BBC accused of ‘disgraceful’ bias over spoof video showing Theresa May wielding a ‘bloodied knife’ – just five days after the London Bridge terror attack

Yesterday, politicians and licence fee lambasted the BBC’s poor judgement.

Conservative candidate Andrew Bridgen said: ‘It’s appallingly bad taste for the BBC to show this at any time, and particularly after the killings at London Bridge. To depict Theresa May as some mad knifeman, particularly in the wake of the terror attacks, is disgraceful.

‘What on earth are the BBC thinking to authorise this?’

The BBC defended the video as satire, and said that the ‘blade’ is in actual fact a comb.

A spokesman said: ‘No blades are shown in this video – Theresa May wields a comb. There’s a long history of satire in this country and the audience for this clip will know it’s nothing more than that,’ a spokesman said.

However, many viewers clearly thought the comb was a bloodied blade – not least because it was mounted on a knife handle and opened up like a flick knife.

Bizarre video from BBC 3…and you have to look really hard not to think that is a knife in May’s hand…even in the photo above it’s not immediately clear….

Looks like we’re on overtime today so here’s another open thread to tide us over to the weekend when you can fill it with all those tales of BBC tears and temper tantrums as the Corbyn bandwagon goes off track big style [that may be tempting fate].

“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95.  [From MPACUK]

Most Muslims are not pacifists, and believe it is justifiable to struggle to defend Islam, for justice, or in self-defence, and to use force if necessary. If all peaceful means fail, a Muslim should be ready to fight to defend the ummah against aggression, to defend the oppressed, or to combat injustice. This is lesser jihad.

BBC Bitesize

Are ISIS members, or indeed any Muslim so-called ‘extremists’ or ‘radicals’, ‘perverting’ the true religion of Islam?

You may argue about the way they kill people, or their choice of target,  but you cannot argue that they are not following the teachings and obligations of Islam as they attack Western countries.

The ‘extremists’ say that they are defending Islam and Muslims from attack by the West….how do we know that Muslims and Islam are under attack?  Because the likes of the BBC also promote that very narrative.  We had the BBC’s very own Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, deliberately saying exactly that in the last couple of weeks in a series on the Middle East.  He blamed Western interference in Muslim countries for creating the chaotic catastrophe that is so much of the Middle East today.  This is the extremists’ and the terrorists’ own narrative.  It is of course, as just a little knowledge of history would show, a completely false narrative….but the BBC continues to peddle it in a continuation of its lefty 1960’s white guilt cringe about the supposed evils of the British Empire…the Muslim empire seems to get a bye on this though…it apparently has been entirely benign and the consequences of its creation are not relevant apparently…other than of course its magnificent contribution to science and Western development!

Here is a perfect example of the narrative in action...from the extremist group MPACUK [one of those ‘goto’ voices the BBC uses to comment on Muslim affairs!]…

Muslims in Palestine are being oppressed and are unable to resist this oppression. In this case, the obligation falls upon the countries next to and around Palestine. However, non of the neighbouring countries are fulfilling their duty to protect this section of the Ummah. Therefore, this obligation becomes a Fardh Ayn and it now becomes obligatory on every man, woman and child to protect the Ummah from oppression. In this sense, Jihad is an obligation upon us all.

The Prophet (pbuh) has said, “He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”. [Sahih Muslim]

This powerful hadeeth leaves no question that to be a Muslim today, one should be ready to do everything it takes in the cause of Allah. Thus, we cannot actually call ourselves “practising Muslims” unless we are taking an active part in Jihad.

Then you have to ask what is meant by ‘Jihad’…..yes it can mean some sort of inner struggle to improve yourself but it does also mean Holy War…in defence of Islam and Muslims…’defence’ can be interpreted as when under actual attack…or as a pre-emptive attack on someone you think is about to attack you…and that again can be stretched to include anyone who isn’t Muslim and therefore is a threat to Islam, their mere existence being a potential threat…thus ‘defence’ can in fact be an excuse for attack…hence Muhammed’s ‘defensive wars’ managed to conquer so much territory that was in no way Muslim to start with.  It’s the same tactical excuse Hitler used and the same one Putin uses as he ‘defends’ Russians living in the Crimea or Ukraine.

The BBC generously provides us with the definition and the proof that these Jihadists are not ‘perverting’ Islam…they are following its commands as they believe, as told to them by the BBC itself, that Islam and Muslims are under attack by the West….this is what the BBC is teaching Muslim children in its GCSE Bitesize….

Most Muslims are not pacifists, and believe it is justifiable to struggle to defend Islam, for justice, or in self-defence, and to use force if necessary. If all peaceful means fail, a Muslim should be ready to fight to defend the ummah against aggression, to defend the oppressed, or to combat injustice. This is lesser jihad.

