The BBC encouraged the world to think that they had some stunning new information about the Boston  Bombers that would utterly change your opinion of their motivations and beliefs.

The BBC told us in letters bold that they had discovered the bombers, or Tamerlan alone, were ‘subscribing’ to white supremacist, right wing literature….from which the BBC concluded they were not jihadists but  angry young men attacking the government.

As we know that is not really the case…the material alluded to was in reality mainly left wing/Islamist conspiracy theory and anti-semitic literature.

We had news stories all day, stories that were sent around the world based upon the BBC’s highly misleading presentations, that the bombers were in all likelihood ‘white supremacist’ in some shape or form.

From the Daily Mail based on the BBC hype:

Was Boston Bomber a white supremacist? Investigation finds Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in possession of right-wing extremist literature in run-up to terror attack

But watch the Panorama programme and where is that evidence?  We get a few seconds of narration (19 mins in ) saying they subscribed to anti government and white supremacist material and a glimpse of a newspaper (without a title…DB says it is in fact an  anti semitic left wing rag)…and that conclusion…that they are deeply troubled young men who latched onto Islam….but Andersson does not tell us that that comment actually came from another Muslim who was trying to distance the bombers from the religion (Andersson does mention it in her web article though)….they were not true jihadists.

But listen to the rest of the programme and it is clear they had extensive interests in Islamic radicalism….so why does the BBC completely ignore the overwhelming evidence of jihadist inclinations and opt for a conclusion based upon a tiny amount of evidence of what they imply is right wing literature..but isn’t?

Why is it when they mention that there may be a link between the bomber and the murder of three Jews the BBC fails to mention the fact that the murdered men were Jewish?  Relevant or not when discussing Islamist jihadists?  Andersson mentions the date of the killing Sept 11, 2011…no mention of the significance….the 10 year anniversary of 9/11….again possibly relevant to a jihadist.

We were told Tamerlan became angry and disillusioned with the US when he was refused citizenship…his ‘dreams crushed’…but no reason was given as to why he was refused….could it have been his radical, Islamic views?  And he wasn’t just angry with the US but with Russia too….the Russians having warned the US that he was a potential threat….that is, an Islamic radical.

We are told his brother Jahar was warm and funny, intimidated by his older brother who ‘rammed hotheaded religion into him’…..despite the fact that even as he lay badly wounded in the boat Jahar wrote anti-American, pro -Islamic phrases on the side of that boat.

The BBC tells us that they were not your stereotypical jihadist bomber…really?  They pretty much fit the pattern of those here in the UK.  Aren’t they all just ‘misguided criminals’ as John Simpson called the 7/7 bombers?

The BBC tuts as it tell us the US public have already found them guilty….the BBC of course has pronounced them innocent…oh they might have done the deed but they were turned into angry young men by US foreign policy or the crushing of dreams.

However the parting comments lays to rest the BBC conclusion of ‘angry young men’…..Jahar, the younger, allegedly ‘intimidated’ brother, was, we are told by someone who knew him well, a ‘good, well balanced kid…he showed no ‘cracks.’

In other words he knew exactly what he was doing and fully participated in events willingly and with full knowledge of what he was doing and the reasons why.  His calm actions in the days immediately after the bombing all play into that conclusion….and his final words written on the boat confirm that.

Hilary Andersson’s final words say far more than she intended as she spoke of America having to face up to a new threat…‘The Enemy Within’.

The BBC never changes:

Just whose side was John Simpson on?:

The first British response to IRA violence was the worst. The IRA was identified as an enemy which had to be destroyed.

In 1972, the British Army fired into the crowd at a big demonstration in the city of Derry, killing 14 innocent people.

There were undercover killings of IRA volunteers later, and a team of three IRA people were summarily executed when they were caught on an operation in Gibraltar.

All these things did was to convince many people in Northern Ireland that the British Government operated on the same low moral level as the IRA itself.

DB has done an excellent job in the previous post, I’m just going to add to that….

 The BBC messed up. It badly, very badly wanted the Boston bombers to be white right wingers. They went so far as to claim, completely without evidence, that this was indeed the most likely scenario.

They were wrong.

But they are now attempting to rewrite history…not only to cover up the corruption of their own journalistic ethics but to hide the true catalyst that incited the Boston bombs…Islam.

