When the Law finally caught up with Anjem Choudary and after a decade of giving him prime-time platforms to spout his rhetoric with Mark Easton comparing him to Ghandi, Mandela and Churchill the BBC have decided that….
‘It wasn’t a game. 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.’
Despite being constantly criticised for giving him airtime they continued to do so with a wilful disregard for the evidence….but then they have always supported the terrorists, their mouthpieces and other radicalisers, from the IRA to Hamas, to groups like the MCB, Cage and MPACUK…all of which still get airtime on the BBC.
Here’s an example of why MPACUK’s minions should also be in a cell….not given prominence, credibility and authority by the BBC…this page has of course vanished from MPACUK’s website but it’s still around……
The Obligation of Jihad
10:49 pm, Wed 17 Apr 2013
“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95.
A high rank, forgiveness and mercy are gifted from our beloved for those who are the Mujahideen. Those that struggle and strive to protect the religion, that protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that protect our brothers and sisters in Islam and humanity are gifted with these amazing favours!
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”
Pretty clear that this is urging British Muslims to go and fight Jihad physically.
The BBC seem to have completely forgotten that they were one of the prime facilitators for Choudary’s career as radical mouthpiece and terrorist recruiter and oddly make no mention of that fact in their latest piece on him which celebrates the fact he has been ‘silenced’…..
How Anjem Choudary’s mouth was finally shut
For 20 years Anjem Choudary stood on street corners, in shopping precincts, outside mosques, embassies and police stations and used his megaphone to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest of Britain. Now he has been convicted of inviting others to support the Islamic State militant group.
When the guilty verdict came, he said nothing.
Anjem Choudary’s mouth had finally shut.
No thanks to the BBC…and note Choudary has been radicalising people for 20 years…hmmm…long before the Iraq war then?
Was amused to see the Authorities will be removing ‘dangerous’ books that lead to radical thoughts from prisons….will that then include the Koran?
The Islamist Baroness Warsi was also shown up for the hypocrite and opportunist she really is. She is a long term adversary of the anti-terrorist Prevent programme and not long ago was agitating for the government to engage with Msulim groups that were considered ‘beyond the pale’…presumably those such as Cage, MPACUK and the MCB. She suggested that by not engaging with such groups the government was disengaged with the Muslim community….she was saying that these groups represent the Muslim community then?
Irony of ironies Warsi then attacked the BBC for giving Choudary airtime….
Criticising the BBC, Baroness Warsi, the former minister for faith and communities, said extremists should not be given platforms to express their damaging views.
Pity the BBC gives her so much airtime to peddle her own Islamist propaganda.
The reason that Choudary couldn’t be locked up before was because he was preaching the Koran and basic Islamic law. Now when the government ministers tell us he was peddling a poisonous ideology you have to ask just what ideology was that then and if it is indeed ‘Islam’ what will you do about it?
Tom Holland: We must not deny the religious roots of Islamic State
Salafism today is probably the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world. The interpretation that Isis applies to Muslim scripture may be exceptional for its savagery – but not for its literalism. Islamic State, in its conceit that it has trampled down the weeds and briars of tradition and penetrated to the truth of God’s dictates, is recognisably Salafist. When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in.
Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is.
The French have gone for window dressing and banned the Burkini in places when the real problem is far more fundamental and which such petty headline grabbing policies do nothing to address because politicians are afraid to speak the truth…that Europe is being Islamised and that without deliberate action to prevent that it is inevitable that Muslims will rule over Europe in the very near future.
The BBC and its ilk refuse to address that fact and indeed do all they can to play it down and instead of revealing the truth about what Islam really means continue to sell us a false narrative of a religion of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue.
The reality is that Islam is not a pleasant ideology, it is backward, violent (even Tariq Ramadan admits it is so) and oppressive and has been the ‘end of history’ for so many of the countries that it has taken root in. If Europe becomes Islamised where does that leave the liberal progression? Who in the world will stand up for all those values the BBC likes to boast it stands for and yet ironically also backs the most brutal of religions which is in direct opposition to every value liberals profess to hold?
Western values need defending, at the point of a bayonet if necessary, as they have been for centuries as we stopped Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler and the Communists. The BBC seems to think that to apply a little muscular liberalism goes against the whole ethos of liberalism….the result of such a weak policy will be no liberalism at all.
Syria shows what standing back patting oneself on the back as Obama did for his ‘considered’, diplomatic approach to the disaster, results in….an unfolding, massive bloody disaster that could have been averted with quick and powerful early intervention.
Europe will eventually also turn into a warzone. It is inevitable. It’s here already. People just refuse to see it…and as I’ve said before the war is not just one of bullets and bombs….it is at heart an ideological war and the intended end result is the Black flag of Islam flying over the ruling houses of Europe….
