Seen this?

“Lancashire Police have “condemned” a “misleading” report by the BBC, claiming a ten-year-old Muslim boy’s family had been investigated after he accidentally wrote that he lived in a “terrorist” house in his homework, when he meant “terraced”.

The police said there were genuine concerns about the boys “safety”, which “the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story”, however the BBC’s version of events was picked up by every mainstream news outlet in the UK, and seized upon by Islamists and opponents of the government’s new anti-terror laws.

“The level of debate about this story today is not warranted given the facts and misrepresents the role of all the agencies involved”, the police said.

The original report by BBC Asian Network claimed that police “over reacted to an innocent mistake”. It was based around a brief statement from police, simply stating they had investigated, and lengthy interviews with sympathetic family members.The family denied all wrongdoing, claimed that incident had arisen from a spelling error in a boy’s  homework, and that the unfortunate incident had left the boy “traumatised”. The BBC did little to question this account.”

Friday arrives and so does a new Open Thread to see us off into the sunny uplands of the weekend! Here you go, DETAIL the bias as you see it.

I notice the BBC are running a programme entitled “Trump and the politics of paranoia” – not that they are in way biased against Trump and are slavish media whores for Hillary Clinton.

So no one knew what was going on and no one can be held responsible.

Senior figures from the BBC are “very likely” to be called before MPs to explain whether changes were made in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal. Jesse Norman said the culture select committee, which he chairs, “needed to be satisfied the culture has changed”. The report into cases of sexual abuse by the former BBC presenter is set to criticise the corporation, according to a leaked draft.  BBC chief Lord Hall said lessons would be learned from a “dark chapter”.

Wonder could that happen today inside the BBC? Questions on a post card.

At LAST. The BBC finds a Conservative that it can like.

His name? Crispin Blunt.

A Conservative MP has told the House of Commons he is a user of the popper recreational drug and a ban on its supply would be “fantastically stupid”. Ex-minister Crispin Blunt said users of the drug were “astonished” by talk of a ban and respect for the law “would fly out of the window” if it happened. Supplying the drug, which is popular with gay men, could be outlawed under the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

And WHY is this drug so popular?

“It is reported to have short-lived effects on sexual experience, specifically that they may make an orgasm feel like it lasts longer; may make an erection feel stronger (although some men have trouble getting an erection after sniffing poppers); and may make it easier for some people to have anal sex by helping to relax the anal sphincter muscles.”

Yip. I can see why the BBC like this Blunt.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to see following its misreporting in the case of the ten year old ‘terrorist’.….the BBC moved straight in and tried to use the case as evidence to prove the ineffectiveness of the anti-terrorism Prevent programme….something the Muslim ‘radicals’ are desperate to neutralise…..did the MCB feed the BBC the story of the schoolboy in the knowledge that the BBC is a willing accomplice when it comes to publishing stories about Muslims ‘under siege, alienated and marginalised’ and that it would be more than happy to help undermine the anti-terrorism programme?

This report is no longer available from the BBC…….

404 – Page not found

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy

By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

• 20 January 2016
• From the section UK

A police investigation into a 10-year-old Muslim schoolboy who wrote that he lived in a “terrorist house” when he meant “terraced house” is the latest in a series of incidents that have raised questions about schools’ obligations to prevent radicalisation.

The relatively new duty on public bodies to prevent people being drawn into terrorism sounds simple in theory, but critics say it’s already proving to be incredibly problematic.

The government’s view is simple: the duty is about protecting people from harm – and schools should come up with guidance that meets the reasonable expectations of the law, just as they must already do to combat sexual or physical abuse.

If a teacher comes across suspected evidence of radicalisation, they must refer it to a senior figure in the school responsible for pupil safety and wellbeing.

They, in turn, must decide whether the matter needs to be referred up to the local authority which chairs a multi-agency team looking at potential cases of extremism. That referral could lead to a visit from the police.

Little experience

Some schools are confident they have come up with plans to identify and confront radicalisation – but have they got the balance right?

One London family is already trying to bring legal action after their son was questioned about the Islamic State militant group. He had talked about “ecoterrorism” in a classroom debate about environmental activism.

The measures have also caused huge controversy in universities. Many of them fought fiercely against the proposals in Parliament, arguing that they would breach free speech and academic inquiry.

Months after the measures were implemented, Staffordshire University apologised to one of its own students, who is studying security and terrorism, after he was questioned about reading a related academic text.