 The BBC’s Panorama programme claims to have connected the bombers to white supremacist’s supposed ideology…..and just about every news outlet, website and blog has picked up on this story and regurgitated it without thought or criticism….that is the power of the BBC to distort and manipulate the news and people’s views of the world.

As said the BBC is rewriting history and trying to change perceptions using what is essentially a fabricated story…a complete invention with regards to the meaning of this material and the causes of the bomber’s radicalisation.

The BBC’s Hilary Andersson reported this morning on Today  (08:04)that:

‘The BBC’s discovery of the bomber’s interest in radical right wing ideas indicates he was not perhaps so much a radical jihadist but an angry young man who latched onto Islam.’

Let’s look at that last phrase for a start:

‘…an angry young man who latched onto Islam’

Was that Andersson’s own phrase…did she come to that conclusion by looking at the ‘BBC’s discoveries’ of his reading material?

No….in her own web article she tells us exactly where that phrase came from:

‘A spokesperson for Tamerlan’s mosque in Cambridge, Nicole Mossalam, said Tamerlan only prayed there occasionally. She portrayed him as an angry young man who latched onto Islam.’

In other words Andersson is peddling Muslim propaganda as her own conclusions.

Let’s now look at that White supremacist right wing literature…..

Here’s how Andersson starts off:

One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attack, BBC Panorama has learnt.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.

Note that ‘in the run up to the attack’  thereby closely associating the attack with this literature….but just how long had he had it…did he suddenly start reading it and become radicalised?  Because that is exactly what Andersson is suggesting by writing in that manner.

She goes on to tell us:

The programme discovered that Tamerlan Tsarnaev possessed articles which argued that both 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were government conspiracies.

Is that really right wing…the conspriracy theories about 9/11 are mostly left wing and Islamic….‘It was the Jews’

 What about 9/11? Definitely those damn Yehudis. I mean, why else were 4,000 Jews in New York told to stay home from work on the morning of 11 September 2001?

Another quote from Andersson:

Another in his possession was about “the rape of our gun rights”.

In his possession…but what was the context….in which publication was this material published?  Was it in a gun magazine?  Something that came as a package?  So maybe not actually of interest to him as an article.

Andersson tells us that there was…

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that “Hitler had a point”.

Really? 

A point about what exactly?  Anti-Black racism in the US?  Isn’t that what we mostly associate white supremacists with over the Pond?  So the Boston Bombers were targeting black people?

Does Andersson not want to mention ‘the Jews’ in case we start to get the real picture?

‘It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.’

No Muslim of course wants to wipe out the Jews do they?  Let’s see what the BBC favourite Muslim scholar, moderate and respected throughout the Muslim world (and one of the ‘experts’recommended by the BBC’s John Bowker should you wish to learn more about the true Islam and ‘What Muslims Believe’) has to say about Jews and Hitler:

January 30, 2009: 

‘Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.’

So perhaps the Tsarnaev brothers were reading material that suggested ‘Hitler had a point’ because they agreed with it…it tied in with their own Islamic beliefs.

But then Andersson gets to the truth:

There was also material about US drones killing civilians, and about the plight of those still imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

The Tsarnaev brothers, ethnic Chechens, spent their early years moving around a troubled region of Russia torn by a violent Islamic insurgency.

The brothers’ friends told us Tamerlan turned against the country and became passionate about Islam after becoming frustrated when his boxing career faltered because he did not have American citizenship.

“He (Tamerlan) just didn’t like America. He felt like America was just basically attacking all Middle Eastern countries…you know trying to take their oil.”

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tamerlan’s younger brother who has been charged with the bombings, scrawled a note shortly before his capture stating “We Muslims are one body. You hurt one you hurt us all.”

The brothers had been reading militant Islamic websites before the bombings.

The FBI has been investigating the brothers, and possible connections Tamerlan might have had in the troubled Russian republic of Dagestan which he visited last year.

The House Intelligence Committee in Washington is being briefed on his connections.

The committee chairman, Mike Rogers said he believes the brothers’ mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, was involved in his radicalisation.

“He had family members encouraging, we know that for sure,” he said.

So despite all the evidence that points clearly towards the bombings being carried out in the name of Islam the BBC has ‘latched onto’ , to coin a phrase, some literature which it claims is right wing supremacist but is in fact perfectly in line with Muslim thinking.

