Guest Who and George R have noticed a bit of BBC editing that completely alters a story.

In this report, on the main UK news page, about another BBC report, the BBC may give the reader the impression that sexual abuse of Sikh girls is carried out by those within that community…there is no mention of who the culprits might be…even the title is suggestive:

Is there a Sikh code of silence on sexual grooming?

This is the closest we get to an identity:

Inside Out has also discovered that groomers are actually exploiting the fact that Sikh families are less likely to report incidents of abuse.

The programme has spoken to one man who recently broke away from a grooming gang and is now campaigning for greater awareness of the problem.

He says there are groomers who specifically target Sikh girls because they feel they can get away with it.

They see Sikh girls as ‘easy targets’ because they know codes of honour mean the child will be too scared and ashamed to tell their parents about the abuse and “their parents would not even report it if they were to find out”.

Ironically at the end it says:

Some names have been changed to protect the identities of victims

It just forgets to mention that the identity of the guilty have been left off as well.

As an aside that is also interesting because it proves that there is a link between religious identity and the choice of victim.

However in the blurb for the actual programme that is reporting this there is a very definite culprit:

An Inside Out London special, uncovers the hidden scandal of sexual grooming of young Sikh girls by Muslim men.

Breaking their silence, they speak to Chris Rogers about their experiences at the hands of these predatory men and why justice is being denied to them by their own community and the police.

This follows on from the post about the identity of the arsonists at the Darul Uloom school…although presumably ‘white’, non-Muslim…as the head master said they were caught on CCTV…but we don’t know for certain as their identity has been kept under wraps for 3 months…..so we are left guessing and blaming the ‘usual suspects’

Here the BBC in one article is protecting the ‘Muslims’ whilst allowing the Sikh community to be tarred with suspicion because it is not made clear that the guilty are Muslims and not Sikhs.

When you start manipulating the news for your own political and social ends as the BBC so often does, there are always consequences…in this case Sikhs become victims twice over.

Praise due though for Inside Out for mentioning exactly who is doing what to whom.

Mark Mardell has had a sudden change of mind.

Obama’s decision to have a vote on Syria was a ‘canny, democratic move’ at one time quite recently.

Now…not so much:

If Congress doesn’t back him, it will be disastrous for the president.

His decision to call for a vote will look foolish and he would be left with an appalling choice.

Ignore the vote and enrage Congress and many Americans. Or don’t strike and live with John Kerry’s words that America will be weakened, petty dictators emboldened and history’s judgement harsh on America’s leaders.

So everything hangs on Obama winning the vote. But even if he does, the delay gives Assad more time to prepare for the blow.

The decision has left many commentators questioning his leadership and asking how Obama managed to box himself in.

This report today reminded me of something similar:

Five boys have been arrested after fire destroyed a school in Lancashire

Way back in June 5 boys were arrested suspected of committing arson at the Muslim Darul Uloom school.

They were supposed to reappear at the police station in August.

So far I haven’t seen anything about that…maybe I’ve missed it.  No doubt someone can enlighten me.

Considering the furore that erupted concerning this and other such events and the finger of blame being pointed at particular parties isn’t it about time we had a bit of clarity on who exactly committed this crime.

If it isn’t the party so accused we should know.  This is a highly political and sensitive issue and whislt the true culprits remain hidden from sight the blame is cast on a group that may be entirely innocent…or may not be….but it is highly convenient for other groups for the suspicion to rest on this group.

The BBC itself played a major role in casting suspicion on the EDL or the Far Right on the basis of, well, no ‘compelling evidence’ at all……it may well be them..or someone with similar views.  About time we knew either way and the suspicion that something is being hidden is stamped out.

  ‘At first it seemed like Armistice Day…..The resemblance soon passed, but it is peace, however high the price and whoever has had to pay it’

 It might seem churlish to express any doubts about the Munich agreement, given this tremendous outpouring of gratitude and relief. But doubts there are. Of course, having accepted, under enormous pressure, the terms of an agreement dismembering their country that they were not party to, the Czechs are none too happy about it: there have been massive protests in the streets of Prague.

The BBC has gone from hero worship of Ed Miliband after the vote on Syria to painting him a potential villain of the piece….or peace.