There is a war being fought and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs. The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge. And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals’ like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society, on that phantom menace ‘Islamophobia’. Of course what is even more frightening is that these men and women have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation. Biased BBC
Andrew Gilligan gives us an example of how a Muslim group uses the media to attack the government and its anti-terror laws…
Muslim extremists’ ‘campaign of lies’ to undermine the government’s fight against terror
An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.
Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.
As the BBC now admits it is the ideologues, the propagandists, the rabble rousers who are the real danger…
‘It wasn’t a game. 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.’
Shame the BBC still gives so much time to so many of these ideologues and snake-oil salesmen and women.
My advice to the government is look through all policies that have been most protested against and implement them asap.
Alan, an excellent article. Islams role is to subvert the west.
Leftists think they can use Muslims as useful idiots whilst Muslims think the same of the left.
The BBCs role in the promotion of Islam is suicidal stupidity, and / or evidence that they have been bought. Either way they are increasingly complicit in promoting the islamisation of the UK.
The BBC isn’t pro-Islam, it’s anti-Britain. If those in charge of editorial content could just take off their “anything-but-white”-tinted glasses and actually be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on Islam and its teachings, rather than the deliberately limited examples they choose to keep regurgitating, they would realise that when the war starts they won’t be protected. It won’t just be the little plebs on the street getting crushed, and ISIS won’t give a toss about their cosmopolitan ‘tolerance’ lie. They will kill anyone who isn’t like them. It will be a world war that will be won in spite of the establishment’s best efforts to sabotage our defence and our sense of identity. And when it is over, the BBC and every single traitorous liar who used it to peddle their hatred of the west disguised as empathy must be held to account.
ALM, seems to me that the BBC and most European broadcasters have already been assured a position in the firmament of the future Islamic Europe.
ALM – good post
Fear not ALM. The Prophet THR (pbuh) has stirred the tea leaves and seen an Axis of Good – an alliance of Farage, Trump, Wilders and Le Penn – and all will be well.
Good man Highland Rebel!
It`s all too easy to fuss and fall for the liberal grease monkeys with their balls bared and thinking they`re of industrial benefit.
The Left and Liberal elite are THICK, have NO SENSE of humour-and these days, every day is firework night….whether its Burkinis or Bercow, Corbyn or Snorbitz.
We here at the Nasty Party have only three policies agreed.
1. Trigger Article 50 so we can get out of the burning orphanage.
2. Make it a criminal offence to pay your TV License.
3. A statue of Sir Nigel instead of that bloody Angel of the North crap.
The Left can only work with three thoughts at a time…when they`re dead, we can do a bit more of course….
ChrisH
Which three thoughts, please?
1. Brexit
2. Get rid of the TV Tax
3. Nigel Farage to stand in Jo Cox` constituency.
Important to be really “nasty” as they`d see it…maybe the Tingley Trump candidate.
I find real offence of the left a great fillip…the thickfux at Tolpuddle , as I say have no humour, no humanity and no-self awareness when we`re taking the piss…and ,by the time their foreheads veins pop , we`re long down the road.
Maximum offence, torque on the corkscrew…
Thanks. On a kindly basis, I think we should not use the last one, as it would cause severe mental dissonance, even death maybe.
Putin, Wilders and the AfD leader of Germany, Frauke Petry, might also join in.
That scenario makes me think of those German communists welcoming Russian troops as liberators only to be shot or enslaved as they were German, their political allegiance meant nothing, they were still the enemy. BBC jerks would be waving their inclusivity cards at the Muslim invaders and still done away with because they would still be infidels.
We now have the american footballer biracial raised by white parents who won’t stand for the national anthem because he’s a believer of the black lives matter agenda his team mates recognise his right to. Now we know the background of the people running blm we know the statistics of shootings. Who will speak the truth on our behalf or at least the Americans behalf. Not Obama not Clinton the statistics are all there waiting for the brave person to air the facts. Only Donald trump in the USA and over here Nigel farage. Theresa may I really really want to like you I’ll wait and see.
Some good musings here.
Personally I think the BBC is just a left wing organisation, driven by its sense of statism, patronising attitude to the lower public, untouchable bureaucracy, and entitlement. Rather like the EU !!
So its cosying up to the RoP is tactical. ‘The enemy’s enemy is my friend’. Undermining the government and traditions is what its about, and their support for all things Islam and their anti British bile comes in that context.
They are no different therefore from the Corbynistas and the general ragbag of left wing pressure groups. The left’s support for mass immigration is to me a tactic to bring down the market economy under the weight of unaffordable benefits, and thus achieve the desired socialism rising from the ashes.
Where Al Beeb and the left generally are wrong of course is that as and when the RoP wins out, they too will be up against the wall in their orange jump suits. Something they haven’t yet twigged.
Sluff
I’ve noticed the BBC’s patronising attitude to Muslims. That supercilious attitude to people they think are mildly backward, and the BBC needs to be kind to such people.