 Thanks to George R for this:

‘The whole of Boston was jihad. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said the bombing was “violence designed to terrorize the perceived enemies of Islam”and “when you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims. Tamerlan Tsarnaev declared, “I will dedicate my life to Jihad’’. “In telephone conversations he was caught on  wiretap discussing jihad with mom (their mom was on the Islamic terrorism watch list as well). Tamerlan Tsarnaev vowed to die for Islam. US officials investigating the case said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s answers led them to believe he and his brother were “motivated by a radical brand of Islam.” Both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan had both become devout Muslims. And Dzhokhar uploaded a number of videos promoting jihad in Syria.’

The BBC prefers to play down the Islamic connections and headlines, literally, the white supremacist angle which they have in fact invented.

Andersson’s article and ‘Today’ piece must be one of the most corporate self serving corrupt pieces we have seen for a long time….covering up the BBC’s own failures and prejudices as well as hiding the real cause of the bombings.

The BBC Trust will no doubt recommend she be promoted…..though she obviously had better steer clear of this story from ‘ABC’:

‘Mounting Evidence’ Boston Bombers Involved in 2011 Triple Murder’

Wonder if that makes it into tonight’s Panorama.

Daha Mohammed….you know…you must have heard about him…he cut the throat of a wheel chair bound man.

I’d never heard of this….thanks to Oldbloke for raising this in the comments…though Reed mentioned it way back when on another Open Thread.

On May 22nd Lee Rigby was hacked to death.

On June 15th Colin Greenway had his throat cut.

Most of us have probably never heard this news.  It doesn’t seem to have been reported in the national, mainstream media.

Why?  Because the ‘Establishment’ fears an adverse reaction from the general population…fuelling further unrest?

The BBC also failed to report this in any meaningful way.  It seems that any Muslim violence in the aftermath of Lee Rigby’s death may have been ‘magicked’ away.   Just what else is out there that we don’t know about?

The BBC reported the initial crime in  a full report:

Murder probe in Thamesmead after man has throat slashed

The BBC then slipped in a mention of the man caught and charged with the murder  but only in its local London ‘Live’ news feed…there doesn’t seem to be a proper article:

Paul Weston in the comments on a previous post claims that ‘The idea that Britain could erupt into tribal/religious bloodshed and carnage is simply not accepted by these ignorant children within the BBC who know nothing of history.’

Some readers might be thinking that is over the top, there is absolutely no danger of that happening here.

Very recent history says different…just think of the Balkans….or Northern Ireland…if it hadn’t been for 30,000 security personnel keeping a lid on things just how bad would that have got?

But the BBC itself has broadcast a ‘warning from history’…..

David Kilcullen: Feral Cities

In this programme Kilcullen describes what happened to Somalia…why it collapsed into a war torn ‘Mad Max’ country.

Immigration happened to Somalia…massive, uncontrolled immigration from the rural areas into Mogadishu which led to infrastructure and system collapse…warlords and power brokers built competing fiefdoms that tore the city apart and ultimately brought down the whole State.

The city went feral..and this is happening now to cities across the world…and what happened in one place in our interconnected world affects us here….as we know when ”foreign’ battles are imported and  erupt on the streets of Britain.

Urban overstretch as he called it leads to frightening consequences.

In this programme he limits himself to coastal cities in the developing world but there is absolutely no reason why such a scenario isn’t credible for any city in the World.

London must be a prime example with that potential as it turns into a foreign land with a population that owes its loyalty more often to the countries they have fled from, perhaps ironically…bringing with them the same religions, the same cultural baggage and the same social problems that they were apparently trying to escape. 

 Crazy?  Mad and improbable? 

In 2009 Labour MP David Lammy didn’t think so:

LARGE parts of London are controlled by armed gangsters and not the police, a Government minister said yesterday.

Education minister David Lammy claimed a drug war had led to Turkish and Kurdish thugs grabbing control in some areas.

He said: “The system of justice that governs the rest of our city has been replaced by one overseen by gang bosses, enforced by the gun and knife.”

The Tottenham MP warned the situation would get worse without urgent police action.

He added: “If we turn away now, abandoning communities to be torn apart by a lawless minority, we will all come to regret it.”

