https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPuCbKlqfO8

Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and Britain’s second most senior cleric, has described the targeting of Christains as ”an affront to decency”. Calling on the silent majority of Christians to defend their beliefs, Sentamu said: ”For those who despair at the treatment meted out to these Christian women the message is clear: wake-up Christian England.”

The Trojan Horse plot was real, the group behind it, the MCB, had already published a blueprint in 2007 that outlined the aims of what became the Trojan Horse plot…and it gave the reasons why schools needed to become more Islamic….

The MCB’s contribution in publishing its report, Towards Greater Understanding, is wholly consistent with the government’s “Every Child Matters” strategy, and complementary to it. The result of meeting Muslim needs in mainstream schools is that Islam and Muslims become a normal part of British life and that we become fully integrated in this way.

The threat is that if schools do not bow down and accomodate Muslim wishes and adopt their practices then Muslims will become alienated and vulnerable to radicalisation…it is that usual blackmail that the Muslim community always uses to put pressure upon government, authority or Society in order to increase the dominance of Isam.

From the Daily Mirror:

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL

AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.

In light of the recent BBC video on the Trojan Horse affair [above] this should be of interest…the Express reports on that blueprint in 2007:

Unfortunately, and this sums up the problem perfectly, it is not only the government that adopted that position… the BBC and C4 have always had the narrative, the Islamist narrative, that the answer to stopping the Islamisation, the radicalisation, of the Muslim community, is to allow them to practise Islam however and wherever they wish to…more Islam is the solution to stopping Islamisation….

Last week, on November 11^th [2016] Matt Frei on Channel 4 news told a group of veiled Muslim women in Washington that they could all surely agree that the greatest threat of violence in the US came from white men bearing arms. They all did agree, nodding vigorously. On the same day the Today programme on Radio 4 opined that France had wasted a billion Euros on security since the attack on Bataclan when they would have done better to spend it on making Muslims in France feel more comfortable.

That view was adumbrated later in the day on R4, in a programme called ‘The French Culture War,’ by Nick Fraser. His trailer for the programme promised to explore, ‘the misuse of secular ideals,’ in France, a secular country. He ended by telling us that violence and fear will surely subside if France will only, ‘do more to accommodate Muslims.’

Pope Francis: ‘Idea of conquest is inherent to the soul of Islam’

The BBC’s latest programme on the Trojan Horse plot was a curious affair..not least because it made no mention of Ray Honeyford…and that he was right…as pointed out by Roger Scruton…

Let’s face it – Ray Honeyford got it right on Islam and education

Honeyford insisted to the children of his school, that when it comes to identity, it is nationality and not religion that counts.

Of course that is an anathema to the people who populate the BBC….they who hate borders and the nation state…and indeed ‘Britain’.  Here’s Ray Honeyford’s article.

The BBC has always insisted that the Trojan Horse plot was a hoax, something, as you will see in the film, that the guilty parties also claim.  It wasn’t a hoax [the BBC never mentioned the 2007 MCB document, the blueprint, in reports about the TH plot…why?  Because to do so would confirm the TH plot was real…whereas the BBC’s Phil Mackie was insisting that it was all a phoney scare story, the result of racism, Islamophobia and paranoia] and indeed the very same tactics were employed years before as this article reveals long before the Trojan Horse plot came to light…from the Telegraph in 2009…

The current BBC film is ‘even-handed’…it gives equal voice and credibility to both sides…which is odd given the BBC’s new found love for genuine balance in its reporting where it supposedly places more emphasis on the side which has the most compelling evidence…and in this case it should be those who say there was an Islamist plot to ‘capture’ British secular schools and to Islamise them.  There is no doubting the evidence.  But the BBC does doubt and is happy to give the Islamists an unchallenged voice….not revealing, as the Sunday Times does today, that some of the protagonists, including the main instigator, Tahir Alam, have continued to publish extreme, Islamist comments on social media…Alam stating that 9/11 was the ‘controlled demolition of three buildings’ and promoted a video that said the BNP have been bribed by Zionist Neocons ‘to ignore Jew money and attack Islam’.…a video that says…

A claim sometimes made is Zionists are the problem, not Jews. In fact Jews have been a problem for centuries, long before ‘Zionism’ was invented.

