David has already mentioned Today’s guest editor, P.J Harvey….an undoubtedly highly political one at that, but the final flourish from her, her choice of her (non religious) ‘Thought for the day‘ was shot through with irony when you consider the BBC’s own control of information, its attempts to close down debate…want to make a critical comment about climate change…you’re a ‘denier’, want to critique Islam…you’re an Islamophobe or even a far right extremist no better than the Islamist terrorists themselves, want to talk about immigration you’re labelled a racist little Englander, want to talk about Labour’s economic glory days and the phones go dead.

But here at 2 hours 54 mins we have Julian Assange’s words telling us of the importance of information and knowledge (just why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the Balen Report?)…

Harvey starts it off:

For many Julian Assange is a person of great courage who has opened a door to a freedom that ought to be the essence of democracy…

The Assange begins…here abridged…..

‘To act and think about the world is wrapped up in our ability to know it…the wise are mightier than the strong…knowledge is power…to keep a person ignorant is to place them in a cage…knowledge does not flow down to the serfs and slaves…the powerful hide their actions behind official secrecy…you must drag the machinations of the powerful into the daylight…proclaim it from the rooftops!’

A curiously ironic cherry on top of the left wing cupcake served up by Harvey the rest of the programme…a poem for Shaker Aamer included….the BBC’s lack of transparency and accountability are famous…..as is its manipulation of the news….wonder if they got the message?

PJ Harvey seems to be quite a favourite of the BBC political class…here on Andrew Marr’s show…though she claims here that her songs aren’t political

PJ Harvey performed her new song ‘Let England Shake’ in front of the UK’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday (April 18).

Harvey played the track on BBC1‘s Andrew Marr Show (2010), which featured Brown as a guest.

Harvey also gave her views on politics, although she admitted she’s not into using the subject in her songwriting.

“I don’t feel qualified to sing from a political standpoint because I feel like unless I knew every single aspect of what’s going on I can’t speak about it,” she said, before adding: “I’m very interested in politics and follow it avidly, but I don’t feel that it’s my place as a songwriter to bring politics into my songs.”

That’s curious because she described the same album, ‘Let England Shake’,  in a completely different way in another interview:

She couldn’t stay out of politics, though, when she was singing about a current conflict or a historical conflict with modern resonance. Singing about them and talking about them is in itself taking a political stance. “I would agree with you entirely. I think you could call it a political album.

Just why does the BBC love her and her ilk so much?

She herself today says:

“I hope that the programme you hear, is the programme I wanted you to hear – I have come to realize that a great deal of its content is about censorship in one way or another… As ideas for titles and topics to be discussed took shape, many poems and songs came into my mind. For me, music and poetry can be as persuasive and as powerful as a fine speaker and a fine speech. You will hear songs and poems supporting and highlighting the content of this programme.”

Back to being ‘political’ again then?

Wonder when someone as ‘political’ from the ‘Right’ will get a show….Tommy Robinson for instance?

The full running order for PJ Harvey’s Today programme, airing tomorrow January 2nd from 6am

The full running order for PJ Harvey’s Today programme, airing tomorrow January 2nd from 6am to 9am GMT on BBC Radio 4 is as follows:

PJ Harvey spoken piece explaining her choice of contributors to the programme.

Mark Curtis: ‘Arming Repression’, followed by ‘Ladies of the World’ song recording by Flight of the Conchords.

Denis Halliday: ‘The U.N. Security Council – Dump The Wolves’.

Clive Stafford Smith: ‘Is the N.H.S. the best thing about Britain?’

Bruce Springsteen ’57 Channels And Nothin’ On’.

John Pilger: ‘Is the media now just another word for control?’

Dr. Rowan Williams: ‘Thought for the Day’ in the form of one of his poems.

Charles Simic poem, ‘Austerities’ read by Ralph Fiennes.

Giles Duley: ‘Behind The Faces Of War: the realities for injured servicemen’, followed by Joan Baez, ‘Johnny I Hardly Knew Ya’.

Phil Shiner and Ian Cobain: ‘How Britain taught the world to torture’, followed by ‘They Fight For Peace’, a poem by Shaker Aamer, read by Ralph Fiennes.

Julian Assange’s ‘Thought for the Day’ followed by Woody Guthrie song lyric ‘Ticky Tock’ read by Ralph Fiennes.