His controversial remarks were last night backed by one of the capital’s top cops who described violence in parts of North London as shocking.

Kilcullen tells us that Somalia is now stable….but that stability was achieved by a newly formed Somalian Army (with the help of Ethiopia and the African Union troops) which pushed out the Islamists and warlords.

But in his summing up he claims that the only way to solve things is not helicopter gunships blazing away but civilian negotiators…..the usual wilful blindness of commentators when it comes to the necessity for military action to deal with a situation…..the BBC et al will always tell us that war never achieves anything and ‘insurgencies’ cannot be beaten by force of arms….it’s good to talk.

History unfortunately for them, proves again and again different….as indeed does this programme about Somalia…despite the strange conclusion.

The BBC supports mass immigration and repeatedly tells us that it is beneficial for the country.

It refuses to acknowledge the serious and possibly fatal consequences of this uncontrolled immigration and the subsequent harsh measures that would be needed to bring the situation back under control should things eventually go ‘feral’.

The multi cultural hotch potch of competing ethnic/religious groups that the BBC and fellow travellers believe is the best way forward is merely setting the scene for large scale conflict and a break down in central control and the ending of a national identity.

Either that is sorted now…by limiting immigration and integrating those here already or the effort later will be of a different and deeply unpleasant nature.

There are consequences to the BBC’s failure to cover events impartially where they seek to prevent certain truths from becoming well known….and by seeking to hide the problem they of course allow politicians to duck the issue and avoid setting in motion solutions that they don’t wish to be associated with on ‘their watch’ when history calls to account….but that is a very short term strategy….history will eventually catch up with them and point out their ‘appeasement’.

Those consequences may well include Paul Weston’s very uncivil civil war with all its ‘bloodshed and carnage’.

The BBC has decided it should take lobbying of politicians seriously…not in this country where Unite can rig elections and ‘swamp’ the Labour candidate list for MEPs….and all with Miliband’s approval (ignored by the BBC)……and not in the case of conflicts of interest such as when the BBC ignored completely the revelations about Tim Yeo and his massive green industry financial interests whilst at the same time being chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

 So where does the BBC cast its investigative eye when it feels the onset of a particular bad bout of indignation?

How Buck McKeon created a global drone enterprise

To America…onto a politician, a politician no one here has ever heard of…a Republican…a Republican who supports the drone industry…you know those drones which the nasty Americans use to kill lovable Al Qaeda chappies….roguish mis-interpreters of the Koran that they are.

We are told that Obama has massively increased the use of these drones..but its OK because…..

The increase in the use of drones came partly because technology improved over the years, making the strikes more efficient, and also because Obama adopted a more focused campaign against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants in Pakistan.

Efficiency and focus….sounds very Republican and right wing to me.

An enormous, very lengthy article……all very well and good (I’ll leave it for David P to analyse the truth of the article)….but why no such diligence and journalistic endeavour at home in regard to Labour Party affairs or Green politics?

Here we have two of the BBC’s  bete noires…a Republican and Drones…..what’s not to like from a lefty perspective….I can see this filling the pages of the Guardian quite happily.

That’s the problem…when it comes to subjects the BBC favours it hides the ‘evil’ parts…what you don’t see can’t hurt you…or the Labour Party etc…and can’t effect the way you might vote.

Cynical?  No less than the BBC’s blatantly cynical manipulation of our political views.

Is the BBC biased? looks at a suggestion in the Telegraph:

Of course people at the BBC are biased: why not make a virtue of it?

We need the BBC to be more like the newspapers – open about the unavoidably political beliefs of its staff

Not sure it would work. 

The point of the BBC is to try, I say try, to provide a gold standard of impartiality and accuracy that people can rely on….they may enjoy the one sided, unchallenging reading of a newspaper that reflects their own views but in the  end they need that fall back of a neutral, outside view of the world that the BBC is supposed to provide.

Clearly the BBC fails on that front, hence the proliferation of blogs and other comment from the MSM about the BBC’s ‘impartiality’…not counting the BBC’s own internal reviews on bias which it studiously ignores  or interprets in a way that is patently biased in its own favour…ironically.

If the BBC were allowed to ‘take sides’, or at least its journalists allowed to shape stories using their own personal views there woud have to be a balance of journalists….of all political, religious or other ideological persuasions….clearly impossible.