The BBC film actually gives more credence to those who say there was no plot than to the critics….it allows a Birmingham City councillor to claim that the reason the Council failed to spot the plot was because government cuts meant there weren’t enough staff….in fact the reason the plot wasn’t ‘spotted’ was because the Council had absolutely no intention of doing anything and even when it came into the full public glare the council leaders continued to deny there was a problem.

The BBC also had a sneaky attack on one of the headteachers, a Sikh, Balwant Bains, who was forced to resign under Islamist pressure, craftily implicating him as the author of the Trojan Horse letter…despite there being absolutely no evidence of that.

We had a clip where the Muslims under suspicion claimed that the letter was a hoax written by someone out for revenge…therefore suggesting a teacher. [and ‘revenge’ for what?  Hmmm…being forced out by Islamists?  ooops…they confirm the existence of the plot]  The BBC film continued for a while giving a decent interval, not too soon to make people realise they were setting someone up, but early enough so the viewer didn’t forget the claim of a hoax written by someone out for revenge.  They then put up a statement that Bains had resigned just months before the letter came out….making the implication that perhaps he was the author…

Trouble is, that just isn’t true.  Birmingham council already had the letter before Bains resigned….as the government report into the Trojan Horse plot spells out…

The letter also refers to events at Saltley School and Specialist Science College – where, at the time the letter was being considered by Birmingham City Council – the then headteacher, Balwant Bains, was negotiating his resignation. The letter states that ‘Balwant Bains will soon be sacked and we will move in’. Given that the letter was received by Birmingham City Council in late November 2013, it is surprising that the Council continued to negotiate the terms of Mr Bains’ resignation, eventually signing a compromise agreement with him on 2 January 2014.

Why is the BBC misleading us about the resignation of Balwant Bains and are pointing the finger at him as the author of the Trojan Horse letter?

The BBC are desperate to label the letter a hoax…despite the investigation saying that whatever the source its contents accurately portrayed what was happening in Birmingham schools.  The BBC also continues to peddle the very misleading narrative that ‘no extremism was found in the schools’.

The BBC are of course defining ‘extremism’ in the way it always has…that merely of violent Islamism that perverts the good and peaceful religion of Islam.

But the BBC knows the reader or viewer will define extremism as cultural, non-violent extremism, ie Islamic fundamentalism or ‘conservatism’….judging Islam itself to be extreme.

Therefore the BBC hopes you will intepret its claim of no ‘extremism’ as saying there was no Islamisation at the schools…a conclusion that is utterly false….as the government reports clearly state.

The BBC’s Mark Easton doesn’t see the problem….the Trojan Horse plot was just an example of diversity in operation and one to be welcomed…an Islamist school is just like a Catholic one….he also spins that deliberate lie about ‘extremism’ not being found…

‘Trojan horse’ scandal – extreme or diverse?

The evidence of Islamist extremism in Birmingham schools appears thin. The schools themselves say Ofsted has made “absolutely no suggestion, nor did they find any evidence, that Park View schools either promote or tolerate extremism or radicalisation”.

If, like 629 other state-funded English secondaries, Park View had been allowed to become a faith school, then one presumes the Islamic ethos would no longer be regarded as a threat to the welfare of the pupils. Conservative Muslims would be no different from conservative Catholics looking to escape from moral and cultural relativism.

No clearer sign than that that the BBC is supporting the Islamist cause.

PETER HITCHENS: I want Jo’s killer to hang. The Left want to use him for propaganda 

It is perhaps an irony that the same BBC that mourns the death of a Communist dictator who killed or imprisoned thousands for their political views [a BBC that was appalled by Guantanamo Bay and yet just over the fence were Castro’s Gulags, ignored by the BBC and the Left] should be the same BBC that oh so quietly cheered the death of British MP and human rights campaigner, Jo Cox, when they heard her killer was probably a Far-Right extremist who had shouted ‘Britain first’ as he killed her….undoubtedly there were a few subtle high-fives in the BBC news-room that day….just days before the Brexit vote.

For some in the BBC and all too many on the Left the murder of Jo Cox was a ‘necessary murder’, a very sad and unfortunate event but a ‘sacrifice’ that would further the Cause and hopefully swing the referendum their way and which could be exploited later on to silence those who talked about immigration and to drum up support for a purge on conservative or right-leaning media by claiming they provide the backdrop that encourages and ‘gives licence to’ those on the Far-Right who are prepared to use violence to further their aims.