Weather/Business/Sport Sections

Weather Section – Tom Waits ‘Strange Weather’ acoustic demo version.

Business Section – John Rees: ‘How the city of London rules the world’, followed by the poem ‘London’ by William Blake, read by Ralph Fiennes.

Sport Section – Dave Zirin: ‘The effects of money and vested interests on sport’.

As David notes there is great amusement at the climate scientists and Guardian/BBC journos etc getting stuck in the Antarctic ice.

There has been no mention of climate change at all for some reason in any of the BBC news bulletins I have heard…until today when the intrepid World at One broached the subject inviting in a renowned climate scientist (13:08)…because as you know they don’t invite just anybody in to comment on climate…..well, actually they do….if they are pro-climate change that is (English graduate Roger Harrabin for one of course).

So on came writer Sarah Wheeler who has travelled and written about the polar regions for some time…but does that make her qualified to chat the chat about climate change though?

She was fairly unamused that the ‘Twittersphere’ was not taking things seriously and everyone was saying how cold it must be in the Antarctic.

Sarah assures us that ‘this is absolutely not the case.’  No, that’ll be right,  the Antarctic isn’t cold at all….it’s a right wing conspiracy pet.

But why is the ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy stuck in the ice?

Sarah tells us it is because the nearby Mertz Glacier has calved…and you know what…no one knew…no one could have known…it was such a surprise!

As far as I can see no one else has blamed the Mertz Glacier for this ice….it is solely referred to as sea ice or pack ice…I’m sure that excuse will start to pick up momentum now though.

Curious though that no one read this from 2011/12’s similar expedition at the same time of year:

David Ellyard AAE Report 2012 Voyage 

THE COMMONWEALTH BAY ADVENTURE
DAY 1 (6 JANUARY 2012)

Every now and then a sighing sound passes down the sides of the ship, now moving at a reduced speed. The noise is that of floes of pack ice, split by the impact of the ship’s bow, scraping gently along its length. The strength of the ship easily deals with any of the floes we have encountered so far, but the collision still generates a thump and a slight shudder.

Throughout the day the pack ice has become more dense, and the individual floes larger. Some are 20 or 30 metres across, all are one or two metres thick, and often crowned with drifts of snow.

[So…there is thick ice all around scraping the side of the ship….but nothing to do with a glacier calving….that comes later….]

All of the Antarctic ice cap, all 30 million cubic kilometres of it, arranged in a huge dome up to 5 km deep, is in motion outwards towards the coast. Some parts are moving noticeably faster than the rest and these are recognised as glaciers. If conditions are right, the glacier can push offshore and float out sea for some kilometres, forming a glacier tongue.  So it was till recently with the Mertz Glacier.
The arrival of our friend B9B changed all that. This vast iceberg, 100 km long and 30 km wide (though now broken into three) originated in the Ross Sea, south of New Zealand and hundreds of kilometres to our east. As it drifted west, carried by the current, it hugged the shoreline, colliding with the end of glacier tongue and breaking it off. Where there was a large slab of floating ice, there is now open water.

So the Glacier calves…and there is thick pack ice?…er no…’open water’

Here is an image of the Mertz Glacier breaking off in 2010….note the size of the ice bergs…behind which is looser material….would a ship get caught in that? Pretty careless if the answer is yes.

The Mertz Glacier tongue breaks off 20 February 2010. (Credit: Photo by Neal Young, Australian Antarctic Division)

Everyone’s a joker…..Sarah will not be amused…. from WUWT

Poor but happy, that’s the BBC’s ideal world.

Low carbon footprints, sustainable consumption and sing songs and hugs for Christmas.  BBC bliss.

The BBC has long been banging away  that ‘consumerism’ is the root of all evil…despite also banging the drum that tells us the Poor must have more to be happy….just where do all those jobs, and the wealth,  that gives the Poor more come from?  From making widgets that people then buy…or ‘consume’.

But you may have noticed over the Christmas period the BBC’s inner Scrooge has been ever more present.

Today is no exception with You and Yours is with Peter White, talking about what makes us happy. Do those Christmas presents bring us happiness or do we need something deeper?

Apparently studies show that consumerism and materialism are harmful….a ‘curse’ on us all.

You don’t need that new car to make you happy, just a smile from your neighbour, you don’t need that gucci little handbag for that inner glow of satisfaction…all you need is a happy family gathering, you don’t need the latest kick-ass X-Box game….just your Mom reading a bedtime story to you.

