Trust High in Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews.

What…you didn’t get that impression listening to the BBC all day?

No nor did I.  In fact I didn’t hear those groups mentioned once….which is strange because you would think that the BBC would ‘celebrate’ that.

 Instead we had an entirely negative story…and a unique interpetation of it, an interpretation which absolved the guilty and passed the judgement instead on those who had critical views of the ‘guilty’s’ behaviour, views which the BBC found unacceptable…rather than condemning those who behaved in a way that the Public find unacceptable.

What we had was the BBC pandering to the usual Muslim grievance industry carpet baggers….the pan handlers who come up with a figure for ‘Islamophobia’ and stretch out a hand for government money to help ‘further research’.

What I heard was the BBC telling us that in its poll of 18 to 24 year olds they found out that Muslims were perceived in a negative fashion by 60% of the poll…this the BBC obviously thought was as a result not of Muslim actions, but due to ignorance and prejudice on the part of the British Public.

However the BBC could have told us that only 29% believed Asians as a group were viewed negatively……. what wasn’t emphasised was that 43% of those polled trusted Muslims, 55% trusted Asians and 62% trusted Christians.

Hold the frontpage! 

What else didn’t the BBC dwell on?

Who else is viewed negatively…almost to the same extent as Muslims at 53%….Roma/travellers and East Europeans…and teenagers at 56%….again no mention from the BBC on 5live.

Strange that all the BBC wanted to talk about  was Muslims.

 The poll was commissioned by Radio One and its webpage provides a fuller explanation of the findings…but still concentrates on the obvious:

Quarter of young British people ‘do not trust Muslims’

Listening to 5Live you would never have found out about the wider aspects of the poll.

What was the question asked that the BBC concentrated on?

‘Generally speaking do you think that each of the following groups of people have a positive or negative image among the British population at present.’

It should be noted that this poll was taken a couple of weeks after the death of Lee Rigby…something not mentioned on the radio….something which could well have had an effect on the outcome of the poll.

What’s wrong with that question?

The problem is that it means nothing on its own…so you find out that 60% of those polled think Muslims have a negative image in Britain….but then what? There’s no attempt to find out why that negative image is so prevalent….and bear in mind that the negative image might not be held by those polled..it is merely asking what they think other people think….odd when you think about that.

You could conclude that was the BBC’s thinking…not to investigate those reasons allows the BBC to speculate and interpret the data in its own way and to impose its own narrative on why Muslims are distrusted or ‘hated’.

The BBC brings in the usual ‘Muslim expert’ who spouts the usual drivel…racism, discrimination, the Media demonising Muslims, lack of understanding and failure of the majority to integrate and interact with Muslims.

We had one on Victoria Derbyshire’s show today discussing this…his solution….Muslims must interact with the population….er…by living their faith amongst us, bringing the knowledge to the unbeliever…showing us how wonderful Islam is.

In other words what we need is more Islam….once we get to know it we will love it.

Unfortunately most people know it all too well…and don’t like what they see.

What about racism or the Media, are they the cause of negative  views of Islam?

43% trust Muslims, 27% don’t.

40% don’t trust Roma/Travellers.

55% trust Asians, 16% don’t.

62% trust Christians, 12% don’t.

So Christians and Asians get almost the same trust rating….In other words…it can’t be race that drives the negative perceptions of Muslims.   What about the Media? 

Clearly the evidence points to the fact that how people are perceived, how much they are trusted, depends entirely on how they act.

The poll shows that Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews all have a very similar image and trust rating despite being as ‘foreign’ as Muslims….they all have around 16% negative ratings…far below the 60% for Muslims…and there is a reason for that.

Blow up things, terrorize people, cause untold trouble and you will appear in the newspapers and on the TV.

It is your own fault, nothing to do with skin colour.

For the BBC to adopt the narrative that critics of Islam are merely ignorant, prejudiced and full of hate is a complete reversal of the facts……just who is it that is prejudiced, ignorant and full of hate for ‘the other’?

The BBC tells us that A report submitted to the Leveson inquiry into press standards last year concluded there was “a serious and systemic problem of racist, anti-Muslim reporting within sections of the British media”.

But it was a Muslim group that supplied that ‘report’.  If you don’t want to be in the Media or on the front page don’t behave in a way that will get you there.

What Muslims seem to want is a complete blackout of any reporting of any Muslim behaviour that could be viewed negatively…perhaps Miliband will cap media coverage….and the BBC seem to be pushing that narrative.

What is really needed is new thinking…instead of tackling ‘Islamophobia’ the Great and the Good should be tackling Muslim attitudes, beliefs and values, closing down the Faith schools and madrassas that promote separation and hatred and investigating the Mosques that continue to allow the preaching of fundamentalist beliefs.