So when you have politicians grandstanding after events like London Bridge telling us how the attackers do not represent Islam, theirs is a perversion, a poisonous version, of Islam, they are mistaken, or lying.  Which is unfortunate because it means they will never come to grips with the threat if they do not , or refuse to, understand it….and blaming the internet companies for the attacks is beyond parody…Khan knows full well the origins of the Jihad ideology and that it is rampant within the Muslim community…a heady mixture of the Koran and dangerous and dishonest tales spun about Western foreign policy and Israel.  May also blames the internet companies also ignoring the truth…both ignore one of the major sources of the extremist narrative, one which gives it so much credibility to it and neuters any effective response to it… the BBC.

Sidiq Khan:

We need to work with communities, the Government and others to tackle extremism in our midst. This perverse ideology is overwhelmingly despised by every community across London — of all faiths and none. By working together we must deprive extremism of its oxygen and not exaggerate its support or alienate communities in the process. Followers of a perverse ideology who murder innocent Londoners and visitors are an utter desecration of Ramadan and a rejection of the true values of Islam. I want to send a crystal-clear message around the world: the sick and wicked ideology of these evil extremists is no form of Islam that I recognise. I unequivocally denounce them and their twisted beliefs.

We have to make it harder for extremists to radicalise young people online. It is too easy for people to access extremist propaganda on the internet — with websites and videos glorifying their evil ideology just a click away. After every terrorist attack we rightly say that the internet providers and social media companies need to act and restrict access to these poisonous materials.

Theresa May:

First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.

It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.

Defeating this ideology is one of the great challenges of our time, but it cannot be defeated by military intervention alone. It will not be defeated by the maintenance of a permanent defensive counter-terrorism operation, however skillful its leaders and practitioners.

It will only be defeated when we turn people’s minds away from this violence and make them understand that our values – pluralistic British values – are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.

Here's our cartoonist @Adamstoon1 @EveningStandard on Diane Abbott's absence … pic.twitter.com/D3g0oGzCy7

— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) June 7, 2017

The Left can’t handle the truth…Diane Abbott is a disaster waiting to happen….even her boss knows it which is why she was pulled from public appearances.

Thus her boss must be racist and sexist…despite having Diane on his pillion so many years ago on their tour of Eastern Europe…lol.

Diane Abbott expects to be Home Secretary, one of the most important and powerful jobs in government.  She needs to be on top of her brief, be able to respond to and tackle unexpected crises on the fly, and master the enormous amounts of information and detail that crosses her desk every day.  Do Abbott’s media performances inspire us with confidence that she could handle a rapidly unfolding terrorist attack or the complex reformation of the police, the prison service or the legal system ?  No.  This stuff matters, it’s not some student game of posturing about equality and social justice…it’s peoples’ lives and livings….that’s why the Osborne tweeted joke is in fact a deadly serious comment…what it isn’t is racism or sexism…however the below is…inverse racism and sexism…the usual Lefty playing the race card or any other card rather than engage in the actual argument.

From the New Statesman:

All politicians expect criticism. But has the treatment of Diane Abbott crossed a line?

Is the Conservative and media mockery of Jeremy Corbyn’s close ally motivated by racism and sexism – or part of the rough and tumble of politics?

There is simple press cynicism at play here, but also “overt or dogwhistle racist coverage” underpinning the media’s obsession with lampooning Abbott, as one insider close to Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle puts it. “Everything Diane does is amplified a hundred times more than anyone else because of that. No one should forget that.”

We look at Boris Johnson flounder at a press conference, and we laugh because he looks like a fool. We watch Theresa May squirm during an interview about her manifesto unravelling, and we laugh because she is being caught out.

The difference is – when we see Diane Abbott make a mistake, we laugh because that’s what we expect.

Yep…we laugh because we expect her to cock-up….because she does…nothing to do with skin colour or having a heaving bosom.

As for Boris…he is savagely torn into all the time…remember the BBC’s Mair calling him a ‘nasty piece of work’?   He gets attacked just because of who he is and how he presents himself and the comments he makes, as does Trump.  Look at how the BBC et al reacted to his comment about the EU and those throughout history who wanted to unite Europe under one banner…he was  vilified for apparently ‘comparing the EU to the Nazis’.  Rubbish of course but OK because it is Boris who supported Leave.

And was not Corbyn monstered for his own cock-up on Woman’s Hour recently as he failed to remember the cost of his flagship childcare policy?  Didn’t realise Corbyn was actually black and a woman.