Happiness is knowing someone loves you.

The BBC really is the new priesthood.

The BBC’s Phil Mackie brings us some blatant propaganda, lies if you prefer, all the way from Bucharest in Romania. (08:12)

He manages to combine two of the BBC’s favourite Bête Noires, immigration control and one of Murdoch’s papers, The Sun, in a ‘report’ that was more a ‘Dan Brown-like’ invention of the truth than reality.

His report is from one angle only as his Tweets demonstrate:

The Romanian Foreign Ministry has told me some of the language being used in the UK about its citizens is "close to being racist"

— Phil Mackie (@philmackie) December 31, 2013

The editor of a daily newspaper in #Bucharest asked me why the British press says #Romanians are "beggars and thieves"

— Phil Mackie (@philmackie) December 31, 2013

And any reason why Mackie should retweet this?:

Migration: politics of fear – 'dangerous to play with popular emotions on a matter of important national policy' http://t.co/HdBYI5BiCQ

— Oana Romocea (@OanaRomocea) December 31, 2013

Mackie’s intention is purely to try and rubbish the Sun’s story. He has decided that the bus the Sun reports as heading UK wards is not going anywhere near the UK, Romanians do not want to go to the UK and any way, the tickets in the photos are fakes.

He claims….’It’s not an international bus is it?’ and states…’There are no buses coming to the UK this week‘….and goes onto to say that ‘No one will come unless they have a job in the UK already.’….all based on the evidence of a Romanian car mechanic Mackie has roped in to interview.

However the Sun makes clear the bus, and others like it are a special charter….it also quotes quite clearly from the travellers what they intend to do and how they intend to make money.

Mackie and his ‘witness’ dismiss this….but even the presenter in the studio, Chris Warburton, doesn’t hold with Mackie’s stance…..stating that the Sun has quoted the people directly.

Where is the bus going?  Not a clue really…but it does say ‘Inter….’ on the door behind the man with the camouflage jacket…‘International’ perhaps? Maybe ‘Internal’?  Still…unlikely the Sun staged the whole thing as the BBC are suggesting.

Mackie is happy to go along with the ‘racist’ label being applied to reports like the Sun’s…despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that it is based upon the truth…a truth that the BBC doesn’t seek out……it ignores the bad and promotes the idea that immigration is beneficial……but just how much crime is imported?

28 per cent of the 300,000 suspects the Metropolitan Police arrests each year were foreign nationals, with Poles and Romanians at the top of the list.

More than 27,000 Romanian citizens have been held for serious offences in London in the past five years, including ten for murder, 142 for rape and 666 for other sex offences.

If these reports are so wrong why is it that British police have travelled to Romania and Romanian police come here?

Romanian police to go on patrol in Britain to help Scotland Yard tackle Eastern European crime wave by swapping intelligence data

Once again the BBC is playing the race card in the immigration debate….trying to shut down that very debate in fact.

For a very short moment in time there was a grown up narrative about immigration…..the BBC even had David Goodhart from Demos in to discuss his book which revealed the perils of mass immigration.

That’s all over.

The BBC has reverted to type and is out to counter the myths, lies and xenophobic prejudice that is really driving the calls to limit immigration…..as they see it.

The BBC must have jumped for joy when Vince Cable, the most treacherous and untrustworthy politician this side of Nick Clegg, made outrageous references to Enoch Powell and the Jews when talking about Cameron and immigration.

The Observer/Guardian of course is on board…it instigated an interview with the President of Bulgaria   in which he denounced Cameron’s policy:

Ms Predescu told the BBC some of the media coverage had bordered on racist and there had been an “outright campaign” against Romanians and Bulgarians.

“There isn’t going to be an invasion of Romanians as of two days’ time. Not all Romanians, young and old, are going to get on a plane.

“We don’t have estimates, you don’t have estimates. The UK will [not be] and is not the preferred destination of Romanians.”

No discussion from the BBC as to whether it is ‘racist’ to want to limit immigration…it seems to be just taken as a given here….and as for ‘no estimates’…..well migration watch suggests 50,000 per year….and as the BBC admitted in a previous article…migration watch were pretty accurate in estimating migration from Eastern Europe.

The BBC here admits….’Campaigners for tighter laws have said 50,000 Romanians and Bulgarians a year for the first five years could come to the UK.’