They don’t show such an attitude to a bishop or vicar – White, Brown or Black. Then its a no holds barred debate.
In a curious way, its a complement.
Correction:
In a curious way, its a compliment.
As if we needed any proof that the left-leaning UK media are useless when it comes to separating well-meaning spiritual types from psychotic 5th century terrorists, here is a story from the Independent singing the praises of a peace maker who goes by the name of Laden. Bin Ladan.
Well…look at the reporter….one Robert Fisk……say no more……utter muppet…
Indeed. The man who inadvertently gave his name to the verb ‘fisk’ – the treatment meted out to a propagandist who masquerades as a bona fide journalist.
Mark Easton didn’t compare Choudary to Ghandi, Mandela or Churchill. Despite being constantly criticised for that, wither a lie or a failure to understand plain English, you continue to do so with it with a willful disregard for the evidence.
If the BBC giving airtime to someone with an opinion, however disagreeable equates to supporting that view, then they and David Vance must be in sync to?
This has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the media in a democracy giving voices to different opinions and informing their audience. How can you understand your enemy without hearing what he has to say?
More important than Choudary’s right to express a view, within the law, is my right to hear him. Would you extend your censor to hateful and legally questionable speech on this site?
Your pathetic attempts to defend your employers or paymasters at the BBC fool no- one. Giving airtime to ideological extremists who want to destroy our culture is bias pure and simple. There are rarely any balancing comments when the BBC does this. Luckily for us and unfortunately for you,the BBCs tactics persistently backfire. People see through the bias and in effect the BBC gift votes to the Tories and UKIP. People on here get annoyed with the BBC, not because it’s bias works but because it is a national broadcaster which should reflect British not alien views and even worse, we have no option but to pay for it.
EE
Agreed.
There are some viewpoints which may be distasteful but deserve hearing, if only for the purpose of refutation.
But there are viewpoints so far outside normal moral discourse that there is no possibility of any exchange or expression of counter views.
I include here those who find it necessary to parade the case for BBC coverage of the views of Choudary as just one more view which we may or may not find distasteful. The BBC and their supporters play this trick But there is no space in moral discourse for supporters of rape, of child killing, and murder of those who do not believe in some stupid God.
The BBC, and Kichichooflower, are akin to an idiot who proposes a debate on whether rape and throat slitting is morally acceptable, and then invites a psycho to put the case for rape and throat slitting – as an example of debate in a democracy. But they are even worse than this – they do not allow a condemnation of the rapist and throat slitter.
That viewpoint reflects the viewpoint of the jihadists….who are rather in the news recently. You’d prefer to stick your fingers in your ears? Would you not read a book on the subject either? I’d be fascinated to hear from unsuccessful suicide bombers, on why they did what they did. Doesn’t mean I have any more sympathy with their view than you. Nor would I deny people from hearing it either.
Simple concept really, and I don’t see how a news broadcaster can possibly take a different view.
Kiku,
Dear Little flower. Read the Koran, all muslims are required to be “Jihadists”. You clearly haven’t read it judging by your ignorance of Islam. I bet you have never even set foot in a muslim country. Have you ?
Wrong Grant, I’ve done both.
But I don’t believe a response to my argument can possibly start with ‘Read the Koran’.
Kikichoo,
You don’t get it do you?
We are not talking about viewpoints for discussion. When I say it falls outside of rational and moral discourse it is not viewpoint for discussion.
It is like defecating in public but worse.
If I suggest cutting you up into pieces and making you watch as your family are forced to eat them, that is not a viewpoint for discussion.
It is not a coherent political, legal or moral matter.
It is like turning up to a TV show and raping the presenter.
Don’t you get it?
It is too far removed from humanity to enlighten anyone in any way.
But the BBC – defended by you – play this trick.
I once met a man who sent turds in the envelope provided by the Open University for his essays.
Guess what? The University refused to assess them for academic merit.
Why? Because they were not essays, even though they were in the appropriate container.
This is not about censoring speech or argument; some things are outside of speech.
‘If I suggest cutting you up into pieces and making you watch as your family are forced to eat them, that is not a viewpoint for discussion…It is too far removed from humanity to enlighten anyone in any way’
Except Choudary didn’t ever say this on air. He argued Britain would be better off under Sharia, that Islam was the solution to all human problems. That the black flag of Islam would fly over Downing St.
Now that’s a view. A crazy one and it would happen over my dead body, but its a view shared by a significant number. And it clearly is enlightening if you’re interested in understanding the current conflict.
I’m liking the Kikichooflower thing. That’s sweet.
‘Giving airtime to ideological extremists who want to destroy our culture is bias pure and simple.’
This is a sentence that simply makes no sense. I don’t think you know what bias is.
‘There are rarely any balancing comments when the BBC does this.’
I think you’ll find that 99%+ of views heard on the BBC would be entirely contrary to Choudary’s.