There is of course a concerted attack on the Right just now, not just on the Press but on those on the internet, in politics and indeed anyone who is in a position to influence or speak out in ways that the Left disapprove of…and the BBC is at the forefront of this attack joining forces with the Far-Left and Muslim extremists.

The BBC was absolutely sure that the murder of Jo Cox was an attack on democracy and evidence of the terrible pressure that politicians are under as they are constantly criticised and abused….by the ‘Right’ of course.  The BBC is adament that we must protect our politicians and MPs in order that Parliament and Democracy can function properly without intimidation or threats.

Odd then that the BBC makes so little mention of the constant death threats that Nigel Farage gets as well as so many other Leave politicians and voters.

Nigel Farage: I fear for my life – Ukip leader fears violent attacks every day

It is of course the likes of the BBC that has ‘licenced’ those attacks as it labels Farage and UKIP as Fascist, racist, Nazi and Islamophobic.  Whereas the Leave campaign in no way encouraged or gave the slightest indication they approved of racism, their aim was to control numbers not ethnicity, the BBC has openly demonised and abused Farage and his ilk thus making him a target and encouraging attacks upon him by doing so.

It’s not just in the UK of course…those loveable Democrats are at it as well….

Since 1979 there have now been six fatal attacks on MPs as well as two attempted murders. A survey of UK MPs conducted last year revealed that one in five have been attacked or been subject to an attempted attack while 81 percent have experienced aggressive or intrusive behaviour while in office.

Well, it FINALLY happened. That ancient tyrant, Fidel Castro, finally died. And HAVEN’T the comrades at the BBC gone into mourning for their fallen hero? All that is missing is the solemn music on the hour and the mandatory black armbands. I thought this was the quote of the day but of course you would never see it on the BBC…

“When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims.”

Instead they turn their fire on President Elect Trump because HE said this;

You can’t keep a good man down.

Blair is back.

Curious that he thinks what he has to say is persuasive enough to make us rethink Brexit…..he admits staying in the Single Market in a ‘soft Brexit’ means Brexit is meaningless as we would be still essentially fully in the EU.  He also admits that he didn’t hold the promised referendum on the EU because he would have lost it..and that anytime over the last 30 years the vote would have been ‘out’…..so much for democracy…so much for the EU…clearly only a project that the so-called elite are enamoured with….

Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

 

JC Michael Portillo described David Cameron’s decision to hold the EU referendum as the greatest blunder ever made by a British prime minister. Do you agree?

TB I understand the reasons for it. As you may recall, I argued very strongly against it before the general election . . . but . . . I could’ve held one in 2005 and lost one. When we thought we were going to have to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I thought that was a very, very open question as to whether we were going to win or not. What it shows you [is] that if you put this decision to people like this in a referendum, I think at any point in time in the last 30 years you could have got that result.

Amused to look back to when Major signed us up to Masstricht…exactly the same complaints were made then as he cemented us into the EU’s grip as now when we seek to loosen that punishing hold over us…how can that be?…

That we would be isolated and disadvantaged without a voice.

That we would lose influence and have no say in our own future.

That the pound would fall and interest rates rocket.

That uncertainty would create political and economic instability.

That the City would fall from its high perch.

That investment would dry up.

That we would give up on human rights and employment protection for workers who would be returned to the world of the Victorian workhouse.

Note that Major promised that he had secured a great deal that meant the EU’s influence and baleful grip on our laws was limited by the treaty….note how the EU has gotten around that by imposing laws upon us that should be outside its remit by using health and safety or human rights legislation instead.

Just a couple of quotes from Major that says it all really about the EU…

This week’s events in the Soviet Union were a salutary reminder that reform in the Community is not an end in itself. [LOL…the EU is to all intents and purposes so very similar to the Soviet Union…a grand political project imposed regardless of the suffering it imposes upon the people…it is precisely ‘an end in itself’]

The House has been rightly concerned at the creeping extension of Community competence over the last few years. The Commission has often brought forward proposals using a dubious legal base, and the Council has found it difficult to halt that practice in the European Court.

The structure of the treaty puts the issues of foreign and security policy, interior and justice matters and defence policy beyond the reach of the Commission and the European Court.  [Or that’s what he believed]

The BBC are overjoyed that John Major thinks Democracy somewhat over-rated.

