I know we tackled this yesterday and it got quite a response but I think this post by B-BBC contributor Alan adds to the debate…

“Listened to Any Questions in astonishment…..they nearly all refused to engage with the real issue…not that girls were raped but how they were selected…..which is why the attacks went on for so long originally.

Raping girls in short skirts….“So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”

Listened to Any Questions with mounting distaste and disgust….the issue of culture and religion in relation to Rochdale was not just ducked but actively swept aside and covered up. This was the problem originally which allowed these crimes to continue unchecked for so long and for so many victims to be attacked.

‘Professional Black’ Henry Bonsu excuses the rapes……the girls were easy …they were ‘pre groomed by society’ which is ….‘why girls give themselves away so cheaply.’

No Henry, they didn’t give themselves away, they were taken and raped, sometimes up to 20 times a day by gangs of men.

Henry was sacked by the BBC for being ‘too intellectual’ and he claims that : ‘I won’t go gently into that good night – the desire for a talk radio station specialising in black issues is very strong. Since my show was axed, I’ve had e-mails from doctors and lawyers, all asking what they can do to help.’  So he not only wants to discuss ‘Black issues’ but wants a radio network on the BBC just for that.

And yet he doesn’t want to talk about Asian, or rather, Muslim issues which might affect the wider community.

If you have a teenage daughter might you not be interested to know the norms and standards of behaviour and beliefs that drive another community that you live nearby? Wouldn’t you want to know what they think about your daughter and how they can behaviour towards her and treat her?

And what does Islam tell us about other cultures? What might that Muslim community be thinking in its heart of hearts?

‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.’
So said Muslim Imam Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali in Australia who alluded to gang rapes in Sydney suggesting the attackers (Muslim) were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the attacks on four women, for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy and he gives you 65 years… but the problem all began with who?”

The BBC were quick to go to the ‘moderate’ Muslim Council of Britain to reassure us about Rochdale and of course they did….no need to be scared of Muslims…because if you’re raped it’s possibly your own fault…you are to blame….which is essentially what the representative suggested.

Which is not too different to a more candid approach taken by the MCB about the Australian Imam:

Abduljalil Sajid, (Times £) a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.  Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh’s argument, he said: “So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”
After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.

Funny how much these ‘extremist’ scholars are held in such high esteem by the ‘moderate’ community.

Qaradawi is a case in point…..supporter of executing gay people (and Iran has apparently done so to 4000 gays …’according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979.’) , beating women and suicide bombers.  A much respected scholar!

But don’t mention any of that…it might stoke or inflame racial/community tensions!


I don’t listen to ANY QUESTIONS very often, after all there is only so much BBC that the human spirit can take. However as fate would have it, I did catch this most recent programme. It was from Wirral, so perhaps that was a warning. On the panel were;  Work and Pensions Minister, Maria Miller; Liberal Democrat President, Tim Farron; Shadow Secretary of State, Andy Burnham; and geneticist, Professor Steve Jones. So, that makes THREE to the left and ONE to the moderate right. What could be more balanced?

The first question raised, and I kid you not,was concerning the NOBILITY of Chris Huhne’s decision to step down and defend himself against the allegation that he and his wife colluded to pervert the course of justice. There was universal praise for Huhne, with Steve Jones even comparing him to a pearl.

There then followed a discussion of David Lammy and the “smacking” issue. Again the panel were in agreement that smacking your child is basically child abuse, if not savage. Evidently no one on the panel or even in the audience was prepared to say that judicious smacking is a perfectly acceptable part of parenting, all the more surprising when one reflects on the statistic that 55% of parents support it. Oh, and my source is this GUARDIAN poll. Yet in the BBC audience, 100% oppose it. So, the BBC audience is even further to the left than Guardianistas – quite a feat,

The discussion moved on to NHS reform and as you might expect, only Maria Miller was in favour. Burnham, Farron and Jones trotted out every asinine NHS cliche you could imagine. Again the view of the Government was clearly portrayed as a marginalised view with “most” opinion on the panel and in the audiencefavouring just keeping the NHS as it is. Burham was allowed to grandstand.

I lost the will to live at that point and tuned out but one does have to wonder how such an unbalanced and unrepresentative programme can get away with such visceral bias. Or so I think.