58% believed terrorism was the biggest threat to the UK.

At the end of the poll there was a section on immigration, the results were as you might suspect..and again ignored by the BBC.

66% believed immigration increased community tensions.

47% believed that such tension would lead to race riots.

57% wanted less immigration.

53% believed it led to higher unemployment.

47% says immigration leads to higher crime.

Nicky Cambpell asks…..The Kenyan massacre….Why would British people be involved?

…and…he asks…What can we do to stop them getting involved in Islamic radicalism?

The problem is that the BBC doesn’t recognise the problem…..an immediate one being these fundamentalists probably don’t consider themselves ‘British’…until they come to claim benefits or housing of course.

For example this morning we had this from Peter Taylor, the BBC’s expert on Islamic terror…sorry militancy…says that the Islamic ‘duty to fight Jihad’ is a ‘false interpretation of the Quran.’

Until  the truth of that ‘duty to fight Jihad’ is accepted and recognised there will never be a solution to the problem.

Campbell has on ‘expert’ and ex-radical Usama Hasan from the Quilliam Foundation who blames radicalisation on racism, alienation and exclusion from society….he was radicalised himself as a student….very excluded then.  Campbell takes every word that Hasan has to say as ‘gospel’, the definitive version of things. 

Campbell says of course Hasan may have been radicalised by verses in the Quran urging killing of the unbeliever when he was younger…but naturally he now knows the proper context for those verses.

Campbell himself knowing a lot about Islam…calling Wahabis … Wasabis.

Hasan unfortunately gives us the ‘old lie’ that Muslims trot out to defend their religion against charges of being the Religion of the Sword claiming Islam says that:

That anyone who kills another it will be as if they kill all mankind.

Except the verse that supposedly comes  from (5:32) doesn’t say that….at least in relation to Muslims.  It says it as a command for the ‘Children of Israel’:

‘We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind…’

So immediately any Muslim who uses that mis-quote can be dismissed as a dissembler….someone not to be trusted…Mehdi Hasan likes to use the quote…so there you go…another BBC favourite ‘expert’ on Islam.

Perhaps the BBC should have asked Manzoor Moghal rather than the usual suspects for guidance:

Veils, segregated schools and why we risk sowing the seeds of Islamic terror in Britain

We should not pretend that the loud-voiced grievances of the jihadists throughout the world have a shred of justification. The focus of their supposed victimhood varies — they blame anything from American foreign policy to the plight of the Palestinians — but their real aim is the same. 

They want to establish a Muslim caliphate across the world, where Islam and sharia law reign supreme. In this religious empire, there is no room for dissent or democracy, no space for compromise or conciliation.

My great worry is that, if the British authorities continue to allow the Islamic hardliners to have their way in the name of choice when it comes to segregating boys from girls in schools, or sharia courts, or insisting that women should be allowed to wear veils in all circumstances, then those hardliners will feel they are pushing at an open door. 

We must, sadly, accept that there are people in our midst who want to see a hardline Islamist caliphate in Britain. And while the security and intelligence services are nothing less than heroic in their fight against Islamic extremists, continuing to foil terror plots on a regular basis, our civic institutions have in contrast been far too cowardly in their reluctance to challenge fundamentalism.

The shocking slaughter in Nairobi is the true face of Islamic fundamentalism. And we in Britain should never appease such a mentality.

Unfortunately the likes of Nicky Campbell are all too ready to appease and explain away radicalisation, fundamentalism and terror as a result of racism or foreign policy or a misinterpretation of the Quran.

 Time to see the light before we go back to the Dark Ages.

List sent to terror chief aligns peaceful Muslim groups with terrorist ideology

• Quilliam Foundation’s list ‘not for public disclosure’
• File for counter-terror boss branded ‘McCarthyite’

 A secret list prepared for a top British security official accuses peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists. The list was drawn up for Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), a directorate of the Home Office. Farr is a former senior intelligence officer.

Ahead of time and all set to go, a new OPEN THREAD.

Red in tooth and claw, what is your view of the BBC coverage of that Miliband speech?

The McBride Of Frownenstein

John Pienaar told us that Victoria Derbyshire was so hard Damien McBride would be quaking in his boots in an upcoming interview.

Derbyshire opened the interview with a quote from McBride:

‘It was just me being a cruel vindictive thoughtless bastard.’

…and then asked him where, on a scale of bastards, would he put himself.

However that was about as ‘hard’ as the interview got…McBride far from quaking in his boots walked all over Derbyshire and gave a good account of himself.