John Major, the man who thinks Democracy is a ‘Tyranny’, the man who is so ardently pro-EU that he wanted to keep us in the ruinous ERM even as it destroyed our economy, the man who, without consulting us, signed us up to Maastricht and  handed us over to the unelected EU ‘dictatorship’, ironically quotes Churchill in a homage to the Magna Carta…

Sir Winston Churchill wrote of Magna Carta:

“The underlying idea of the sovereignty of law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State.  And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success.”

Remember that quote as Major and his rabble of Remainers betray the People and the Democracy that he claims to respect and says he seeks to defend and yet to all apparent purposes seems instead to be riding roughshod over the rights and liberties of those People.

No surprise that four of the least respected, ultimately failed and least trusted of politicians, Blair, Clegg, Farron and Major, should be leading the charge to double-cross the voters and sell them out to their mates in the EU.

It’s an interesting concept they have come up with…on a yes/no vote that was specifically asking the people of Britain if they wanted to leave or stay in the EU these four Judases now think we must take into account the wishes of the losing side.  Just how does that work?  Can we be just a little bit in?  Just a little bit out?  I thought Brexit meant Brexit.  A vote to leave means a vote to leave.

What if we apply the same principle to the election?  Clearly a great many people didn’t vote Tory so let’s, one, have another vote, and two, let’s take the loser’s thoughts into account and take something from each Party’s manifesto.

Or how about the fact that the Libdems got 2.5 million votes and 8 MPs whilst UKIP got 4 million votes and only one MP…..surely that’s a true tyranny of democracy….let’s hand some of those Libdem seats to UKIP…Farron I’m sure is very much in favour of proportional representation…no?  Oh, suddenly the losing side, despite overwhelmingly out voting you, shouldn’t get a fair representation in Parliament.  Perhaps Farron will stop slyly claiming that Leave only won by a small margin…thus implying not really legitimate.  In that case hand over some seats Farron as you were beaten by a massive margin.

I loosely quote John Major as he rewrites the history of the Great EU Referendum….

In 2016 the ex and disastrous Prime Minister, John  Major [Me], brought himself back into the political world in an attempt to dethrone the rebellious Brexiteers. and to return the deposed Elite to power.

Back in 1990, on his leader’s, Margaret Thatcher’s, betrayal and deposing, John had become the new Prime Minister.  Contemporary chronicles report history’s verdict that he was a very bad PM indeed.  One wrote that “hell itself is defiled by the foulness of John”. Others were less kind.  Many expressed sentiments that made today’s tabloid press seem positively tame.  John himself was then rudely cast aside by a roughly treated citizenry and a Labour regime installed.

John’s relationship with his unruly People when in power had rapidly deteriorated to the point of civil war.  This was no accident.  He had ruinously kept them chained to the ERM in order to complete the grand EU political project, a process that he bungled ignominiously.  He had a propensity for – I put this delicately – the wives and daughters of other men.  Angry and rebellious, the People demanded the restoration of “ancient liberties” and the return of sovereignty.  But John had no intention of appeasing the People, and when he went to the polls in 1997, he rejected their appeals, and demanded even greater allegiance for his EU project.

It was a foolhardy gesture and the People reacted with force, dumping him and installing the Sun King Blair who after several meetings – and what today we would call “a free and frank exchange of views” – an embryo Charter was drawn up promising a referendum on membership of the EU.  Blair was himself subsequently deposed after renegeing on the agreement and in his wake his heir apparent was installed after a disastrous regency by Gordon Brown…one David Cameron who continued the charade, promising then refusing to give a voice to the People.

Eventually he was forced into offering a binding agreement:  Cameron would issue what became known as the EU Referendum Promise and, in return, the People would swear fealty to him.  The Promise was not signed – but the 4,000 word document, written on sheepskin parchment in Medieval Latin, was duly stamped with Cameron’s Seal.  Copies were made by monks in the Royal Chancellery, and despatched for public proclamation to towns and cities across Britain.  The EU Referendum was on the agenda.

What did the Great EU Referendum Promise say?  The first thing to understand is that it was a contemporary document drafted for the wellbeing of the Tory Party.  It was time, left-wing media pressure, subsequent events and re-interpretation of the text by great lawyers that reduced the Promise to a lie.

The People had told Cameron – don’t think you can act arbitrarily against us.

