/
So they knew he would come on and defend the slaughter of Lee Rigby, and having had training as a lwayer would do it with a line of reasoning that some – perhaps the casual listener – might seem reasonable.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
‘Which renders your point mute’
Pretty sure it is only BBC mods who can do that.
I believe the word is ‘moot’
Education standards slipping at so called bbc 😉
“You’ve got your timeline confused there. Which renders your point mute.”
With respect, no it doesn’t.
My second points stands alone, regardless of when the comments were made by the BBC:
As others have said, this odious hate-preacher has more in common with mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin than he does with non-violence advocates like Gandhi or Mandela.
The fact that the BBC chose [over a year ago] to make the comparison they did – rather than with people who were, and still are, clearly beyond the pale, is what’s so revealing.
There you go with that precedent thing again. Dark looks around the editorial water cooler from any in the cubicle gardens making a comparison in BBC ‘quotes’.
Get back to work you
We might believe the BBC is shedding some if it’s bias when it gets rid of the likes of Mark Easton. He has a senior editorial role that allows him to pontificate about his left wing pro immigrant pro Muslim pro multi kulti obsessions. Reporting on Chaudary and justapositioning the comment that views on what is extreme change over time did not directly excuse this Muslim fanatic and trainer of murderers but it was wholly unnecessary . The inference was obvious. It can be compared to Chaudarys carefully chosen use of words to escape conviction for so many years despite his extremist statements . The BBC clearly think that the true British population are dupes or idiots.
It’s unfortunate that the BBC ‘s pro terrorist sympathies have been aided and abetted by government timidity, poorly worded legislation and the pusillanimity of the metropolitan police in enforcing the laws that are potentially effective in order to rid us of crazy imams, Christian hating Muslims and other such dross who have no place in
our country.
“The BBC clearly think that the true British population are dupes or idiots.”
Well, to be fair, probably both. I think they look down on us with pity, thinking that if only they could just educate in the right way we would surely see the light.
I believe them to be mostly well-meaning, if incredibly arrogant.
Needless to say they are entitled to their opinion, but it’s not their role to have an opinion, never mind to try and push it on the unsuspecting public; it’s their role to present fairly, impartially, and with balance.
Exactly Mike – there is the problem – it’s not their place to have an opinion, however well-meaning they are. I know many think they are not subtle in their approach, and it is blatantly obvious that they are biased; but I think it’s far worse because they ARE subtle enough for the majority not to realise they are being led. Many still trust and look up to the BBC as impartial, knowledgeable and trustworthy. This makes it all the more disturbing when they selectively report facts to present their spin on events, hiding inconvenient truths, and voicing opinions that lead people to the conclusions the BBC thinks will be for their own good.
Very well put.
I believe them to be mostly well-meaning, if incredibly arrogant.
I’ll definitely agree with the last bit Mike, but ‘well-meaning’….? I believe them to be deliberately subversive as post after post on this site going back several years has proven, whether it’s twisting/omitting historical facts to fit the Palestinian agenda, failing to challenge even some of the most basic everyday practices of Islam that are slowly eroding our freedoms e.g. gender segregation, trumpeting the cause of the eco-socialist global warming industry at every opportunity (they were never even held to account over 28gate), or showing mass immigration in an unrelentingly positive light – to name but four.
To me they are nothing more than a talking Guardian – and much of the time even to the left of them – and brazenly breach their charter commitment to impartiality and balanced reporting time after time after time knowing they will be influencing the thinking and attitudes of 70% of the population who rely upon them as a news source.
The whole edifice – no, make that ’empire’ – needs tearing down and a fresh start made.
Lefties may be “well-meaning” in the sense of their own twisted minds. But their well-meaning always leads to misery, death and destruction. That is one reason why they love Islam. I do not think they want to improve the lives of people. They improve their own lives at the expense of other people and get a perverted joy out of other peoples’ suffering, whilst pretending that they care about humanity.
Yes Grant, I agree. They convince themselves that everyone else needs their ‘guidance’ as – being members of the leftist master race – only they know what really is best for us oiks.
Once you accept that only you know what is best for someone else, then you can justify doing almost anything to them ‘for their own good’. All the while, congratulating themselves on what high, moral persons the are.
Manlad,
Spot on. The problem is also that, because they are incapable of any freedom of thought, their little brains cannot cope with other people who are free-thinking. So much easier for them to stay in their tiny little mental shell.