Note how that is worded…’Campaigners for tighter laws‘…on immigration….different to the usual ‘pressure group’ they normally label Migration Watch….clearly intended though to mean the figures are untrustworthy as from a group with a vested interest, supposedly.

Of course there is no mention from the BBC of just how self serving these comments are from the Bulgarians and the Romanians…just how beneficial it must be for their countries and their exchequers to offload their unemployed, their workshy and their criminals upon Britain and other European countries.

Here is an example of the BBC massaging the truth in this article dated 16th December 2013:

The Romanian Ambassador, Dr Ion Jinga, has said: “A very tiny minority of Romanians have chosen Britain as their work destination.”

According to the Office for National Statistics, in July 2012 there were 94,000 people who were born in Romania and 47,000 people who were born in Bulgaria resident in the UK.

Why did the BBC  choose a figure from 2012 and not these up to date figures from 2013?:

Romanian and Bulgarian workers in UK increase by 26%

The number of Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK has risen by more than a quarter in three months, official figures show.

The Office for National Statistics said 141,000 were employed during the period from April to June, an increase of almost 26% on the 112,000 in the previous three months, and up 35% on the same time last year.

Not as if the BBC didn’t know the figures as it reported them in August.

Could it be that they are inconveniently large and give the lie to the claim that few Romanians and Bulgarians want to come here?

The BBC has kicked over the traces and is back on its hobby horse defending immigration and presenting immigrants as the poor, huddled masses seeking sanctuary from a cruel world…..all to be paid for by you….whilst the BBC employees live it up in their rarified bubble unaffected by mass immigration, their jobs safe, their homes in leafy suburbs, their kids looked after by cheap East European nannies who can watch over the cheap East European plumber who has taken the job of the local man.

There’s Fiona Fox’s outrageous claim that the way the BBC could really improve its science coverage is to have fewer sceptics. She says:
“To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”
Luckily, she enthuses, the BBC is doing a fine job of correcting this grotesque imbalance.
“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.'”

The routine challenging of claims, an essential part of science, is largely absent from the BBC’s science reporting.

On ‘false balance’….. balanced reporting is ‘extremely rare’ in routine science reporting by the BBC….there is little evidence of the use of balance in BBC science reports.

The BBC has long shut out climate sceptics from the debate about climate change…such a policy becoming ‘official’ after its review into its science reporting by Professor Steve Jones….the ‘false balance’ of having allegedly inexpert, unqualified, ‘marginal’ speakers to be guarded against…as the science is of course settled.

The choice of the fanatical pro-climate change Jones as the reviewer showed that the BBC had no intention of an honest debate about its science coverage.

The BBC Trust tells us that ‘Professor Jones makes clear it that, overall, BBC science content is of a very high calibre, has improved over the past decade and outstrips that of other broadcasters both in the UK and internationally. ‘

Just how true is that and just how much ‘false balance’ did the BBC indulge in anyway before the Jones review?

It would seem that Jones’ conclusions were based upon his own prejudices and not the research upon which his report was supposedly based.

Here, via Bishop Hill, we can hear Felicity Mellor from Imperial College London, who did the legwork in analysing the BBC’s science reporting, telling a different story about the BBC’s balance, the quality of its science coverage and the damage such reporting does to the public interest and even ‘democracy’.

These are some selected points about the BBC from the 40 minute speech:

Two main points:

1.  Too much science journalism…produces ‘media noise’ not enlightenment.

2.  Science journalism underuses balance

The journalistic norm of balance is underused.

The media noise masks significant silences.

She says she is looking mainly at routine science journalism rather than controversial areas such as the badger cull or climate change.

 [I would actually disagree with that…..when you listen to what she says you can apply it all to the BBC’s reporting on climate change]

But she does qualify that….. looking at how routine science journalism works informs us as to how the more controversial areas are covered….it establishes the norms and standard practices that then become problematic in the reporting of controversies.

There is too much dependence on press releases..the BBC’s broadcast news depends on press releases for 50% of its coverage, rising to 75% when covering scientific research.

Nigel Hawkes from the Times said that ‘knowing enough is no longer important‘ for science reporters as much material is handed to them on a plate by scientists themselves.

Toby Murcott from the BBC’s World Service said that ‘we reported without significant analysis, depth or critical comment…we just translated what scientists said.’