Cameron accepted the Referendum under duress and, no doubt, with ill grace, and upon losing the vote gracelessly and shamefully fled the political battlefield and the fallout from his deeds.  Within weeks of the actual vote a cabal of opportunistic and deceitful chancers saw their opportunity to destroy it and to return the jealously guarded power to those who had most to lose under the Sovereignty of the People.

The Government proposed a Committee of Brexiteers to enforce the Referendum result and to hold Parliament to its word.  This was anathema to an arrogant and presumptious Parliament which believed it was above the law.  More important, it was anathema to an autocratic ex-leader of the ToryParty who saw here a principle that could threaten his own legacy.

When the Remain Camp appealed to him, John returned to the political fray in order to save the people from the People and suggested they quash the Great Referendum result with a pile of old Bull.  It was, he announced, “unjust, shameful – and illegal”.  In the dissolute and corrupt Britain of 2016 the Left’s writ was large and the left-wing media all powerful. They backed John and his cabal, but whilst John rejoiced, the People prepared for civil war.

I have to admit I am listening less and less to the BBC for the simple reason it is simply an echo chamber for sore loser Remainers. In the past few days it has been assiduously pumping out the anti-Brexit doom and gloom from the pro Remain OBR and IFS. It managed to shovel THREE Remain MPs on Question Time last night – and as for the South London audience…!!!  It has amplified the outrageous pro Remain demands of Tony Blair and John Major and at every turn seeks to subvert the will of those 17.4m who voted to Leave. Each day is the same. It resents that the majority who voted did not do what it wanted and like a wounded animal it is increasingly dangerous!

I’m going to be on holidays from Monday 28th Nov returning Thursday 8th December and that means no blogging! However, I have set up all the necessary Open Threads which I know you all engage with very well. I would like to also invite those of you who want to open up on a particular issue to put together a short post on it and send it to the site contact email and I will ensure these get published for you. All you need do is advise if you want attribution or not and hey bingo, you’re in print and helping to keep the site rocking and rolling whilst I …erm…sunbathe!

Here you go, a brand new Open Thread to see us all off into the weekend. Detail the bias here please!

Thomas Mair has been convicted and sentenced for killing Jo Cox. There are no excuses for what Mair did, no ‘understanding’, no moral equivocation.  But there is a stark contrast in how the BBC treats a Far-Right killer and a Muslim one as, with unfortunate timing for the BBC, which had just published a heart-warming story of a Muslim ‘victim’ of radicalisation, this BBC  ‘report’ illustrates… “An extremist in the family”.….oh he was a terrorist himself but naturally he was the victim having been a lovely lad led astray, a Muslim alienated by a cruel Britain made an easy and vulnerable recruiting target for the extremist recruiters….and his blameless family were helpless, shocked and distraught at the turn of events having no idea how he came to be ‘radicalised’.  The same Dominic Casciani who made ‘An Extremist in the family’ also conjured up this white-wash for the killers of Lee Rigby…and naturally one of them suffered mental health issues…

He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and began suffering periods of acute mental illness, including delusions, such as hearing voices. This mental decline would come to play a key part in his later trial for Lee Rigby’s murder.

Also unfortunate that the mother of this ‘terrorist in the family’ was one of the school governors caught up in the Trojan Horse plot who had to resign.  It is remarkable how the BBC blithely assures us that it is a complete mystery how Muslims become radicalised and take at face value claims by the families that they had no idea that their kids were being radicalised or how that could have happened…never mind that again and again we subsequently find out that it was as much the parents doing the radicalising as anyone else.  We can be pretty sure there is a constant drum beat of anti-Israel, anti-Iraq War, anti-Western presence in the Middle East and in other Muslim places and conspiracy theories about 9/11 [it was the Jews] and 7/7 [it was MI5] in Muslim homes up and down the country….for example The Jan Trust [Muslim led] was championed by the BBC for its ‘anti-radicalisation’ stand and yet they were promoting the idea that it was right to be angry about Palestine and the various wars…just don’t express that anger as violence…so hardly doing the genuinely important anti-radicalisation work…that of changing the narrative of Muslims under attack…one that the BBC itself spreads.

The BBC disgracefully tried to link Mair’s actions to the Leave campaign in order to make the Brexit debate ‘toxic’…the judge in the case noted that nationalist or patriotic sentiments are legitimate but Mair tainted them and made them toxic…something the BBC tried desperately to exploit in order to paint Leave campaigners and voters as racist, Far-Right extremists…as it continues to do of course…

Addressing Mair, Mr Justice Wilkie said: “You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

“Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic.”