The BBC is already, to coin a phrase ‘left leaning’, imagine if allowed free rein to let rip and indulge in propagating their own world vision untrammelled by even idealistic notions of impartiality imposed upon them as now.

The BBC as it is, isn’t perfect, but it at least holds in check the worst excesses of its clearly idealistic and politically committed journalists.

The bias it does portray is bad enough and has serious consequences for society, for the World even, if you value democracy, free speech and thought…..the BBC being a supporter of oppressive ideologies and not embarrassed to practice its own suppression of free speech when it feels the need.

The problem with the BBC is that whomever it recruits they are eventually, if they want to succeed and get promotion or the best jobs, absorbed into the ‘left leaning’ culture, the group think.

That means they think twice before reporting or writing something in a way that doesn’t reflect the corporate world view…and the BBC is ‘Institutionally biased’.  If you are the wrong political persuasion, race or religion you will find yourself out in the cold if you don’t realign your thinking and toe the line.

A solution?  Difficult…other than breaking the BBC up into smaller units and moving people around more so that they don’t get set in their ways and are not allowed to develop a culture that becomes ingrained and is then passed on to any new recruit.

It would be politically beneficial for the BBC to be seen to be actually doing something proactive to combat bias other than staging these ever more farcial reviews that are no more than clear attempts at damage limitation (at least from the people who commission them), diverting attention from the real problems at the BBC.

As I said more effort to recruit a different class of journalist and presenter and determined efforts to prevent the onset of institutional bias and groupthink would at least give an impression of some recognition that there is a problem.

The problem is they don’t think there is a problem.

Don’t hold your breath.

The BBC’s Rottweiller turns out to be a bit of a lapdog.

John Humphrys fresh from his carpeting by the BBC Trust for being too right wing is proving his loyalty to the Corporation by pulling the wool over listener’s ears.

The BBC had steadfastly ignored recent reports of the hacking of phones by private investigators for hundreds of companies, as well as law firms and other organisations…..might that include the BBC?  They also use PIs as Mark Thompson admitted.

But yesterday on the Today programme (08:50) Humphrys ‘investigated’ the BBC’s lack of interest….or not…he said:

‘Some people draw a distinction between the way this story has been covered and the way that newspapers using private investigators were covered…there is a huge disparity,  massive coverage of the newspapers and relatively little for this bunch.’

Tom Symonds, BBC home affairs correspondent, plays it all down and blames News International for ramping up the coverage….

‘The coverage was due to the News of The World and News International who admitted phone hacking  themselves and when they closed down the News of The World this ramped up the story to a great degree.’

Really?  No coverage before that?  No massive witch hunt against Murdoch?  No massive coverage in the media before that?  It wasn’t that massive coverage, by the Guardian in particular, which lied about the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, that caused the closure of the News of The World?

Good old BBC…never let the facts get in the way of a good story especially when trying to cover up your own cover up.

Good that the BBC is reporting on the ‘reporting’ of a story…..obviously feeling a little like they were caught out and are trying to cover up their decision not to report this until forced to.

Interesting that they feel the need to comment on the lack of reporting….the complete lack of interest in these big companies and law firms…..with no connections to Murdoch.

The BBC have been busy trying to dig up anyone who has been ‘victimised’ by the government’s welfare reforms as Guido highlights:

Newsnight have been caught  red-handed using a private firm to try stir up outrage toward’s the government’s, legal, tweaking of Housing Benefit changes.

No mention of all those who have been or will be helped by this reform…all those needing a family home but are crammed into tiny houses, bedsits or hostels.

What does the company, Support Solutions,  that was running this man hunt for the BBC say about its services?

Our aim is to influence policy in favour of the sector in these challenging times and to be the first to know of and interpret policy development and change which impacts on our sector.

• We are experts in the Welfare Reform Act & Universal Credit, especially as these affect vulnerable people and organisations that provide and/or commission services for vulnerable people.
• We help clients to enhance their housing revenue streams

Their aim…to influence policy and get more money for clients in the housing arena….sounds quite political to me….and in direct opposition to government policy.

Wonder why the BBC chose them to dig up some suitably disadvantaged persons to put on the telly as examples of government cruelty?