 David Whitehouse talking about the embargo system when reporters hold back news and then broadcast the press release….‘it encourages lazy journalism and poor correspondents.’

Such journalism fails to address the Public interest…there is a lack of democratic accountability…serving instead those who wish to promote the science and the institutions that hand out the press releases.

The ‘media noise’ from these institutions makes other voices inaudible through intensive PR campaigns, which have the effect of cocooning the power adventure, shielding it from rigorous public scrutiny by fabricating positive stories of its performance within media saturated settings.

The absence of counter voices means science journalism does not serve the public interest.

On ‘false balance’ she states that balanced reporting is ‘extremely rare’ in routine science reporting….there is little evidence of the use of balance in BBC science reports.

There were only 6% of reports that had independent critical voices in them making comments demonstrating the limitations of the research or uncertainties.

The BBC’s science correspondents were the least likely to include ‘uncertainty’ about anything they were reporting upon as ‘fact’.

The lack of balance was encouraged by the sources of the press releases and the BBC’s failure to move beyond these.

Far from ‘false balance’ being the norm as suggested by the likes of Steve Jones and those who wish to silence all climate change critics for instance,  any balance is rarely seen in BBC science journalism.

The routine challenging of claims, an essential part of science, is largely absent from the BBC’s science reporting.

Who finances the research is an important issue…research shows that who funds research often affects the outcome.

Only 3% of BBC news broadcasts mentioned who funded research….Steve Jones ‘shrugged off’ such suggestions when challenged on this claiming that much research was publicly funded.

[However…publicly funded organisations are often just as biased as any commercial one…look at the BBC…or the University of East Anglia..the government’s Climate Change Committee…or charities and other NGO’s….commercial interests are not the only ones that have to be guarded against.   Harrabin, and Black when at the BBC, often targeted sceptics and tried to examine their sources of finance…..without a similar attempt to do the same for the pro AGW lobby]

The way Felicity Mellor tells it you might have a completely different view of the BBC’s science reporting than that of the BBC Trust:

The Trust welcomes the clear finding that BBC science coverage is generally of a very high quality. Given the Trust’s duty to ensure that the interests of licence fee payers are served, together with the public expectation of the highest of standards from the BBC and the organisation’s role in informing the public about science, this is an important conclusion.

Spot what’s missing from this report about Nicolas Anelka making what is reported to be a re-invention of the Nazi salute:

Nicolas Anelka: West Brom striker ‘surprised by celebration criticism’

Anelka converted to Islam in 2004. It’s not in the BBC report.

Why would the BBC not report that?

What was it that Mehdi Hasan said?  The Muslim community’s dirty little secret…… Anti-Semitism.

Can’t imagine the BBC being so coy if it was a ‘Rightwing’ footballer….will the BBC get around to asking Anelka if he has, er, ‘Fascist’ beliefs?

Paolo Di Canio, Sunderland and Italian fascism

How about….Anelka, West Brom and Muslim Anti-Semitism?  No?

The BBC reports that French comedian Dieudonne, who invented the ‘salute’,  has threatened to sue the groups for calling it a Nazi salute. He calls it “la quenelle” – a word for a fish dumpling – and says it stands for his anti-Zionist and anti-establishment views, rather than anti-Semitism.

What the BBC doesn’t bother with is examining those claims of ‘innocent’ anti-Zionism……

Controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala is facing a ban by French authorities, who say he has gone “too far” in promoting anti-Semitism and holocaust denial.

Dieudonné has a long history of anti-Semitic comments and performances – from branding “the Jews” as “a sect, a fraud”, and referring to Holocaust commemorations as “memorial pornography”; to appearing on stage dressed as a hareidi Jew making a Nazi salute. He has also popularized the “quenelle” gesture – sometimes referred to as a “reverse Nazi salute” – which consists of a lowered straight arm salute with the other arm folded across the shoulder.

Although his supporters say it is merely “anti-establishment”, it is frequently used by French anti-Semites, many of whom photograph themselves making the “modified” Nazi salute in front of Jewish establishments, holocaust memorial sites and even with unsuspecting Jewish passersby.

Dieudonné of course falls into a category the BBC has itself long exploited to pass off political comment and propaganda as mere ‘comedy’ or satire and therefore does not have the same restrictions or standards of taste applied as would be for news or current affairs programmes.