Nicky Campbell talking about Syria opened with the question: (08:12)

‘How many people are going to die now Ed Miliband has put the brakes on taking action over Syria?’

But such difficult questions seem beyond Victoria Derbyshire  who let Labour’s Chuka Umunna spout a stream of hypocritical dross without challenge  (10:40)….this is not so much ‘bias’ just outright bad journalism, a lack of awareness of issues, what is being said and what that means in the context of other events….and she misses out on a big hit against Labour and its hypocrisy in the vote on Syria.

It is reported that the government granted an export license for dual use chemicals that could be used to produce chemical weapons….these chemicals were not at the time banned by the EU for export.

The full details are as yet unknown, needless to say Labour are shouting loudly claiming the Government is being hypocritical for possibly allowing the export of such materials…..‘It beggars belief…reckless and negligent….the government has serious questions to answer.’

The ever bright and ‘with it’ Chuka told us that this was outrageous.  He tells us that the Joint Intelligence Committee had provided intelligence which proved that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons in the past….and that the production of these weapons may have been enabled by the government if the export had gone ahead…which it hadn’t.

Whoa …whoa there fella…..hang on…the JIC provided proof that chemical weapons had been used…which you now accept as ‘proof”?

Only a couple of days ago Labour was demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical weapons being used…and denying there was any…on which basis they refused to vote even for the  approval of the principle of military action.

So now Labour accepts chemical weapons were used and it has been proved.

Derbyshire didn’t pick that up at all…..surely a major point of interest for any journalist looking for a ‘scoop’?

The whole basis of Labour’s ‘principled’ stance in the vote was that there was no real evidence.  But it seems there was…..or good enough for them to accept it now when politically convenient.

Labour may claim it was looking solely at the use of chemical weapons on the 21st August but why is that different from its use before that?

Labour’s amendment to the vote stated that this qualification should be added to the government motion:

This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.

 “We’re just playing politics now”, said one formerly supportive shadow minister on Thursday afternoon.

The JIC said the regime used chemical weapons 14 times previous to the 21st  August…..why does Labour think that only the attack on the 21st August is the ‘red line’ that should precipitate action…but only if ‘proven’ to be by the regime?

Labour didn’t believe the JIC last week, why has it suddenly changed its mind?

After all this sounds pretty compelling to me, probably 100% certain of regime use of CW, and ‘highly likely’ it was the regime on the 21st August:

We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources.

We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.

There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.

Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August.

And note this…Miliband will also have been privy to the actual intelligence and not just the letter:

Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.

5Live  ‘Bringing you all the breaking news’

I was sorry to read of the death of Seamus Heaney but am no fan of his work. The BBC went into a paroxysm of activity, with Andrew Marr telling us this morning Heaney had been our greatest living writer! Talk about hyperbole. I have endured a stream of abuse from alleged Heaney fans for simply suggesting that IN MY OPINION, Heaney was dire. But that’s beside the point. What irritated me was the BBC 10 News on Friday evening repeatedly stated that Heaney was born in “County Derry”. There is NO such place. He was born in County Londonderry, the only name for that county. Why did the BBC feel the need to repeat Irish Republican slang? Can’t they be bothered to actually research what they say?

It’s funny, really. Obama is looking so far out of his depth on Syria that it is posing a problem for some of his BBC fan club. So, cue the bugle and send for Mark Mardell. Here’s Mark with the entirely neutral headline “Obama’s canny, democratic move”.  Canny in the sense that Obama is desperate to ensure he doesn’t take sole responsibility for doing that which he has argued for. When Cameron went to the Commons, the BBC portrayed it as weakness. When Obama scuttles to Congress, the BBC portray it as strength,

Was just about to fold up the tent and steal away for a beer by the riverside but I couldn’t let this lie:

Syria crisis: ‘Blair to blame for Cameron downfall’

From the journalist who exposed the Iraq War deceits, a searing indictment of MPs’ failure to act against Assad’s brutal regime from Andrew Gilligan

‘Scarred by the hubris and lies of their predecessors, the British and American leaders just did not want to get involved.’