Oh yes…let’s not forget…can’t call Osborne a racist or a sexist for his criticism of Abbott…..seems quite at home with a black female…..and that’s not white power…it’s white powder…..

Whilst not bothering to give us a full, rounded and informative analysis of Trump’s troubles with the intelligence agencies the BBC does have time for this trash…

What Corbyn promises and what you get…gruel, rickets and a lack of trust in authority figures.

Just thought I’d pre-empt the BBC and save them the bother of stretching their imagination beyond the realms of the credible.

A nice brew is the greatest invention ever

Ask the British to name the most important inventions of all time and you can rely on them agreeing on one answer in particular.

Taking its place in the top ten alongside such essentials as the wheel, the clock and penicillin is … the teabag.

Little wonder, perhaps, in a nation so addicted to the cuppa that we are said to brew 60billion a year.

And…it’s…all…thanks…to…Islam.

Muhammed invented the teabag as his troops couldn’t stomach any more milk and camel urine [I mean the Jews had milk and honey!!!!  bastards…aaahhh…that’s where it all went wrong].   Tea was the answer but loose tea was so messy, sand got into it, the troops tried stuffing it up their noses like snuff and it was just so inconvenient to carry loose tea around with him on his Arabian stallion [another Muslim invention] in the desert winds as he invaded, conquered and colonised so much of the Middle East.  Much easier to just fling a bag into a pot of water and away you go…he invented the travel mug as well….no spillage as you pillage, no slops as you chops…off heads.

Top Islamic 7th century travel tips…

Bring a thermos [jeez…did they invent that as well??!!] with lemon, camel’s urine, and your own tea bag. Then have the Yazidi sex slave fill it with hot water to make your own special “sunnah” beverage! 

Is there nothing ‘Islam’ didn’t invent?  Redbull?  It gives you wings.

The full text of Former FBI Director James Comey‘s statement to the US Senate committee on intelligence.

The BBC has long presented the case for the prosecution against Trump declaring him a Russian agent who has tried to force the ex-FBI director to stop his investigations in to Trump’s Russia links…thus ‘obstructing justice’…impeach him!!!!

The BBC declared that the dodgy dossier on Trump was pretty much the genuine article ‘verified’ by the security services…no.

The BBC claimed that Trump wanted to stop the Russia investigation because it would lift the pressure off him…interpreted by the BBC as a sign that he was guilty.  No.

The BBC gave the impression Trump himself was under investigation.  No.

The BBC also told us he was possibly suffering from dementia….in a firewalled deniable article written by their US correspondent Paul Wood in the Spectator.  No

This is typical of the BBC’s reporting on Trump…..

My sources say the President often fails to attend his daily intelligence briefing; when he does, his attention span is disastrously short; he’ll read only documents a page or two long which ‘must have pictures’. Some believe Twitter’s time stamps even show him tweeting during these briefings.

Trump’s critics paint a picture of the President as rambling, confused, irritable and prone to tantrums: the madness of King Donald.

Some of those critics have an explanation for this: not porphyria — the ‘blue urine’ disease that afflicted George III — but dementia.

From the same journo, Paul Wood, who produced this early biased assessment…

Will Donald Trump be assassinated, ousted in a coup or just impeached?

So did the FBI brief the President and Trump on the dodgy dossier because it was credible and ‘verified’?  Not at all, the complete opposite in fact…and they did so because muck-raking journalists would publish regardless of fact in an attempt to compromise Trump….

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

Was Trump under investigation?  No.

I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

Did Trump try to stop the investigation into General Flynn?  No.  He hoped Comey could let it go…but that’s a different order of things to ordering or requesting Comey to do so…it’s a hope that the investigation would come to nothing…and Comey’s account seems conveniently convenient…no witnesses, he only told people in the FBI of what was said and did not tell his ultimate boss, the Attorney General, whom he normally reports to…so again no independent witness.  Note Comey sets the scene by building a case that Trump was trying to manipulate him….complete speculation and subjective conclusions…

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

Note that Trump in fact asked for an investigation into the dodgy dossier…

The President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.

On Flynn we  are told…

The President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

Remember this was written up after the event with no other corroborating evidence [unless Trump taped it] and can be read subjectively depending on how you want to read it.  It is not conclusive by any means that Trump was intent on ordering Comey to stop the investigation even by suggestion.

Comey has his own interpretation…

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December….Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. …I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

Did Trump cheer the sacking of Comey because it meant the end of the investigation [it didn’t and Trump never said it would] and that it lifted the pressure off him due to that?…the BBC intepreting this as meaning he was guilty, or his team were guilty, and now wouldn’t face investigation.   That’s a completely false interpretation as countered by the Whitehouse when first made…they saying that Trump was referring to his ability to conduct national affairs being marred by Comey’s behaviour not the investigation itself [not something the BBC bothered to report]….