The BBC was quick to pick up on the police claim that Mair was a terrorist…and yet the poice did not charge him as such…and the judge made no mention of terror…merely stating that the murder was politically motivated.  The Police claim is of course itself politically motivated as Muslims and the Left press hard for the likes of Mair to be classified as terrorists in order to allow them to say Muslims are not the only terrorists and therefore anti-terror actions and Press coverage should not concentrate on Muslims and Islam….attempting to close down anti-terror policies and censor the Press.

The BBC has no doubt Mair is a terrorist but remarkably, and commendably, the Guardian raises the question…

Should Thomas Mair be considered a terrorist?

There are arguments for and against, Mair may or may not be a terrorist….there is no proof he intended to ‘terrorise’ either us, the Public, or the political Establishment…rather, it was all very personal towards Jo Cox herself by Mair who was acting alone without any  outside direction or coercion to kill…

It has become a cliche question among race-rights campaigners (with whom I have common cause): “Why aren’t far-right crimes considered terrorism?” Such a common question that now, it seems, the police are changing tack and labelling Thomas Mair a terrorist (though not so much that they actually charged him with terrorism offences).

It’s certainly true that a narrow definition of terrorism as a “political act” would include Mair. But whatever one particular dictionary might say, there is no widely agreed definition of terrorism.

And while I don’t doubt that Mair’s motives were political, in the common understanding and usage of the term “terrorism”, more than this is required. Because, though he had far-right sympathies, it’s clear his actions weren’t supporting anyone’s agenda but his own.

To my knowledge there is no organisation that calls for the violent overthrow of the state, or for the killing of leftwing MPs. And though some eyewitnesses reported Mair shouting “Britain first” during his attack on Jo Cox, there’s no evidence he was acting for, or under the instruction of, the legal rightwing organisation of the same name.

The BBC naturally makes no mention of Mair’s well known mental health issues in contrast to how they instantly raise such issues for just about every Muslim terrorist.  Here’s the BBC’s only, and very disingenuous, comment on mental health in the Mair case in their write up...

The precise state of Mair’s mind at the time of the attack remains unclear.

He has largely refused to engage with the court process, including attempts to assess whether or not he is capable of standing trial on mental health grounds, or even to enter a plea of not guilty.

No mention that the day before he had sought help from a mental health service…as the Mail points out today…

Jo Cox’s killer sought help for mental health issues day before murder

The Guardian doesn’t like the fact that the Mail has a rounded story with all the facts…

(Although it’s worth noting that Mail Online again highlighted Mair’s mental health and thoughts of matricide rather than his extreme ideology.)

Actually the Mail does state quite clearly and at length in different articles Mair’s obsession with the Nazis and Far Right ideology…

Mair, 53, spent hours looking up information on the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organisations before brutally attacking the Labour MP in her hometown of Batley, West Yorkshire.

So the BBC at the same time as it makes excuses for a Muslim terrorist, who has done Allah knows what in Syria or Iraq, a BBC that so often claims mental health problems were the cause of ‘Muslim’ terrorism, makes a determined attempt to avoid noting Mair’s well documented issues and rapidly labels him a terrorist when that is up for debate technically and legally as even the Guardian accepts….’political motivation’ alone does not make him a terrorist.  He may well be a terrorist but he gave no indication that he intended to ‘terrorise’ others by killing Jo Cox and we would need to see all his communications with Cox to judge exactly what was going on between them.

It’s not just some sections of the Press that raise the mental health issue…it’s one for the legal profession…

Why was no medical evidence called on the state of Mair’s mental health?

The prosecution would have had no interest in proving that he was insane, or that his responsibility was diminished as a result of mental health problems.

Why then did the defence not call any such evidence? Insanity or, more realistically, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, provided the only remotely plausible escape route from a life sentence. So why did the jury not hear from any psychiatrist? There are quite a number of explanations: perhaps Mair had refused to co-operate with the preparation of any such report. Perhaps he had co-operated but the psychiatrists had agreed that he was entirely sane and not suffering from any relevant mental health problems.

Even though the defence did not run any form of “psychiatric” defence, it is likely that before he is sentenced the judge will want to give some consideration to his mental health

So, in light of other widespread comment, you have to ask why the BBC fails to comment on this and use it as an excuse when it is so ready to do so for Muslim killers?