Whether anyone believes a word of it of course is a different thing altogether but he made everything very plausible…so much so that the BBC now ‘excuse’ his actions in news bulletins saying he was ‘in a battle’.

Janet Daley in the Telegraph says he also made mincemeat of Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight:

McBride gets the better of Paxman: is there a lesson here?

Plenty of opprobrium for serialising his book in the ‘Tory’ Daily Mail….both from Derbyshire and Labour critics……one saying Alastair Campbell didn’t take Mail’s money for his book….but of course he did take the BBC’s, who serialised his book and employed him on an almost permanent basis:

 From Iain Dale (wrestler):

How the BBC Is Saying ‘Sorry’ to Alastair Campbell

Damian Thompson in the Telegraph thinks there is quite a lot in ‘a name’:

Kenya terror attack: disgracefully, the BBC still won’t call these murderers ‘terrorists’

I suppose it is hard to quantify exactly what constitutes a ‘terrorist’.

A group which kills 61 people, deliberately selecting non-Mulsims, and then apparently burning off their faces and cutting off their hands to prevent identification, may have justifiable political aims or pressing social grievances against the ‘system’ that may explain their actions.

To call them terrorists is to adopt a narrative that is judgemental, one based upon a Western notion of right and wrong.  We cannot impose our Western values and reasoning upon other cultures.

Nor can we impose them upon the Labour Party.

The BBC in contrast to its ‘ethical’ stance on the labelling of terrorists is quite happy to adopt the Labour narrative about the spare bedroom subsidy….or as Labour calls it, the Bedroom Tax.

The BBC seems to have decided to get around any checks on its use of politically nuanced language by just adding ‘as Labour calls it’ to any mention of the ‘Bedroom Tax’.

Miliband has made a speech.  Without notes the BBC notes. 

The BBC seem rather in awe of Miliband’s speech.

Perhaps John Pienaar’s description of Miliband as ‘Bold and statesman like’ should have warned us of the attitude the BBC would strike in relation to this.

 The Telegraph by contrast has a much more critical stance, some positive but mostly negative about the content of the speech.

Miliband’s decision to cap fuel prices (somehow) has struck a chord and looks like a winner for the BBC.

No mention of course that fuel prices are rising because of the ruinous green taxes imposed by legistlation enacted by…Ed Miliband.

This report of the speech seems more like a press release from Labour than a critical look at the policies or lack of policies and substance on show from Miliband:

Ed Miliband: Labour would freeze energy prices

This from James Landale is even worse,  all too ready to explain Miliband’s side of the argument without any critical thoughts on it:

Labour: Could energy pledge power Miliband to victory?

This quote from Landale shows which side he is on perhaps:

‘As he [Miliband] said, the rising tide doesn’t lift all boats, just the yachts.’

Really?  I don’t think so.

Perhaps this encounter with Alastair Campbell helped Landale align his thinking [Godfrey Bloom must be thinking life is so unfair]:

This rather curious piece of work from Landale might inform us of his own attitude towards Europe and whether we should stay or go:

IF… (a verse for David Cameron)

If you can talk with sceptics and keep us in the EU

Or walk with Europe’s kings – nor lose the Commons touch,

If you can stop your party dividing between In and Out

and genuinely settle the European question,

If you can keep the British people onside

and not go down in history as the man who took Britain out of the EU,

Yours is the next election, Dave, and everything that’s in it,

And – which is more – you’ll have won, my son!

Miliband seems to have been given a bit of a free pass by the BBC commentators, at least on the website….just as they gave him when he decided that there was ‘no evidence’ to indicate Unite’s guilt in Falkirk…the BBC telling us Unite is exonerated…when in fact the evidence was ‘withdrawn’ rather than not existing….and that doesn’t explain all the other documented examples, much of which implicated Miliband himself knowing what was going on, especially in regard to MEP candidates.

Victoria Derbyshire has on Bishop Nazir Ali (11:54) to talk about attacks on Christians…all going well until he mentioned Egypt when Derbyshire said:

‘Some might quibble…some argue that Muslims are now being targeted and that’s as bad as any other religious group being targeted.’

She goes on to mention that the Taliban claim that the attack on the church in Pakistan was in retaliation for American drone strikes….how does that explain attacks on Christians in Egypt or anywhere else?

Muslims being targeted in Egypt?  Well a political party is being targeted, the Muslim Brotherhood…one which bases its policies on the teachings of the Koran but it is a political party none the less….and of course the Army is ‘Muslim’ so it is a strange comparison from Derbyshire.

Also consider that when bombs went off in the UK the Muslims that carried out the attack were labelled ‘political’, ‘extremists’, and essentially not Muslims.

Yet now the highly political and extremist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are to be considered normal, everyday ‘Muslims’.