While there will always be knee-jerkers who shoot the messenger, I suspect many value an independent and impartial broadcaster and value its contribution to democracy.
“I suspect many value an independent and impartial broadcaster and value its contribution to democracy. ”
I see BBC comedy hasn’t improved.
GC,
Kiku ” Little flower ” is the best comedian the BBC have !
As you say GC, this individual kikuchwhatever is a complete joke. Giving airtime to the likes of Choudary is unacceptable for the british publicly funded broadcaster . Only an organisation with a biased agenda would do it. I think we all know what makes sense and what bias is.
Choudary boasted to his dupe supporters about his ability to get on mainstream media. It gifted him an unwanted credibility . Given the deaths that Choudary followers have caused, those who put him on MSM have blood on their hands.
England,
Lefties love terrorists ! Their minds are perverted.
Hard to believe the free speech argument still needs to be made in this century.
What exposes the gaping hole in Kikuchiyo’s ridiculous claim is the absence of opposing views. When was the last time we heard or saw Pamela Geller or Geert Wilders on the BBC? Yet neither of them holds a candle to Choudary in terms of ‘extremism’.
I wouldn’t have objected to Choudary having the occasional spurt of airtime, so that people could see for themselves what a viper we had in our midst, if only the BBC didn’t actively conspire against those who believe Choudary is the symptom of a wider problem. A wider problem the BBC is trying to pretend doesn’t exist.
What about Nick Griffin, someone who all decent people find objectionable. Apart from his one appearance on QT where he was so badly bullied some people who hate his views felt a twinge of sympathy at his treatment. His evil views are no worse than Choudary, in fact nothing he has said has encouraged anyone to murder innocent people, unlike Chunderhead.
If Chunder is to be allowed on BBC on a regular basis, why not Griffin? What about the fact that Owen Jones who supports violent action on our streets and supports those who murder minorities in their own countries is an almost permanent fixture.
I don’t like any of that lot but if as Coochy Coo says all views need to be heard, why don’t they have all view points? Or is Coochy just an hysterical, hypocritical Beeboid?
Only the BBC could have turned an oily slimeball like Nick Griffin into a hero.
Had they not tried to derail his political campaign(which was in no danger of “troubling the scorers” as it were) with an undercover hatchet job…he`d have been in historys recycling bin long ago.
But the BBC-due to its lefty chums at Labour needing the northern votes-gave their undercover footage to the police to get him prosecuted for hate crime against Muslims.
Oh dear-for Griffin was probably the first-certainly the first BBC programme thatI know of-that formally accused Muslims in Yorkshire of grooming and setting up fronts to abuse white girls in care or need of some booze from Alis shop.
Griffin was, in fact, the unintended hero of all what came in Rotherham-what is NOW happening in Telford FFS too!
Whistleblower #1 in this area-with Tommys EDL a way behind.
The tactic to force him into courts and hence being unable to fight the 2005 General Election looked SO clever…but he won on appeal in 2006, and Rotherham began to blow in 2009.
Well done BBC-by trying to drive Griffin into the swamp, he will forever be known as the Nations Saving Whistleblower for Islamic Child Abuse…only wish he`d have nailed the BBC for Savile whilst he was up in Leeds, but you can`t have it all.
Bet Farage and Trump can draw the lessons here….
There is no gaping hole. The opposing view isn’t necessarily the opposite end of the spectrum – Geller or Wilders. His view is countered by any government or mainstream politician, the great majority of people in the UK in fact. This would be a view which in comparison dominates the airwaves. Douglas Murray’s hardly off the BBC though.
Just take a step back and listen to yourself. You are advocating giving airtime to a man who incites acts of terrorism and violence of the most repugnant kind, whilst justifying the exclusion of those whose non-violent opinions, you happen to dislike.
Your moral compass is bent out of shape.
I’ve taken a step back, and I’ve re-read what I wrote. I suggest you might do the same.
I didn’t justify the exclusion of ‘non-violent opinions’, nor suggest I dislike Geller or Wilders’ opinions. Choudary was convicted for very particular reasons, he was careful not to incite terrorism or violence on the airwaves.
Try as you might you can’t refute my two points.
You justified the exclusion of Wilders and Geller by claiming that there was no need to hear them (” The opposing view isn’t necessarily the opposite end of the spectrum – Geller or Wilders.”). That, in itself, is a slander in any case. Characterising either as ‘the opposite end of the spectrum’ to an advocate of terrorism like Choudray is outrageous.
The fact remains that you are happy to have Choudary broadcasting his ‘hate speech’ (to borrow a term beloved of the BBC). I have no objections to that, providing access is given equally to opposing views – and it is not, as you well know. Pretending that the vapid utterances of government ministers is somehow a balance and there is no need for anything else is just the sort of intellectual dishonesty and casuistry that the biased BBC and its advocates specialise in.
‘Hardly off’. A bit vague for one usually keen on substantiation.