In one respect Gilligan is correct…the Syria vote was a vote in  fact on the Iraq war and not Syria…however the finger of blame actually points at Gilligan himself, Humphrys and the BBC for totally changing, falsely in my opinion, Public perceptions and attitude towards the war and thence how politicians conducted that war and subsequently the one in Afghanistan…. essentially being afraid to commit men and resources, and the will power necessary to win those wars outright.

Gilligan goes on:

Hope no one’s been rudely cut off mid stream….here’s a fresh page to list the bias and other things of note and interest….

Listening to Nicky Campbell’s ‘Your Call’ (09:40)on Friday and was amused to hear Nicky leap to the defence of a beleaguered minority.

You can have a long diatribe about Obama and his red lines being to blame for violence in Syria, you can say the Rebels used the chemical weapons, you can say Rebels are creating martyrs, and Nicky won’t say a word, but when you say  Muslims are quite happy creating martyrs as they’re all going to heaven (09:43) Nicky leaps in to their defence….

‘That’s a bit of a generalisation, well a lot of a generalisation if I may say so…the whole martyrdom thing is highly contentious within Islam….[and quick change the subject!] let’s bring in Luke from Dorset.’

For anyone thinking of calling in to a Nicky Campbell show let me help you out with a bit of advice…..There are ‘Sunni Muslims’, ‘Shia Muslims’ and ‘Some Muslims’….there is no such overarching classification as ‘Muslims’.

 Though anyone who is white is racist….see BBC ‘Definitions’…under ethics…race.

The BBC is having to play catch up as their initial assessment of Miliband’s performance in regard to the vote over Syria was that he was the ‘architect of Camerons’ defeat’ and that he could now ‘walk tall’.….as Assad supporters fly the Union Jack in Damascus in celebration.

 The BBC’s two senior and important political reporters, Nick Robinson and John Humphrys,  got it wrong.

Apparently even the Labour Party is having doubts about Miliband’s actions:

Syrian crisis: Ed Miliband faces growing criticism from Labour ranks

Ed Miliband is facing mounting criticism from within his own party for his handling of the vote on Syria, amid fears that Labour’s approach has damaged Britain’s standing on the world stage.

And Quentin Letts in the Mail:

A slippery hypocrite no one can trust again

For Ed Miliband this week, it was not about peace. It was not about parliamentary sovereignty, the national interest, chemical-warfare treaties or our (possibly now knackered) ‘special relationship’ with Washington.

It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds after the Damascus suburbs gas attack. Murdered innocents? V. low on the Miliband priority list, they’d be.

Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage? That may sound harsh, but it is hard to see any other explanation for the Labour leader’s conduct during Thursday’s ‘war debate’ in the Commons.

The BBC did put a toe in the water on Newsnight on Friday and yesterday, Saturday, they were starting to take the issue more seriously with a discussion of how Miliband’s performance was being perceived.  Tony Livesey actually does a fair old job (08:36) investigating whether Miliband may appear ‘a villain’ eventually.

Amused to hear the presenter rolling his eyes at the Daily Mail headline (above)…‘Guess which paper this came from’.

Ironic because not the other week the author of that eye rolling worthy article, Quentin Letts, had a little series on the BBC, ‘What’s The Point Of….’

and look who else has been moonlighting at the awfully dreadful DailyMail:

Shocking, yes. But Churchill’s war speeches just made many Britons despair, says ANDREW MARR

 (More of which later…the quality and direction  of Marr’s ‘history’ under examination)

I suspect the BBC’s problem with the Mail is that they are rivals for the very same audience…5Live being the BBC’s very own broadcast version of the Mail….both going for the ‘shocking truth’ and trashy titbits whilst posing as respectable and worthy members of the community.

Interesting  clip from 5live on the vote as war photographer Paul Conway relates how the vote was recieved by the regime in Syria:

‘A great day for Syria, it makes us stronger’ (08:12)….Union Jacks were being flown in Damascus….the message is we’ve agreed ‘you can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons…and now chemical weapons are being used’ and if there is no response it gives the message that Assad can carry on killing at his leisure…and diplomatic efforts as put forward as the answer by Miliband are not the answer.