By coincidence, and perhaps ironically as Labour is the main beneficiary of BBC ‘satire’, Labour’s David Blunkett, in the Times, has commented on this very subject recently:

Via ‘Is the BBC biased?’:

Blunkett calls for new rules on TV satire of politicians (The Times)

David Blunkett has suggested that comedy shows such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You should be reclassified as current affairs programmes in order to face tougher scrutiny from libel lawyers.The former Home Secretary said that the line between what is considered comedy and what is targeted abuse towards politicians has become blurred and may now require tougher regulation.Mr Blunkett said: “The protection that broadcasters in particular have is ‘Well, everybody knows this is comedy don’t they?’ So it’s not libellous, it’s not dangerous in the sense that it’s targeted and therefore vicious towards an individual. And I think we need to watch that.”The Labour MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough told the Radio 4 documentary, When Comedy and Politics Collide:

“Sometimes actually it isn’t comedy, it’s comment and current affairs in the middle of what is supposed to be a comedy programme. There’s a bit more of that going on at the moment.”

The BBC all hate Fox News…don’t they?

It seems that that old adage that you say you hate what you really love might come into play.

5Live was discussing LBC(39 mins) and Shock Radio where they all ‘froth at the mouth‘…..but listen on….

Jane Garvey states that ‘LBC do popular politics really, really well.’

Geoff Lloyd, the other presenter,  says that if you listen to Nick Ferrari you’re not in any doubt as to what he thinks on any subject.

The Guardian’s (oh..yes, there’s always a Guardian journalist somewhere on the BBC) David Hepworth, claims that Fox News types wouldn’t go down well in the UK…it’s all based on resentment, a nation highly divided politically, feeding an agenda…..that must explain why we in the UK  don’t have numerous political parties…because we’re all one big happy family agreeing on everything…‘one nation’ perhaps…..Hepworth talks out of his backside….It’s the Guardian and the BBC that continually tells us that Thatcher was ‘divisive’….but that’s what Democracy and politics is all about…it’s not just going along with what someone at the Guardian thinks is the way forward.

Jane Garvey then pipes up again:

‘If you’re institutionalised like me within the BBC I can see the other side of every story…and I’m sick of it…I want to be foaming at the mouth and getting all worked up about something…but it’s been beaten out of me.’

If only we could see ourselves as others see us.

Continue listening and you will hear BBC TV presenters getting stuffed for Christmas by the radio people…apparently they are too wooden, too packaged, too uninteresting when compared with radio presenters who have to be more creative and original to keep the listeners onboard.

Sure that will go down well.

Good old BBC…into recycling…only this time it’s anti-Semitism:

Spot the difference:

There was some outrage that the BBC should interview Anjem Choudary on the prestigious Today programme, (0810)

The only thing that was ‘outrageous’ was the complete failure of John Humphrys to conduct an interview that got to the heart of the matter…..UK foreign policy and its supposed consequences….at least in the eyes of most Muslims and leftwing commentators.

Humphrys painted himself into a corner refusing to get onto the subject of foreign policy until Choudary expressed condemnation at the killing of Lee Rigby, which he refused to do.

The interview became pointless and continued in ever decreasing circles, the only winner being Choudary.

Humphry’s line was the usual one adopted by those unwilling to ‘offend’ Muslims, one that fails to challenge the fundamental reasons for Choudary’s narrative….Humphrys wants Choudary to condemn the violence of the killers but dodges the real question….what does Islam really teach?

If Choudary is a radical for preaching Islam what does that tell us?

The apologists always say…he is preaching an extreme, fundamentalist, strict version of Islam…well isn’t that exactly what Islam is?…if the fundamentals of Islam are not ‘Islamic’ then what is?

It seems people try to pick only the bits of Islam that they like.

Choudary preaches that UK foreign policy drives the ‘radicalisation’ of Muslim youth….but this is something that the BBC has long accepted as fact itself…presenters like Victoria Derbyshire nodding along as caller after caller puts forward this theory.

The BBC’s very own Peter Taylor…Reporter, BBC series Al Qaeda: Time To Talk? :

US foreign policy

So is it time to talk to al-Qaeda?

According to General Ali Shukri, former counter-terrorist adviser to King Hussein of Jordan, it is not something that should be ruled out.

“There is no harm in talking,” he told me.

Although no-one is seriously thinking about MI6 or CIA setting up back channels to Osama bin Laden’s cave, perhaps it is worth paying some attention to what he has been saying for the past 10 years.