I think the recent history of how the Left behave on losing an election…or a Referendum…shows that even their oldest stupid ciphers can`t ever describe them as “well-meaning”.
I was on the Left for quite a while-they only sing when they`re winning…and now they`re losing repeatedly, you can see the rats in a sack nastiness of them.
Nasty anti-Semites and misogynists too-and shit scared of Islam, so are hypocritical cowards.
Thick as well-learn nothing, check nothing.
Lob them in with IS…for both are utopian haters of Israel and the West…and , to be fair, at least IS can be sourced from their book and are not traitors to their own sick cause…whereas the Left are.
I was also on the left for most of my life.
It is a very comfortable place to be. Comradeship, it’s very simple to get approval from your friends (in fact, you only have to say “UKIP!” or “THATCHER” and that will get a laugh!), infinite self-reinforcing regard from fellow leftists – so long as you stick to the party line, of course.
No need to think, no need for original thought. If in doubt on any point, it is sufficient to simply say “That Bitch Thatcher f***d it up for us all” or “F** the Tories class w****s” and everyone within sycophant distance will marvel at your great wit.
Ah the life of the leftist. Everything was so easy!
Manclad – “Ah the life of the leftist. Everything was so easy!”
Exactly, the lefties don’t have to think for themselves, all they need do is note the party line and stick to it.
The righties tend to have no blanket concensus on most subjects. Most points will be agreed by most righties but there will always be some with a different perspective. Most on the right will have at least one or two “right” general opinions with which they disagree, but by agreeing with the majority of beliefs makes them of the right.
It shows that despite what they delude themselves into believing, the lefties are on average less intelligent. If a lefty starts thinking for themselves there will probably be an epiphany on one issue when the scales will start dropping from their eyes and they will start moving (reluctantly at first) to the right, as you and Chris have done.
By the way – City or United?
Can`t speak for Manclad( but we arrogant United fans sometimes do!)…but I`m from Old Trafford itself, so was brought up a Red.
A rare thing I gather, but hardly to my credit now is it?
,When they did the treble in 1999, gave thanks to God on the Tyne Bridge and became a Corinthian.
So they`re still “the first result to look for”-but their treatment of Moyes was shabby-and that of Van Gaal truly wicked…so wish them mediocrity for a season or two by way of atonement.
Tarted myself out among football clubs over the summer on a free transfer-no agent-but no takers…not even Leyton Orient. Don`t see why FANS don`t get transferred…and let DFS Sofas sponsor them….
So now I`m supporting Sunderland until Christmas by way of thanks for the Brexit highlight they gave us…with all thanks to Mr Goldstein of that parish!
When I visit up there, will channel David Bowie in a Jimmy Carter mask in order to confuse myself….
ChrisH – I remembered that you were a (disillusioned) red. I have to say that Mourinho was one of the last men I wanted as the manager and made my opinions clear on the Redcafe blog. However, this is the best start (albeit 3 matches and only 2 league) for years. I may have to revise my opinion on his qualities but I still don’t like the man.
I’m not so sure that the lefties at the BBC are well meaning unless you discount democracy as the morally acceptable means of achieving the society you want.
It must be blatantly obvious, even to the inhabitants of the BBC News and Current Affairs bubble that their attempts to bias news output are not going to get a majority of voters in favour of socialist nirvana , whether it be Milliband’s, Corbyn’s or Smith’s version. Equally the EU referendum showed that any establishment person or organisation is not going to command automatic influence just because of who they are.
So why do the BBC do it ? Perhaps they hope for a Marxist type of revolution which bypasses democratic methods . That’s not well meaning in my book. It’s also why I think Corbyn, McDonnell et al are sinister rather than the type of benign characters their cult followers portray them as. They have only used Parliament to gain an income and a platform. They don’t really believe in parliamentary democracy .
BBC bias makes sense when you view it in the wider context of liberal/left thought. The BBC mindset – what we might call the liberal/left, metropolitan, ‘progressive’ viewpoint has two input streams.
On the one hand, there is 1. the very doctrinaire, philosophical continental leftism of the ‘big ideas’; the secular utopianism which brought us the French and Russian revolutions.