So the advice on the “Prevent duty” – and how to implement it – is entirely new territory for many teachers, lecturers, social workers and educationalists who have little experience of radicalisation and terrorism.

Ministers believe that, given the right support and training, teachers and others can get it right.

But critics – and there are many – say that the “Prevent duty” being applied in education is already causing serious harm to individuals who are being viewed with suspicion.

 

A police spokesman added later “The BBC reporter had been given the context surrounding the incident by both Lancashire council and the police, as well as guidance to make sure that the story would not be “sensationalised or reported differently to how it was brought to us”.

 

I was going to write a post praising the BBC for their balanced reporting on the issue, if it is an issue, of the ten year old Muslim schoolboy who was waterboarded by the security services recently…according to Muslim pressure groups.

An exaggeration but only just…the MCB doesn’t hold back on its anti-Prevent rhetoric.

This morning on the Today programme (07:50) the BBC took a look at the case of the schoolboy who was allegedly mistaken for a potential extremist because of a spelling mistake.  [surprised the boy wasn’t carted off by the food police for admitting to a liking for pizza (answer 6…his favourite food is pizza)]

The programme was balanced and nuanced and gave Kalsoom Bashir, co-director of the anti-extremism charity Inspire and who works in connection with the Prevent programme, a fair hearing in which we heard the justification for Prevent and what actually happened in this case and what the real cause of concern was….that in a creative writing exercise the boy had written that his uncle beat him.

Now, I was going to praise the BBC for this report but it turns out that this was merely a bit of humble pie on their part (not much of that going on over Savile and the leaked new report so far!…BBC not to blame)…the BBC were the cheerleaders for this false story and indeed it was the BBC being quoted by other news organisations, the Guardian of course…, and the Telegraph ….which is unfortunate because the BBC got it  wrong.

Police called at his home in Accrington, Lancashire, the following day and examined the family laptop, according to the BBC.

Did the BBC get the story wrong because it had been fed to them by the extremist MCB which has, along with other extremist groups, worked insidiously to neutralise the Prevent programme?….what better way than to feed news organisations sensationalised stories of Muslims ‘under attack’.  They know full well the BBC will lap them up….and it worked.  Now why would a Muslim organisation want to nobble a programme designed to prevent Muslim terrorism?

The BBC fell for this narrative by the MCB hook, line and sinker…here’s a report they hurried out in the wake of this story…

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy

Interesting….try the link to that story and you get this…

404 – Page not found

Yep…enter the report title into Google and you get this in the search result…

In the news

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy – BBC News

BBC News‎ – 1 day ago

The relatively new duty on public bodies to prevent people being drawn into terrorism …

However the link does not work.

The BBC are backpeddling furiously on this…..they have been caught out by Muslim propagandists….the reason for that is because they are so willing for such stories to be true.  As I have said a few times here the BBC’s uncritical cheerleading of Muslim extremists, like Moazzam Begg, is a deadly game that almost certainly will have serious consequences.

Here is the original BBC story about the schoolboy.…and here is the corrected version…

Police and crime commissioner Clive Grunshaw criticised the BBC reporting of the issue and said it had not been treated as a terror incident.

Mr Grunshaw said that other worrying issues were raised in the boy’s school work – not just the “terrorist” house line – and these were “reported through the appropriate channels”.

“In the event there was no further action needed, but if the school and police had not acted then they would have been failing in their duty to respond to concerns.”

The Independent reveals all…

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Lancashire, Clive Grunshaw, issued a damning statement on the way the story had been reported and said he had “written to the BBC”, which later updated its original article online.

“A report wrongly claimed a family was interrogated as potential terrorists due to a spelling error in a boy’s homework,” he said.

“The facts are that a young person disclosed a worrying issue in his school work – not just that he lived in a “terrorist house” – and this was reported through the appropriate channels and subsequently a visit was undertaken by a neighbourhood police officer and a social worker.”

He added: “In the event there was no further action needed, but if the school and police had not acted then they would have been failing in their duty to respond to concerns.”

Mr Grunshaw later tweeted that the BBC had “set the record straight”.

Thanks to Gunner in the comments for this link and damning statement….

A police spokesman added later “The BBC reporter had been given the context surrounding the incident by both Lancashire council and the police, as well as guidance to make sure that the story would not be “sensationalised or reported differently to how it was brought to us”.