It seems now that your normal, non political Muslim isn’t really a Muslim, not a proper one in the BBC’s eyes…but the extremist Muslim Brotherhood are the true believers.

And on another topic….Derbyshire is interviewing Damien McBride tomorrow (Tuesday)….John Pienaar reckons if McBride thinks he’s ‘hard’ then he might have to think again….sounds like an interesting interview.

  Ed Balls today made a joke about Cameron and his beach towel then went on to hide his own embarrassment at Labour’s 13 years of destruction with a load of old flannel.

The BBC’s reaction to all that is going on with Labour at the moment?  Well…not too bad as I saw it….at least in parts.

John Pienaar was his usual Labour leaning self, in my opinion…with little in the way of hard hitting analysis of Balls’ speech.

This morning on Today Justin Webb had the job of tackling Balls. (07:35)  The interview was on the moderate side with no questions that Balls couldn’t easily bat aside.  Humphrys should really have done the interview, his style of interviewing would have rattled Balls far more.

Webb allowed Balls to get away with a lot of  that ‘flannel’.

For instance Balls said that the Socialism that Labour represented was not ‘economic socialism’..it was about values, policies with an ethical basis..fairness.  Webb didn’t challenge that claim that it wasn’t the economics of socialism that was being taken up once again by Labour.

Webb said that Labour were going to spend more but hadn’t laid out the ‘big picture’ of what cuts they would make and what actual plans they had.

Balls replied Labour would match the government’s spending plan but make different choices within that budget.

In contradiction to that, and his request to the OBR to scrutinize his plans,  he said the budget plans would only be published in the 2015 manifesto.

Webb didn’t react to either point…the first means that Balls has adopted Osborne’s Plan A…and the second point raises the question of just what would the OBR be looking at if Labour’s budget isn’t published until 2015…Balls has after all spent 3 years steadfastly refusing to disclose his spending plans whilst making claims that his spending plans would save the economy….and yet he always said he couldn’t publish the plans because he didn’t have the data…so how could he work out that plan in the first place?

The reliably awkward Andrew Neil however proved more hard hitting than Webb on the Daily Politics.….though the BBC have once again dragged in someone from the New Economic Foundation….she panned Labour…but only because they weren’t really socialist enough.

At 08:22  the Today programme delved into the murky world of Damien McBride who has lifted the lid to confirm what we already knew about the mad, bad and ugly goings on in Labour’s backrooms.

It seems also to have stirred the BBC into action…whilst they are reluctant to criticise Brown for his economic policies they apparently have no problem here slating him for his political machinations….and it seems apparent that Brown knew all too well what was going on and even ignored complaints from MPs and Cabinet members.

Later on Woman’s Hour brought on Harriet Harman and again the BBC laid into Brown in regard to McBride’s revelations with some reasonably challenging questions.  However once that little difficulty was out of the way it was all sisterly love and unity….eulogising about Harman’s feminist sensibilities.

Harman complained about the lack of women in Parliament….stating that the problem with Thatcher was that yes, she was a woman PM, but she did little to help women to enter Parliament and that Thatcher got to be PM by the shocking tactic of playing men at their own game…..whatever that means….is there a separate and different route reserved for women…bikinis and baking competitions rather than the trouble of having to win at the ballot box?

Harman was allowed to avoid answering the obvious question…she could have been Labour Leader and possibly PM if she had gone for the leadership, but she refused to take on the challenge.  How is it that a champion of women’s progress and someone who says she wants more women in higher profile jobs refused to put herself in the role that could have helped with that…apparently…if, as she claims, Thatcher could have helped women, why did she not take on the responsibility herself?

And no questions about her casting aside her feminist solidarity when it came to refusing to accept an all woman candidate list in a constituency her husband wanted to stand in.

All in all a mixed bag today….they were on the right track but the heart didn’t seem to be in it for the most part, lacking a bit of the necessary brutality when dealing with Labour’s politicians and policies…..a brutality necessary because whilst Balls made the hilariously unaware claim (having spent 3 years denying Labour had anything to do with the greatest economic crash in 100 years…and still denying it in his speech today) that Osborne can’t airbrush out the economic past, Balls and his Labour comrades are all wandering around the studios saying that McBride’s allegations are all things dragged up from the past, irrelevant, depressing, and you know what, let’s not talk about it.

The one thing that you can be certain about is that Roger Harrabin is an unapologetic cheer-leader for the AGW mob.

“Scientists are more certain than ever that greenhouse gases from human activities are heating the planet, the head of the UN’s climate panel says. Rajendra Pachauri made the comments in an interview with BBC News. The panel is due to deliver its latest report on the state of the climate later this week in Stockholm, Sweden.”