As you’re by the notebook, care to run a comparison with, say, Owen, or Diane, or Polly, or…?
In ‘Hardly off’, I was parroting the language of this Blog.
Your language, on the hand other, not one I Huggs/FOI.
Sorry for the delay in getting back. Out with the family enjoying the sun after yesterday’s wash out, and just popped in to make a cuppa.
Speaking of one samurai’s noble trawling through the Bank holiday is another man’s sad old bastard with no life, have to like the ‘parroting the language of this Blog’, for stuff you have done that you and yours usually take to task in others. Only fair, as you seem to give the BBC a pass on that too. See, balance (I give you that one for free).
No answer to the question though. Shame.
Glad to see you are still taking notes for when you take over my sector of the country, but frankly that last line was so weak and contrived to make the comedy last night almost seem satirically barbed in comparison.
Interesting you are, with the BBC, not a fan of Freedoms to learn Information the BBC prefers kept secret. Maybe shared DNA?
I didn’t justify or advocate the exclusion of Geller and Wilders.
You said:
‘What exposes the gaping hole in Kikuchiyo’s ridiculous claim is the absence of opposing views. When was the last time we heard or saw Pamela Geller or Geert Wilders on the BBC?’
My point, which I either didn’t express well, or you misunderstood, or both – was that the absence of Pamela Geller or Geert Wilders on the BBC does not equate to the absence of opposing views to Choudary’s.
Airtime is given overwhelmingly to views which are opposed to Choudary’s.
The intellectual dishonesty is yours.
I think you’ll find that 99%+ of views heard on the BBC would be entirely contrary to Choudary’s.
Really?? ‘Entirely’? Can you back that up?
Well, can you?
According to IMDB, Choudary first appeared on the BBC News in 2007.
I’m afraid I shan’t be pointing you to evidence for every view expressed on the BBC in the last 9 years.
Mark Easton didn’t compare Choudary to Ghandi, Mandela or Churchill. Despite being constantly criticised for that, wither a lie or a failure to understand plain English, you continue to do so with it with a willful disregard for the evidence.
He provided the BBC expert ‘comment’ at the end of a news piece on Choudary and chose to expand his commentary to include the government’s awaited anti-terror legislation which allowed him to juxtapose Ghandi and Mandela as examples of activists who today might be prosecuted for their views by such legislation, the powers of which were still unknown. A typical, sly BBC tactic to conflate two separate issues but plant a connection in the viewers’/listeners’ minds.
But you’ve had all that explained to you before, you naughty boy!
And for those who love those Groundhog Day moments here it is, from a couple of weeks ago, on this very topic:
———————————————–
Kikuchiyo:
But Benjy, the report was about laws being proposed. That’s what the report was about.
jtf:
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.
*Groan*. Tabloids love a bit of faux moral outrage, and the gullible love to lap it up. But groundhog day is boring. I wish someone would tell Alan that too.
———————————————————————
Kikuchiyo:
But Benjy, the report was about laws being proposed. That’s what the report was about.
jtf:
Not in fact.
Mark Easton discussed government’s new terror laws…’
———————————————————————
It’s not clear to me how this refutes my point. I’ll recap the above. “the report was about laws being proposed.’…….”Not in fact….Mark Easton discussed government’s new terror laws”
A fair collection today of what is not clear to you, what you find hard to believe, what you do believe and ‘suspect’.
Certainty like that gets you straight to an ECU directorship.
Yes, my opinions. I don’t know whose you were expecting.
George Soros.
But Benjy, the report was about laws being proposed. That’s what the report was about.
The report was about Choudary, Easton then followed with his ‘expert opinion’ which morphed into views on the terror laws. And you never explained what Easton might have meant by ‘established values’. I suggested Choudary would change our established values to the ways of radical Islam. Dangerous stuff from Easton.
More important than Choudary’s right to express a view, within the law, is my right to hear him. Would you extend your censor to hateful and legally questionable speech on this site?
You are comparing Choudary’s support for Islamic fundamentalism with views expressed on ths site? Can you give us some examples? Sounds to me like the needle on your moral compass permanently points to Mecca. Why not follow it?
Tabloids love a bit of faux moral outrage, and the gullible love to lap it up.
We all know The Guardian is the newspaper of choice at the BBC. A rag further away from reality would be impossible to find.
In giving us the BBC ‘expert’s opinion’ on the Choudary news item Easton managed to segue effortlessly into his views on the terror laws (implemented or no) and what they might have meant for Ghandi and Mandela back in their day. He knew what impression he would leave viewers with by bringing them into it, and he also has loads of form as a self-loathing Brit (see previous threads).
So, moving along, are we going to have your views on the BBC’s glowing version of Islamic history?
How are you going to spin your way out of this overwhelming evidence of the BBC’s dangerous, filthy, stinking bias towards Islam?
Or maybe you wrote it?