What is also of interest is the reaction of the family and the MCB….there seems to be little connection to reality on any of their statements…and the MCB’s are the usual Muslim political manoeuvring using the Islamophobia card.

The father rather surprisingly, despite having been in the UK at least 10 years, doesn’t speak English….as the Telegraph reveals….

Speaking exclusively to The Telegraph through one of his sons, who acted as translator, the boy’s father said: “He [the 10-year-old boy] came from school very sick. When he came back the police arrived and said that the school said the he had been involved in terrorist activity.

I’m sure something was lost in translation…as it appears that it was social workers, no doubt accompanied by police officers, who visited the family.

Makes you wonder about all those stories of Islamophobia that the MCB et al peddle so assiduously and so loudly.

Still, good to know(?) the BBC is still biased and the BBC’s balanced, nuanced and informative reporting was just an aberration due to having been caught redhanded…..we’ll still be here tomorrow.

“I would advise us all to prepare a plan B.”

The Guardian, the Mail and the Telegraph all report this story….

Germany must soon close borders to refugees, transport minister tells Merkel

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s transport minister has urged her to prepare to close Germany’s borders to keep out refugees, arguing that Berlin must act alone if it cannot reach a Europe-wide deal.

Alexander Dobrindt said Germany could no longer show the world a “friendly face” – a phrase used by Merkel as refugees began arriving in Germany six months ago – and that if the number of new arrivals did not drop soon, Germany should act alone.

“I urgently advise: we must prepare ourselves for not being able to avoid border closures,” Dobrindt, a member of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), told the Muenchner Merkur newspaper.

The BBC have so far refrained from commenting…however as usual the BBC is eager to hear and report the views of the mothers of terrorists [Just as they interviewed the mother of a Palestinian suicide bomber but not the Israeli parents of his victims]…

Belgium’s jihadi mothers share their anguish

You can’t help thinking that this is a BBC counter to Cameron’s plan to give language lessons to Muslim women in what is clearly an Islamophobic attack upon Muslims….the BBC is telling us Muslim mothers hate extremism and ‘radicalisation’ and don’t need patronising white, Eton educated, politicians to tell them how to control their kids.

But are these mothers really interested in challenging the ideas and narrative of the Jihadis…or just in preventing thier kids from fighting the good fight?…after all many a British mother, who no doubt support democracy and freedom, don’t want their kids joining the Army and heading off to war.  Often they are at the centre of it themselves propagating the mentality that ends up with their offspring heading to Syria.

A while back the BBC brought us a report on the ‘Jan Trust’ which operated a Muslim mother’s anti-radicalisation union…..except it didn’t…what the mothers actually said was that their lovely kids were right to be angry about Syria, or rather the West’s lack of action against…ISIS?…no, Assad…and of course right to be angry about Israel…however the kids must express their anger in other ways not by bombs and bullets.  The BBC on the radio reported the words of the women as they were shown images of the war in Iraq and Israeli actions in Gaza….their reaction was to say ‘well no wonder our kids are radicalised…we would be too’…the BBC on its web report isn’t so honest in reporting their reaction…

Part of the course involves exposing them to the violent language and imagery used by extremist websites, with shocking results for some of them.

Ms Mughal’s interpreter, Rafaat, a Muslim mother herself, told of the horrified reactions when they first saw such pictures: “When the photographs were shown there was silence and all of sudden I could hear… wow, what’s happening?”

So Muslim mothers are still peddling the anti-West, anti-Israel Jihadi narrative and telling their kids it’s right to be angry…just don’t use violence…amd yet the BBC thinks this is an anti-radicalisation programme.     Then again it’s the same narrative that the BBC has been peddling since 9/11.  It’s all the West’s fault, it’s blowback.

The BBC is a relentless propagandist for unlimited immigration,prioritising those who demand the right to live here ahead of the rights of the local population. BBC Radio 4 Today has been leading with this story….

The front doors of houses used by asylum seekers are to be repainted, after claims they were targeted because nearly all of the doors were red. Asylum seekers in Middlesbrough told The Times eggs and stones had been thrown at their houses because the doors made them easy to identify. The immigration minister said he was “deeply concerned” about the issue.

It’s no longer adequate to provide free housing for illegal immigrants masquerading as asylum seekers, but now the decor of the accommodation must meet their high standards. This is deemed reasonable by the BBC and even worse the Government rolls with it.