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer told The Times. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

Another government official who spoke to The Times said Trump was using a “negotiating tactic” with Lavrov when he explained the “pressure” he faced.

The Times wrote: “The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine, and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.”

Comey reveals…

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Is Trump looking to close down investigations?  We already know he wanted the dodgy dossier investigated and now Comey admits Trump was happy for his team to be investigated…..obstructing justice?…

The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

Far from being the Sword of Damocles this has turned out to be not even a pointy stick, just mud-slinging……if the Democrats, and the BBC, can make a case out if this I’d be surprised.

The BBC’s reporting has been entirely one-sided and highly partisan against Trump declaring him guilty without any evidence whatsoever.

We’ve looked at the BBC’s Newsnight ‘Kingmaker’ programme that paints a portrait of Corbyn as a principled and honourable man, a man who has never given support to terrorists, a man who has not sat back as anti-Semitism ran riot under his reign, a man whose economic policies are not fantastical nonsense that would bankrupt us, a man who has supported anti-terrorism legislation with enthusiasm, a man who doesn’t have a deeply held attachment to Marxism, a man who doesn’t surround himself with people who do support terrorism, are anti-Semitic, who do have intentions to wreck the economy and destabilise society and who are so ideologically driven that implementing their political dogmas comes before everything else regardless of the effect on ‘the people’ [as with Labour’s secret mass immigration policy]….and of course are completely incompetent and unfit to run a whelk stall let alone a government.

We may have been premature in our judgement, despite that being an obviously extremely partisan film that was solely designed to cheerlead for Corbyn, Newsnight have made a film about May…surely it will heap equal amounts of lavish praise upon her, lauding her achievements, extolling her character and eulogizing her abilities to get things done, looking to a future when she carries all before her in the Brexit negotiations.

Well, the BBC’s chosen conduit to communicate the accolades and plaudits was the gutter journo Matthew Parris, the wettest of the wettest of Tories, a highly disgruntled Remainer who has been whining relentlessly in the Spectator and the Times about the nasty, racist, stupid little englanders who voted for Brexit…he suggests such stupid people can’t be trusted to vote the right way and so shouldn’t be able to vote.  This film was all about Brexit…and stabbing May, the ‘hard Brexit’ administrator, in the back.

Perhaps the choice of film-maker was just a thoughtless and lazy one…Parris is in the Media and was a Tory…so ispso facto must be perfectly suited for the job.  Or maybe the BBC knew exactly what his views were and how he would approach this…with an axe to grind…a hatchet job.  And a hatchet job it was….a deliberate and unpleasant character assassination…..just look at who the main contributor was…Remain moaner Nick Clegg.

Parris says he has no idea what May stands for…but he was helpfully told by Clegg that she may be overwhelmed by what she has to do…she wouldn’t make decisions on the spot because she poured over the details…she had to test ideas and suggestions….and that’s a bad thing.

We are told that she has a major weakness…she has no interest in wider politics, no understanding of, or interest in, business and the economy.  She has no organising vision for society, she has no firm destinations…hence she u-turns all the time.

She was compared to Thatcher…who at one stage was said to be cruel to the common man.

Is she intelligent? asks Parris…..we hear she’s not obviously brilliant…organised, capable but not brilliant…damning with faint praise….a manager with no vision, no all encompassing passion and drive to impose a brilliant dream upon the world.  I’m assuming Hitler is one of Parris’ heroes.

Parris gives her a few nods…naturally, he being the self-flagellating Tory that he is, praising her for coming up with the phrase ‘the nasty party’ amongst other things but it is rapidly back to the hatchet work as he questions her ability to work in a team and carry out negotiations that apparently need a charming and warm personality.

No, no she can’t negotiate, she doesn’t do charm, doesn’t do compromise, she doesn’t do a deal because she likes you…she does it on the merit of the offered deal…and that’s a bad thing, a weakness we are told.  Cameron was a warm and sociable guy…open to negotiation and compromise…hence he got f**k all when he went to the EU to renegotiate pre-Brexit.  Maggie on the other handbag….No, No, NO!

Parris then told us he wanted to know her weaknesses…as if he hadn’t already spun a few tales on those lines already.

What, he asks, would bring her down?  What?  She’s up for election and Parris, a supposed supporter, is already suggesting she is for the chop!