The BBC Trust, on the basis of a complaint from one man and his dog, has declared that the BBC, or at least John Humphrys is a right wing government stooge:

‘Is the BBC biased’ has done a write up of Sunday Morning Live….it concludes that overall it was a fair effort on the part of the BBC….I haven’t seen it yet so can’t comment myself.

 What is interesting is part of the programme that they have transcribed.

I have in a previous post suggested that most Muslims don’t actually like Islam…..the real, fundamental, follow all the rules Islam….they are in fact ‘Islamophobes’.   They are born into the religion, they are obliged by their community to ‘keep the Faith’ but it is more cultural for them, more lip service than devotion, they’ll take the social and perhaps the spiritual parts of Islam but say no thanks to the wife beating, gay baiting and hand chopping etc.

They might express a desire to see Islam ‘reformed’….that is, have those violent, supremacist and genocidal  parts of the Koran and Sharia excised.

If so they would be denounced as ‘Islamophobes’ were they to appear on the pages of this blog no doubt, as the desires they have for the reform of Islam are the very same concerns that are expressed on this site by posters as they argue the BBC should take a more critical look at Islam, only to be charged with ‘islamophobia’….an irrational hatred of Islam….despite the criticism of Islam being based on reasoned argument and endless proofs from the Koran and the Hadiths themselves.

With that in mind here is part of the write up of the SML programme:

‘We heard from Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini who said that the British people “no longer believe the Islamist peace double discourse from British Muslim leaders.” In one of those “wow!” moments that thrills the heart, Sheikh Muhammad argued that “the literalist, supremacist use and abuse of scripture by violently extremist Islamist groups…isn’t so far actually different to the same kind of literalist supremacist readings of the same kind of scripture by, if you like, sort of mainstream extremist Islamist groups like the Muslim Council of Britain and Jamaat-e-Islami front organisations like the the Islamic Foundation.” He went on to argue that the violent texts in Islam need to be moderated by Islamic scholars and said they should follow the example of Jewish scholars who have long moderated the texts of Deuteronomy. He then went on to denounce the “interfaith or Islamophobia kind of industry”. Mehdi, you won’t be surprised to hear, wasn’t entirely happy about that!’

Anything different in there from what this site says?

No.

And yet  if  ‘John Smith’ should try  to express those views on a BBC programme  he would be quickly cut off and ‘outed’  as a likely EDL member…sin of sins!

Much like, as George R points out, Douglas Murray was smeared by Mehdi Hasan as a ‘supporter’ of the EDL:

Mehdi Hasan and the EDL

Interesting isn’t it…he, Sheikh Muhammad, a Muslim,  says that there is little difference between what the extremists claim and what the mainstream Muslim groups say about Islam.

Much like the FBI offical who told us what the only difference between Al Qaeda and the Islamic community group CAIR (the US MCB equivalent) and the Muslim Brotherhood was:

“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics.”

In the end they all have the same aims…just different methods of achieving them.

That’s a very important point to remember…one that the BBC and politicians deliberately refuse to acknowledge….because to acknowledge it would mean they would have to do something about it…it would mean suppressing Islam in some form or another.

The non-violent Islamists are just as ‘dangerous’ politically and culturally as the ones prepared to bomb and shoot their way to victory….if you consider Islam itself a threat to democratic, secular/Christian society that is.

The BBC should, if it were doing its job, be examining every word of Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini and be asking just what exactly does he mean?

To do so would mean having to examine Islam and all those tricky little verses about the Jews and Christians being sinners, unclean, to be controlled at the end of a sword.

….and then what?  What if the BBC discovered that this was the true teaching of the Koran, the real meaning of Islam?

That’s why it will never happen.

That and the fact that the ‘Establishment’, from the Royal Family, politicians, businessmen and those in the Media all have close and extensive links to Muslim states……not just through commerce, oil and weapons, but cultural and social ties…a surprising number of the ‘upper crust’ being married to Muslims…George Osborne’s brother for instance.

And of course the final calculation that they make is that should such an eventuality happen, an Isamic takeover, they, already at the top of the tree so to speak, would likely remain there and would not suffer overly much, not having to alter their opulent lifestyles greatly,  judging by the excesses of the Saudi Royal family.

For those at lower levels or the bottom of the tree things might be a lot less pleasant.

Nice though that the BBC keeps giving the floor to an Islamist like Mehdi Hasan without challenging his views themselves.