Another BBC reader observes;

“Friday 19 August (I think). Jonathan Dimbleby at his worst and most transparent. He gave Harriet Harman a free run with little or no interruption on the riots etc. He then acted as agent provocateur by inviting her to blame the cuts and she got another full go without interruption. Baroness Warsi was then interrupted as usual, something both the Dumbellboys feel free to do, presumably because she’s a relatively inexperienced young woman (and a Tory). Then it was Peter Hitchens turn. I’d be the first to concede that Peter Hitchens can sometimes appear bonkers, but this time he was lucid, articulate and challenging, but crucially, he wasn’t playing to JD’s agenda, so he was unceremoniously unterrupted. Hitchens protested that he’d like to make his point but JD became abusive and said Hitchens wouldn’t be interrupted if he didn’t go on at such length, and anyway he, JD, makes the rules. Dimbleby appeared to be oblivious to how much time Harriet Harman had gone on without challen! ge. This wasn’t the first time I’ve had the impression there is an organised effort by the BBC to blame the cuts for everything because they have a vested interest in not being cut themselves.

Later in the program there was a discussion about moral decay and absentee fathers and so on. Dimbleby bleated like a child caught with his hand in the sweetie jar that we mustn’t make people stay together because this is even worse for the child, a tired old cliche that he’s run past us before. My assumption is that he feels guilty at his behaviour at the end of his marriage to Moon Belly, but it just shows what we are up against in trying to get moral justice for our children versus the right of our betters to think of themselves first.”

Questions and Answers

Last night’s Any Questions panel spoke for multiculturalism, women, and the Arab Spring. The solitary male member, if you’ll excuse the expression, was Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director of Islamic Relief, who was roped in to opine on behalf of the Arab World.

The panellists still spoke elegiacally of the Arab Spring, which, for them still heralds the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. It’s just as if they’d never heard of the disconcerting rise of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or listened to any of the creeping doubts that are beginning to emerge everywhere but in their own consciousness. They seem a bit like the befuddled fugitive who hasn’t discovered that the war he’s been hiding from for the last decade ended years ago.

In this vein, they expressed undiluted optimism over the Arab Spring, and deep joy at the diversity and multiculturalism in the UK.

The thing that was omitted from the discourse was, of course, Islam.

Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial. I myself am diverse. Variety is the spice of life, and variegated skin-colour, racial origin, a multiplicity of traditions and customs are all jolly good ingredients when added to the mix in correct, proportional measure.

But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination. There comes a point where those who ‘flock’ from far and wide to partake, begin to resemble tourists who, by sheer numbers, wreck the beauty and tranquility of the tourist attractions they visit, robbing them of their attractiveness in the process. Before people recognise what is happening, too many are profiting from the status quo, so don’t want to admit there’s a problem.

The Islamic faith may well be beneficial in potentially volatile Islamic regimes which are kept on an even keel by people we consider tyrants and despots. They control populations by fear, as do religious leaders who stunt the imagination by persuading vulnerable people that this life is a mere preparation for the next.

Refusing to get to grips with the fact that a functioning democratic society requires the population to be reasonably free from constraints that interfere with the ability to think, is a huge handicap. That’s what political correctness does to us. It won’t permit open discussion, and explains the puzzling tyranny of the P.C. edict, which proclaims ” to be good, one must be non-judgmental.” That leads to moral equivalence, which in turn might explain the frequent appearance on our screens, courtesy of the BBC, of Abdel al-Bari Atwan. Mr. Atwan has been endorsing last week’s attacks near Eilat in which Israelis were murdered.

‘The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years…’

CiFWatch, the watchdog website that monitors the Guardian’s increasingly overt antisemitism, is concerned about Atwan’s frequent contributions to Comment is Free. The Guardian represents the intelligentsia, many of whom have travelled so far to the left that they’ve gone right round the back and out the other side, having picked up radical Islam along the way, like a burr on your woolly jumper. How did that happen? It’s inexplicable to many of us, and apparently to them. At least, I haven’t heard a convincing explanation so far.

The BBC’s fondness for hiring Abdel al-Bari Atwan is clear. He’s never off our screens. Opining on this and that, his eyes bulging preternaturally, he’s regarded as an authority on all things Arab. Springs, Uprisings, and Resistance? Ask Abdel. His speciality is demonising Israel and fantasising about it being nuked.

Is he impartial? Is he sane? Are his prejudices balanced on the air, in the short term or the long term, by opposing views? Are his views given undue respect and credibility?