She has an inability to build a coalition inside the party, she doesn’t listen to a wide variety of voices, she has a lack of ability to form a ‘gang’, a team….em…what politician controls his party…Corbyn?  LOLOLOL….Blair?  Brown?  Miliband? Cameron?  Clegg?  Clegg who?

Why is Parris already seeking to bring her down, to present her as someone who will fail not just in her own government but in the Brexit negotiations as well?

Parris suggests he still doesn’t know her [and yet he can cheerfully paint this grim picture of her] and he suggests either she knows exactly what she is doing, and thus carries on without bothering to ask anyone else what they think, or else she ‘hasn’t a clue’.

Again damning with faint praise before damning.

I imagine this was a highly selective film…choice of presenter, the choice of those interviewed, the choice of who to put in the film and the highly selective choice of what they said…all choices made to reinforce Parris’ one narrative that May is too common, too middle-class, too middlebrow, too much the manager, not enough the ‘brilliant’, swashbuckling risk-taking buccaneer of Parris’ dreams who will fail at it all.

Hang on….so May is weak because she is intransigent, doesn’t listen and has an unshakeable belief in her own views which means she just won’t negotiate…. and conversely she is weak because she listens to peoples’ concerns and rejigs her policies to meet those concerns?  Drivel, as usual, from Parris who also tells us she is not a go-getting adventuress out to win the world preferring the safe harbours of the known knowns.  Hmmm…isn’t that in fact a good description of Parris and his Remain chums who fear the outside world and want to stay in the stifling embrace of the EU for supposed protection…or stagnation and a strait-jacket, whereas May and the Brexiteers head off into the brave new world to seek our fortunes?

Two highly partisan and political films from the impartial BBC…one praising Corbyn to the skies, one a complete assassination job on May on the eve of the election.

As said the BBC is throwing caution to the wind and gambling on a Corbyn surprise win…but knowing the Tories won’t dare tackle the BBC other than to make a few complaints that are easily brushed aside as usual.

The BBC usually raises the case of ‘Pizzagate’ in the US to expose what it considers the dangers of fake news, naturally it is ‘right-wing’ fake news that concerns the BBC…the same BBC that has helped manufacture the incredibly dangerous myth that white police officers in the US are routinely shooting black men due to racism…this led to the murder of many police officers by blacks seeking ‘revenge’….the BBC is without doubt partly responsible for those deaths.

I imagine a similar concern for the absolute truth is the reason why the BBC has censored reports that a woman was attacked and stabbed by three Asian girls reported to have been making Islamic comments and shouting ‘Allah’ as they stabbed the woman.

From the BBC….no mention at all of the Asian identity or the alleged link to ‘Islam’…they mention counter-terrorism but only to say ‘terror’ has been discounted….any idea why such an issue would have arisen?….

Wanstead attack: Nursery worker ‘slashed’

A nursery school worker has been taken to hospital with a “slash wound” after reports of stabbing in east London, police have said.

The victim, who is in her 30s, was attacked in Hermon Hill, Wanstead, on her way to work at about 09:30 BST.

Nursery manager Karrien Stevens said she called police and the ambulance service when the woman arrived at work.

Counter-terrorism police are aware of the attack but are not treating it as a terrorist incident.

From the Telegraph:

Nursery worker slashed in the street by three women ‘who shouted Allah’

A nursery worker was slashed after being attacked by three women who shouted “Allah”, her colleague has said.

The woman was set upon as she travelled to work at a nursery in Wanstead, north east London.

The colleague, who did not want to be named, said the victim had “three Asian girls behind her chanting the Koran, ‘Allah”‘.

From the Mail:

Schools ‘in lockdown’ after female nursery worker on her way to work is pulled to the ground and slashed in the arm by three girls ‘shouting Allah will get you’

A nursery worker was dragged to the ground and stabbed by three women as they chanted ‘Allah will get you’.

Parents of children in the area received emails stating that schools were on ‘lockdown’ after the attack at about 9.30am.

The nursery boss described the attackers as ‘Asian girls’ and said they ran off when a man came to rescue and took her into work.

She added: ‘When she got to work we couldn’t believe it and called the police straight away. It’s terrible, I’m absolutely horrified. You don’t expect something like this to happen on your doorstep.’

Another colleague, who did not want to be named, said the victim had ‘three Asian girls behind her chanting the Koran and “Allah”‘.

‘She’s okay, considering. Obviously it’s a shock, she’s in shock. She was in tears and she had a cut right up her arm.

‘Her stomach was hurting, she had marks all over her, her hair was pulled out.’

We don’t know the full facts but the BBC should still be reporting the allegations…you can be sure they would do so if it had been an allegation that a non-Muslim had attacked a Muslim…it would definitely be a probable hate crime from the start.