Er..Kikuchiyo..pretentious little moniker what…….i think we have all heard enough of Mr Choudary the last 10 years to form an accurate opinion of him….how much more do you want to hear from him…..you muppet…..stare at the Test Card for hours in the 70’s did you ?….maybe you are not that old…let me know.
There’s no doubt that the Independent, as shown above, and the BBC are just part of a succession of Useful Idiots in the left- liberal establishment doing the Muslims work for them. Whether Islamist or just Muslim makes little difference to the eventual outcome – conquest of the West. The Muslims want to finish the job they left incomplete in the seventh and eighth centuries when they were stopped by the Byzantine Empire and by the Franks under Charles Martel .
Yes, Europe is already a war zone and the intensity of the war will get worse. The question is- is it already too late for the West? The remorseless demographics of a high Muslim birthrate and continued high migration are mighty forces to reverse . We need to take some very tough decisions from now onwards if we are to save Western society for our grandchildren.
England,
The Lefties and the BBC think that, if they lick the muslim ass , they will somehow be spared. They are so stupid they have learned nothing from the history of appeasement. Total useful idiots. They do not realise that the muslims are taking the P out of them !
It is quite amusing reading the posts from todays weekend “BBC duty dhimmi” justifying the excessive coverage Aunty has given Choudry and his ilk.
We have had years of the BBC platforming islamic ranters such as Choudry maybe he was tolereted because it makes the rest of the followers of the “religion of peace” look tolerant, yet anyone who vigorously opposes them (even mainstream politicians such as Farage) Always seem to have had their words taken out of context/generally manipulated to make them seem as intolerant as possible, whilst anyone who generally supports “tolerance” to this divisive religion – which preaches conquest and destruction to gain its own ends is nearly always presented as reasonable and humanitarian.
As they are so obviously employed by the BBC I am sure they are fully aware of the degree of manipulation their employer will go to present the BBC narrative. In reality these people truly are Judas,s in that they believe in very little apart from their own career advancement.
I suspect if these idiots had lived in the occupied territories during the war they would have been straight onto the gestapo if they had thought their neighbour was harbouring a Jew.
You can imagine the conversation “Is that Mr Heydrich – I cant tell you my name but I think there is a jew living in the Attic at No 6 Hypocrite street – I dont want anyone hurt you understand but this is breaking the law and we do have standards in this country now! – by the way is the reward for turning in an enemy of the state still 20 marks? ”
At least the terrorists and their supporters believe in something however wrong – but as for our dhimmi friends – it never ceases to amaze me how little personal integrity they individuals must truly have.
Oaknash,
I think with dhimmis, including the ones who post here, lack of self-esteem is a big factor.
Maybe battered wife syndrome – or just sad – dont know – dont care really – but whatever the reason is they are truly pathetic individuals.
The spread of Islam on a map to the north Russia to the east China to the south India to the west weakness that’s the direction onward march.
It seems that after the demise of Anjem, our joke of a police force have a new target, that being Tommy Robinsons kids…”Bless em”
That’s one of the most chilling videos I’ve seen for a long time. Proof, if it were needed, that we are now in a police state. Whether it’s Farage or Robinson the left-wing fascists and their police puppets are preventing ordinary citizens from going about their peaceful, lawful business. Shocking!!
All the police filmed and their superiors should be sacked immediately with no pension. Questions should be asked in Parliament and the Cambridgeshire Chief Constable and their deputy should also be sacked (or imprisoned).
There is a similar abuse of power going in in Sussex, according to a story on Breitbart yesterday. Police monitoring Twitter have reported a tweet by Katie Hopkins to Twitter, clearly trying to get her banned, even though what she had said was not illegal and they were unable to take action over it.
When challenged, a snotty PC PC opined that Ms Hopkins’ tweet was ‘inappropriate’. Certainly, what she had written was unpleasant but the police are, once again, acting well beyond their authority.
Not a lot of point complaining so Sussex police, however, as this is the force that spends thousands painting its cars in support of homosexual causes and dishing out ‘hate crime reporting apps’ in pubs.
This sort of thing needs to be stopped. Now.
Gestapo. They even dress like them. Bastards .
However you have got to credit the police force for being so good as to allow the rapes of tens of thousands of young girls by Religion of Peace members.
No one has been prosecuted for this grotesque war crime – a war crime that has no precedent in history, anywhere anytime.
OTH, who to prosecute – sundry Home Secretaries, sundry Chief Constables, cabinet decisions to ignore a grotesque crime against children, just because they were from the Working class.
No wonder this is all being brushed under the carpet.
Since when did Cambridge and Luton become Gorky or Smolensk?
Truly creepy-only hope Tommy`s got those plods numbers, and looks into who “the boss” is who authorises this kind of terror tactic,
These coppers are mental nurses…and if this is the calibre of police we`re creating ,then we`re in deep trouble.
Might let him register as a United fan if that means he can watch us-and do United know that some people are not allowed to watch them on the telly now!