His statements are not about any Caliphate, a pan-Muslim state which is rarely mentioned, but about US support for Israel, its backing for “apostate” Arab regimes in the Middle East and the presence of US troops in Muslim lands.

In reality, the issue is US foreign policy.

I was left in no doubt from all those I spoke to that Iraq above all else was the motivating factor behind the radicalisation and recruitment of young Muslims, and that the US-led invasion has gifted Osama bin Laden with a Jihad he could only dream of.

Taylor just confirms what Choudary says.

The trouble though is that the BBC never challenges that belief, that narrative…so in effect the BBC itself is ‘radicalising the youth’.

And Choudary is in more good company…including Labour MPs…

Muslim leaders say foreign policy makes UK target

Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers “ammunition to extremists” and puts British lives “at increased risk”.

An open letter signed by three of the four Muslim MPs, three of the four peers, and 38 organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, was greeted with dismay in Downing Street. It has courted the MCB and several of the signatories, such as key Labour MPs Sadiq Khan (Tooting) and Shahid Malik (Dewsbury), whom it believes can shape Muslim opinion.

Humphrys tells Choudary that perhaps he should go to a country that has Sharia if he wants to live in such a country….why should he though?  Does Humphrys say that to those who would turn this country into a Socialist ‘heaven’ like Ed Miliband?

Does Choudary ‘hate this country’?  Those who attacked the Daily Mail for suggesting Ralph Miliband hated this country because he wanted to destroy the essential being of it…political, social and moral….defended him by saying that he was entitled to want ‘change’.

If it’s OK for Marxists why not Islamists?

If Choudary’s views are radical and extreme why not Miliband’s?

This article by Jenny McCartney in the Telegraph demonstrates the problem this country faces as it typifies the mindset of those in power……the lack of understanding of what Islam really means and what the consequences will be when Muslims gain more and more influence:

We’ve heard enough from Anjem Choudary

In the wake of the Woolwich murder of soldier Lee Rigby, radical Islamists are given publicity because the media is attracted to extremists

The problem with that is that Choudary isn’t a radical…he is preaching Islam.

If he is ‘radical’ then so is Islam.

That should be the real lesson the Great and the Good should start to learn.  McCartney has absolutely no understanding of what she is talking about…her main complaint is…‘what emerged from the discussion was that Choudary does not believe in democracy since “sovereignty belongs to God”. He was not willing to condemn the murderers. And he calls, yet again, for the adoption of Sharia across the United Kingdom.’

The ‘sovereignty of God’ is a basic tenet of Islam, calling for Sharia is quite clearly something Muslims, genuine Muslims, should be seeking….and Muslim dominance is something that even Labour MP’s are hoping for:

The true face of Islam:

Rejoice! The number of Muslim MPs has doubled

Why would Muslims rejoice because there are more Muslim MP’s?

Look at this latest sorry tale of surrender:

Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork

At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay.

At one of its stores in central London last week, customers waiting with goods that included pork or alcohol were told by a Muslim checkout worker to wait until another till became available. The assistant was extremely apologetic at having to ask customers to wait.

Note, it’s not the staff member who has to move to another till, it’s the customer….however the Muslim staff member is quite happy to take their wages from the money made in a shop selling alcohol and pork.

What is the difference between Choudary and the Muslim who refuses to do certain things because of their religion?

Nothing really…they both wish to impose Islam upon the world.

Time the BBC et al woke up……and it was only two years ago or so that the BBC told us that Christianity was ‘thriving in the Middle east’…even giving an example in Hamas controlled Gaza……it was a lie  then and the real truth is only now coming out in the mainstream political and media consciousness:

Labour: We must ‘do God’ to fight anti-Christian persecution

Douglas Alexander, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, says politicians should speak out about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, and not be put off doing so for fear of causing offence

Let’s be clear who is persecuting those Christians…it is Muslims….something the BBC even now seeks to minimise.

Paul Mason gave us so much amusement when he had his loafers under the BBC’s desk I think we should give him a parting present for Christmas to show our appreciation.

A fan of Northern Soul he can be happy that the younger generation are keeping the faith and the flame alive:

Mason’s love of Northern Soul could explain a lot….. not a revolutionary at all…

Just a fan of Northern Soul….

And a Merry Christmas to all Biased BBC’s readers as well…