Identity Politics


Maybe I’m going soft but sometimes think that I might be being too quick to criticise the BBC when they refuse to report eye-witness claims that a terrorist shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ as he launched his attack…maybe the BBC is being diligent and responsible…checking the facts and getting the story 100% right.

If that though ever crosses my mind again I will just have to remind myself about today and how the BBC reported the attack in Finsbury Park….immediately reporting, and continuing to do so throughout the day, that the attacker shouted ‘I want to kill all Muslims’…they have made it a story on its own on the frontpage…

Finsbury Park attack: ‘He was shouting, I want to kill all Muslims’

A man has died and several people have been injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians near a north London mosque.

Khalid Amin, an eyewitness, describes what he saw happen.

It is absolutely correct to report such eye-witness claims…but to do so consistently and not manage the news when it is a Muslim attacker so as to downplay the identity of that attacker.  That identity is a crucial piece of evidence that gives the likely motivation for the attack and needs to be reported so as to give the viewer the information to assess what is going on.  What usually happens is that the BBC’s first report may well mention shouts of ‘Allah Akbar’ but then this is edited out of later bulletins and reports only to reappear maybe a day later once the police have 100% identified the attacker as Muslim… such approach today, just a stream of reports telling us that he shouted ‘I want to kill all Muslims’.


Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Identity Politics

  1. Yob says:

    The BBC…Poisoning the minds of children in regards to Islam, every single chance they can..


    • JimS says:

      From the linked article:

      “The word “Islam” comes from an old Arabic word meaning “peace.”

      Most authorities would translate it as “submission”.

      “Many people think Islamophobia is created when a person doesn’t properly understand what Muslims do or believe, and that the best way to combat it is to have a better understanding of Muslims and Islam.”

      Many people think that they know all too well what Islam and, by implication, Muslims are about and they don’t like it. To use a coarse expression common in the IT world, “RTFM!”.


    • Ian Rushlow says:

      Also look at the cartoon picture to illustrate that ‘Islam is the second largest religion in the UK’. All the characters display outlandish Arab-inspired dress, even including one in a bin bag. I know several Muslims and none of them would be seen dead dressed like this (actually, they might be seen dead if they were in ISIS territory…). It’s a liberal fetish which has its origins in Orientalism and inverted racism, believing that ‘the other’ has to be exotic and different to be worthwhile, along with a nod to Arabism (only about 15% of the World’s muslims are Arabs).


    • NCBBC says:

      In the same page Jo Cox gets top billing. Wasn’t she a MP where gang rape of young working class girls by Pakistani Muslims was rife.

      I knew about these gang rapes over a decade ago, how come she didnt. And how come various Home secretaries didnt know either. Its only when the Tories came to power that we got to know, and initially only in Rotherham. And even then the matter was hushed up, as its import was likely to destroy the political foundation of the UK.


  2. Deborahanother says:

    The problem is eye witnesses have their own agendas or can be mistaken. So it would be good practice to be consistent in not reporting eye witnesses because as with the fire urban myths and lies are propogated. It makes the BBC look desperate to have a fall guy that isn’t a Muslim.


  3. Fedup says:

    Msm is carrying the demand that mosques get better security from the police . Excellent news . It means we can monitor what the enemy is doing more closely and it might put off a few mussies with a taste for white young girls ( oops we don’t talk about that anymore do we ?).

    As for the people who used to live in the tower block – no doubt they’ll get used to living in Corbyns Islington constituency after requisitioning a few mansions in Highbury Fields . Personally if I owned one and the state stole it from me I would burn it first .


  4. Fedup says:

    Tried get an alt view of the Finsbury Park traffic incident via ITV news. Some reporter called rohib got all emotional and had decided the chap in the van is a far right extremist . He might well be be but unless rohip has special powers how does he know . ?


    • Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi says:

      And can we definitively rule out mental illness as a cause? Lots of RoPers seem to suffer from this ailment and it can be diagnosed swiftly and easily by medically untrained journalists, apparently.


  5. StewGreen says:

    OK attacker named as Darren Osbourne From Cardiff
    Unknown previously to police And Twitter person says he’s a father of 4


    • StewGreen says:

      His parents live in Weston

      his sister has now said she’s “sorry for what’s happened.”

      Speaking outside a house in Weston-Super-Mare, where Osborne’s family members gathered this afternoon, Nicola said: “I am very sorry for what’s happened.”

      Family said not be issuing further statements at this time.


  6. StewGreen says:

    Apparently talking about vigils and candles counts as supporting the violence
    Someone has been thru tweets
    and claims this graphic is “the sentiment from the right wing extremist community ”
    If that is the strongest endorsement of the guy she can find ..I can’t see there being many more attacks ?