Could be a good case study this…who knew that certain teams can no longer be watched south of Birmingham…Sky ought to be worried.
Tommy missed the last minute goal-what of his rights?…is it `cos we`ve got a black forward and a Portuguese blow-in as manager?
Racist-see you in Strasbourg Hogan Who!
Possibly a sign of mental illness to watch United anyway…shall we try that one?
I have said this before but the plods have definitely changed – you have the believers and the normal human beings – but to get on you have to be a believer!
The boy in the baseball cap was definitely a believer!
I suppose these are the ” new wet dream – model police force” of Kinkyshoes and his sad friends BBC loving friends.
PC Dhimmi coming to a beat near you (and unfortunately me too) soon!
Many horrible things are going to happen as the invaders become more confident. Child rapes, knife attacks, driving trucks into crowds, and attempts to kidnap soldiers Not nice to think about it but soon there will be a serious attack on a police officer which will be hard for the cops to justify and for the media to hide. A cops funeral is a sombre sight. Kow towing to those who want to kill you will not prevent what is inevitable.
The police farce have little idea what is coming their way because of their stance now…..people will rise up, ‘deal with them’ and take their weapons….we vastly outnumber them….they will pay dearly one day.
For as long as I remeber the fascist left have claimed the Police are “our” enemies. Now I believe it, but they are not their enemies – they are their poodles and enforcement operators.
A taxi driver I use who is ex-military keeps boasting about how great our police and PM body guards are seems to think your wrong? I put a question to him: How come whenever our PM goes overseas we rarely see the British secret service body guards? He was shocked that I should ask such a question!? I reminded him about that incident (near miss)on Cameron a few years ago where his body guards were 30 40 yards from him/PM car and why if the British Protection officers are the best in the world why are they all so overweight and elderly? Silence? Even more – why are they so bloomin short?
As far as I’m concerned our glorious leaders deserved the protection as stated. ?
Dazed and Confused,
“Tommy Robinson” has a long history of football inspired violence, including being occasional ring-leader of the notorious Luton MiG.
It’s because of people like him and his tiny band of knuckle headed friends, that Luton Town FC supporters have to be corralled by police to and from the train station for away games.
Bit late to cry “victim” when he can’t stay behind to have a few pints after the match. That’s what Luton Town supporters have had to endure for years…
Thanks to f*****g idiots like “Tommy Robinson”.
Wow Omega – again another SJW giving up their free time to come to this site which clearly offends your views. Why my friend? Why?
And perhaps once you’ve finished your rampage you’ll see a similar post asking you beeboids to stop liking your own things – pathetic. Really
Omega has been plagiarizing from the UAF site. As long as the cops harass the ‘far right’ all is well in leftie la la land
I suppose being one of the ‘people like him’ justifies police harassment.
So you’re saying that all Luton fans must be treated in exactly the same way despite the fact there is only a small number of “mental health” issues ones. Treat them all the same like you lefties want all Jews to be treated as pariahs for the actions, real and invented, that are claimed for Israel? Whereas you mustn’t treat all young muslim males the same (i.e. keep an eye on them) despite a significantly large minority having “mental health” issues.
Note to all: Kikuchiyo whilst once again misguidedly trying to defend the BBC’s indulgence of the terrorist Choudary, chose not to comment on the revisionist, disinfected version of Islamic history it presents to our children on its website (see earlier thread) – basically propaganda of the crudest and most vile kind and misleading millions with the impression that the tolerant and civilising Muslims have always been persecuted for no good reason at all.
I have felt for a long time, that Anjem C was on our side. While the rest of the Muslim community beguiled us with Taqiyya, while the Muslim population rose rapidly, the main threat, he was the only one telling the truth about Islam. No Taqiyya from him.
Moreover, he encouraged many to leave Britain, thus reducing the strain on our Welfare services, NHS and Education budgets. This out immigration also reduced the population growth of Muslims, albeit in a small way, but still welcome.
Many of those he sent on the missionary path to Syria, have since relocated to Jahannam, courtesy of Kurds, drones and Sukhois.
For just one person, on just Benefits, he has done quite a lot of good for us. Probably more then those actually tasked to remove the social ill besetting us at the moment.
Anjem indeed led many people at least “Halfway To Paradise”-in some cases, even all the way to the burning gates themselves.
And–as you say-no double dealings from him re Islamic teachings.
We`re no longer paying jihadi Johnnies buss pass are we?…NO!
So-result to the taxpayer as you say.
And a few less int eh dole queues of Luton.
An alternative point of view here NCBBC….like it!
ChrisH
Anjem never lied to us about the teachings of the Koran and Hadiths, unlike moderate Muslims, or our own politicians, with their “Religion of Peace” mantra. He told the truth. When he stated that he would like to see the flag of Islam flying over Bucks palace, and 10 Downing Street, he was stating what is the goal of Islam. Everywhere all the time. Some Muslims may not know it, or pretend not to know it, but Anjem was brutally honest.