Why does the BBC give inflammatory, racist, antisemitic and warmongering individuals the oxygen of publicity on programmes like Dateline or Newsnight? We know the BBC is mischievous and likes a bit of a barney for the ratings. But this is serious. They might want to try and make sparks fly, but sparks have a habit of getting out of control if they’re given free rein.

Any Questions? Here’s one. Does the panel think the BBC is after a conflagration?

A caller has phoned in to Any Answers to self-flagellate over our colonial past, and has invented a new despot named ‘Dugaffi.” I despair.


Wonder did anyone else catch “Any Questions” this week? I caught the repeat this lunch-time on Radio 4. It is AWFUL. Jonathan, like his brother David, is effortlessly leftist. And as for the panel – well, good old BBC favourite anti-Conservative Chris Patten was there, to provide balance! Meanwhile. John Denham (= good guy because he opposed the liberation of Iraq) and Olly Grender (Nice Paddy Ashdown associated Liberal) ensured  it tilted even further left. Stuart Rose was the only voice of near sanity.


I caught the last minute of Any Questions this evening. BBC stalwart Billy Bragg was on the panel (Naturally) and they were discussing how the UK treats our military. Billy, the patriot, informed us he spend a lot of time working with our military…… during his prison visits. He informed us that large numbers of former soldiers end up in jail. On that assertion the programme finished. I KNOW that some former servicemen do end up in prison but the idea that vast numbers of our military are jailbirds is a lie although I think I can see why the BBC salivate at that idea.


Anyone catch that paragon of political balance. Any Questions? The panel consisted of Polly Toynbee, Saint Vince Cable, Lord Adonis (So, three to the left) and Toby Young. They started off by debating whether the Bradford murders means prostitution should be legalised and controlled by government. Usual BBC meme. I turned off when Toynbee was eulogising Saint Vince to his beaming face … just too much to take.

Any Questions again

Re David’s earlier post about the scandalously biased audience on this week’s Any Questions.

According to the programme’s website the distribution of audience tickets is down to the hosts:

One of the chief responsibilities for you, the local organiser, is the distribution of tickets . We very much hope that, in general, the audience will be reasonably balanced and properly representative of the local community in terms of age, class, gender, colour, creed and political affiliation.

This week’s programme came from the William Ellis school in Camden. From that school’s website:

Yup, the same Fiona Millar who just happens to be Alastair Campbell’s partner.

The Any Questions website also includes this:

We do from time to time encounter problems surrounding the issue of ‘balance,’ and the BBC, being committed to fairness, therefore reserves the right to allocate a number of seats ourselves if necessary. We may also give out a number of tickets to BBC guests (If space is particularly tight at your venue please talk to the producer about how many additional seats have been allocated by us).

I think I can guess at the BBC’s idea of providing audience balance – more lefties, just in case.

Update 8.30pm
. One of Fiona Millar’s vice chairs on the board of governors at William Ellis is Professor Conor Gearty, former human rights adviser to Tony Blair and founder member (along with Mrs Tony Blair) of Matrix Chambers.


Hi all. Sorry I am not around as much as normal but fighting a Westminster election campaign is a tad demanding! That said, it’s hard to escape BBC bias. I happened to listen to “Any Questions” this lunchtime and it reminds me why the BBC is such a problem. It came from North London and I felt sorry for the mild mannered Conservative Caroline Spelman. The audience whooped and cheered for all left of centre comments coming from the other panelists (Jack Straw,Sir Menzies Campbell and Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts). St George’s Day was discussed in terms of “would an immigrant be happy to take part in it?” and then the issue of genuflection to Islam via censorship of South Park came along. This is an atrociously biased programme, in my view, and as ever, the audience seems to consist of hard-left moonbats,


I happened to catch the News Quiz on BBC Radio 4 earlier today and was instantly reminded why I don’t listen to it if at all possible. It’s the usual little cabal of smug left wing “comedians” droning on about all their pet subjects. So, for example, the victory of Scott Brown over in the Massachusetts election gave Jeremy Hardy and Sue Perkins (yes, quite) reason to indulge in puerile mockery – with Hardy somehow concluding that these were really Republicans that had voted in the truck-driver – condescending, uninformed and brought to you care of forced tax. They then had a go at Sarah Palin before sharing solidarity with Obama. The “humour” is always in the one direction, profoundly biased and never changes. I managed to turn this dross off – but then caught the line up for Any Answers – with Comrade Bob Crowe being eulogised. The off button was located and pushed!