  7. StewGreen says:

    \\ Labour‏ @LabourGE17 2 hours ago
    Darren Osbourne was radicalised. Biased right wing, extremist media who want to exploit the uneducated. Enough is enough. #FinsburyPark //

    So Labour officially create that narrative that he was “radicalised”
    Well No one knows his motivation
    What happened to “We shouldn’t speculate” ?
    For all we know he might have had a family , member abused or by Nihal cutting him off and refusing to let him speak etc.

    I thought Corbyn said “UK Government policy creates terrorists” ?


    • chrisH says:

      Funny word that “radicalised”. How does it differ from ” indoctrinated” or “acting on convictions”?
      I`m only asking because my biggest phase of radicalisation/brain washing came from being an undergraduate in a redbrick university in the late 70s/early 80s.
      The soft sciences that comprised some of my course used plenty Nazi/Soviet theory in terms of psychology and behavioural sciences, and is still prevalent today in all social theory. Very Marxist , Darwinian and utilitarian.
      I learned that good people boycott Barclays, hate Thatcher, bar Powell from speaking and get all they need to know from the cheap, freely-available Guardian.
      In fact this collected nonsense took me a long way down the road, and I only got deradicalised thanks to real life, family and friends, sites like this.
      And being my own auto-didact. We science graduates only get into history, culture and theology etc by being willing to learn and be open.
      In short-years in school, in university and the public sector make you a pliant spoon fed dolt, which is what they`re paying for.
      Less than 7% of university lecturers vote Tory or UKIP.
      Not many more are teaching.
      So no wonder kids are so groomed to be thick as I was.
      The consequences are all too easy to see.


  8. NCBBC says:

    Mark Steyn On the Unmentionable Real Issues and Steve Sailer’s “World’s Most Important Graph”

    Please watch.


    • sanitycheck2 says:

      That graph might be fine if those people were living in Africa. The problem comes when they start migrating from that continent. It is then that civilised western society and cultures gets destroyed.

      The problem is that if our political masters allow the European heartlands to be destroyed by uncontrolled migration, there is almost no where for the Europeans to go.


  9. taffman says:

    “Champs-Elysees attack car ‘had guns and gas’ – Paris police”
    Why hardly a mention of the word ‘Terrorist’
    But on the other hand …….
    “Terror attack ”


  10. Foscari says:

    I watched the Londonistan programme last night and I have not seen Riz Lateef so high since she was
    eulogizing over Mark Duggan. She was in Finsbury Park and was as hyped up as much as an Arsenal supporter
    might be after getting off the tube , before walking to the Emirates before a match, and the reason?
    In my opinion it was a kind of redemption and this applies to all of the apologists for Islamic terrorists at the BBC.
    You see a white , may I say possibly “mental” racist had finally broken down and carried out this appalling
    retribution at the original “home” of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK, Finsbury Park Mosque.
    You see it’s not only Muslims who can be terrorist scumbags. As if we didn’t know.
    May I suggest to my Muslim brothers, that you have the same kind of security that Synagogues and Jewish Schools
    have , like FORT KNOX. It’s a very sad state of affairs when retribution such as what happened yesterday. It may
    be a release for the BBC. But if they carry on with their agenda they may succeed in helping create a similar situation
    to what happened in Tottenham a few years ago. And then maybe it will be time for some more eulogizing.


  11. Edward says:

    Anyone else notice how BBC News yesterday were quick to point out that not only was the attacker white but the van he was driving was also white!

    Do you think they would have reported the colour of the van so prominently if it was red, green or black?


  12. sanitycheck2 says:

    “A man has died and several people have been injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians near a north London mosque.”

    This description of events contains a subtle bias since it implies that the man died as a consequence of the van ploughing into the pedestrians. It implies that van killed the man.

    As I (presently) understand the facts, it appears that the man did not die as a direct result of the van ploughing into the crowd. Indeed, it may well be the case that the man had already died even before the van ploughed into the crowd.

    Obviously it is early stages and the full facts are not yet known and therefore one should be cautious with speculation, but it appears that the man had a serious heart condition, and had collapsed before the van ploughed into the crowd. It appears that the crowd were already attending to him, and it may well be the case that the man was dead within seconds of collapsing, and already dead when the crowd were attending to him, and before the van ploughed into the crowd.

    The BBC if it were objective would not have described the incident in the manner set out above, particularly the use of the word “after” could well be wrong and thus very misleading. do the BBC actually know the time of death, has this been verified by them, and how was this done? Further, strictly speaking the man who died was not a pedestrian since the strict meaning of the term is a person traveling on foot (whether walking or running), and agian the description of the incident is unclear on that aspect also.

    I suspect that this subtle bias by the BBC is deliberate so as to convey the impression that the incident was more serious than perhaps it truly is.

    PS. I am not down playing the seriousness of the incident, but merely that the BBC are puffing it up.