Considering that the Islamic way of war is one of deceit, I’m surprised that Anjem was so honest. One could be forgiven for thinking of him as “our” Black Ops agent in the enemy camp. No wonder so many “moderate” Muslims in Britain were incandescent with rage over Anjem.
Anyway, he is now out of the limelight. Perhaps he has outlived his usefulness, and this was the best way to send him to a well earned retirement. Thanks Anjem. And stay away from “moderate” Muslims, wherever you may be.
Hate to burst the bubble guys but the reality is this… In londistan anyway:
My step mum teaches at an academy in central london, majority of the kids are muslim. During ramadan school was only open to year 7 and 11 as they knew so few would turn up anyway. Of those potential 400-500 pupils guess how many turned up to the “free” food the school had put on… 4.
This is our next generation of softly educated potential jihadis that you and I are paying for. To say we’re in deep is an understatement. Anyway I’m off to convert, as those racist brits say, if you can’t beat ’em, join em.
Oh sorry also just wanted to point out what your tax money is going towards: FGM training (not literally thank god but how to spot it from a teachers viewpoint) and the prevent strategy which coming from my step mum, a teacher, is a complete and utter waste of time.
Reading this reminds me of the boy that was apparently investigated for terrorism because of a spelling error.
Remember that? Back in January the BBC reported that the Prevent Strategy was so bad that a young boy had been investigated because he had written terrorist house instead of terraced house.
Only it turned out that it was nothing to do with the Prevent Strategy at all. The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Lancashire issued a damning statement on the way the story had been reported and said he had “written to the BBC”, which later updated its original article online.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lancashire-police-say-terrorist-house-incident-not-about-spelling-mistake-a6824481.html
Too late, the false story planted by the MCB and spun by the BBC was already being repeated as if it was true.
If the BBC’s bias wasn’t already exposed, it was quite appallingly reinforced some weeks later. I was listening to Radio 5 when they did a programme critical of the Prevent Strategy. The main evidence presented? You guessed it, some bloke from the MCB, the boy and his brother, interviewed on the programme repeating the lie that he had been investigated as a terrorist over a simple spelling mistake.
Do see this
German immigration worker day at the office
We are fast approaching a point of No Return. I’ve warned of this for decades. Admitting Muslims is folly beyond follies.
Twenty years before he’s finally exposed, twenty years to radicalise british muslims
We have a great problem in this country with the Fascist Left, it’s inability to defend its insane arguments without resorting to name calling and its fear of being exposed for what it is – utterly cuckoo !
Free speech should involve Anjem Choudary being able to spout his bile, and the rest of us being able to expose him for what he is – a Muslim!
The Fascist left cannot allow this though. We the people have to be silenced so that they can carry on a pretence that everything is normal and their insane world is actually working.
If it became common knowledge, or even thought of, that Anjem Choudary was accurately portraying his religion, what happens to the mutli culti view of Britain Fascists like the BBC have done so much to cravenly promulgate?
What would happen to the brown eyed favourites?
And worse what would happen to those who had made all this possible.
No Anjem Choudary had to be put in prison, not because he was facilitating violence or Jihad, but because he risked exposing the emperors new clothes of the craven elites who have betrayed us all.
Excellent post Thoughtful.
Dead right thoughtful.
The case against Choudhary stinks-even to the extent of unreported trial and a sentence that followed with a colleague of his.
The man is an odious fake, but authentic taqiyya-peddling Islam…hiesdoctrine allows him to be both fake to us (and true to Muslims).
Like Tommy Robinson, Choudhary is the symptom not the disease itself.
Ironic that the same tactics are being used, whereas one is OUR voice-whilst the other is the multiculti wet dream gone tonto.
Funny how the “alienating Muslims and giving succour to IS” isn`t being used in Choudharys case-as if the true face of smarmy, legalistic and comically-tactical Islam is best imprisoned-not mocked, argues and laughed at.
The BBC wants Sadiq Khan and Yvonne Ridley to slither us into submission-Anjem frightens the sheep.
Thoughtful
Exactly. My view too. See above. I went as far as thinking he might be a “Black Ops” guy working for us. Considering that Islam’s method of war is deceit and Taqiyya, I couldn’t see how Anjem could be waging war on us, if he was giving the game away, the whole lot. Thus, he is our guy.
To all trolls stop wasting your time trying to justify your views.TRUST WENT A LONG TIME AGO WE CANNOT BE FOOLED
Is YAB still a BBC regular?
https://cifwatch.com/2016/08/30/uk-newspaper-columnist-yasmin-alibhai-brown-again-smears-british-jews/
Or has she been made a Labour peer yet for ‘services rendered’?
She’s awful, ruined many QUESTION TIME’S i never agree with anything that comes out of her mouth.