On the other, there is 2: the gentler strain of dissenting Christianity and the labour movement. (1) had pretty much eclipsed (2) by the late 1960s so it’s easy to forget the VERY close historic links between leftism and religion.
This is why you get the bias; it’s a form of emotional attachment to non-rational ideas. Most leftists are not religious but they come from a tradition steeped in it – and in the very emotional, low-church, dissenting form of Christianity that insists believers must do everything – thoughts and deeds – in the emotional spirit of Christ, and must not rationally examine this. This is the religion that brought you the ‘sin against the Holy Ghost’ (St Mark Ch. 3 v.28-30), the idea that even to THINK the wrong thing is to be damned – basically, ‘thought crime’.
So it’s no surprise really when people from this tradition will mentally skew things to fit their world view, even without realising. We’re all guilty of it to an extent, but the left is more susceptible than the right because of their historic emotional, irrational belief system.
Been a nice holiday this.
Basically I know it`ll be all trashing Trump, trying to overturn the Brexit vote, trying to get Labour electable and Savile-like homoerotic grunts over our youthful druggies out in Brazil.
AND…no fussing over the Amazonian rain forest eh…the airmiles and squandering of whole GDPs in putting trams through favelas or using their precious water supply to allow Tom Daley to dip his wick.
No mention of all that green crap THIS week…but you wait until they all get home..then it`ll be banning granny from flying to Zante to see the grandkids, and yelling at MacDonalds as usual once more.
So-as long as we all KNOW what the BBC are up to, we can sit back, refuse to pay and set the landmines and gin traps for them.
Chris Mason said today that his Corbyn story would not be “NEWSWORTHY”…and this on a news programme…but it might be INSTRUCTIVE.
If you get your old CND sticker out and draw a pie chart…and add a DESTRUCTIVE segment…then you need not worry again…for ALL BBC News output will fall into these three categories.
And newsworthy in the summer -well its 5% at best.
Now THIS is newsworthy-but seems not tbe getting prominence on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37097423
Wonder why?…let`s hope there`ll be a few days silence from the BBC flanalette flaneurs to honour Sepp Blatters John The Bap..
All other stories?…either directing you how to think, or trying to trash your lives so THEY get to keep what they`re nicking from you and your kids.
We need a Deformation of the BBC…it`s past reforming now.
That’s an excellent comment, Cranmer. The role of Christianity in Leftist ideology is often downplayed but it is a historical fact (‘more Methodism than Marxism’ as the Labour Party was once described).
As for irrational beliefs, this is one of the reasons Leftists are so hard to argue with. You can argue with someone about a logically held opinion but you cannot argue with someone whose opinion is based on faith – as so much socialist dogma is.
Couple of well argued bBBC articles that are well worth a read here – enjoy…
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighleys-bbc-watch-radio-4-still-fights-the-last-propaganda-war-against-brexit/
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/paul-t-horgan-we-should-ban-strikes-on-the-railways/
Apologies if these have already been posted, but here are two articles from RT which I thought were unlikely to make it to the BBC front page:
German police seize explosives, detain suspected Islamist for plotting attack on festival
https://www.rt.com/news/356254-german-city-festival-terror/
The BBC had been very much a part of the country’s power structures as an arm of the “establishment … not a news organisation.” – Frederick Forsythe
https://www.rt.com/uk/356270-bbc-spy-frederick-forsythe/
Meanwhile “The Firebrand” magazine article is still there on the front page, Al Beeb still glorifying it’s favourite terrorist.
So many excellent comments on this thread.
Thanks for the good news that Choudary has been locked up, David Vance. Hopefully they’ll throw the key away.
Hate myself for saying this, but can`t agree TT.
It`s that “inviting people to join IS” that bothers me-that is NOT a criminal charge…that`s gobshite opinion to the retards online and in his Mile End curry hovel.
A very dangerous slope this…bloke should have been packed off to Raqqa months ago, once we`d given his house to a deserving family and stripped him of all his dole accrued-as a solicitor , why the hell isn`t he working…as opposed to blowing hard for Muhammad?
Hate the creep-but the media have inflated him, and we let them…he is NOT responsible for what people hear, let alone do.
Or else the likes of Trump, Farage etc will end up in the dock of public opinion too…and us for that matter!
As I say-bung his tribe to Raqqa, and let him be a subject of IS justice…but don`t let him cost us £60,000 p.a for his halal Diqba Studies…