Triple Whammy

 

 

This is number heavy and involves a bit of reading…but it’s worth some effort as it is a classic example of the BBC either being lazy and incompetent and/or deliberately missing out relevant facts when it suits them.

 

The BBC are happy to ‘fly a kite’ or two with speculative ‘reports’  that present a negative image of any one of a number of BBC bête noires based on what ‘someone’ claims…usually a Labour MP, a charity worker or a community leader.

The intent?  To keep an idea afloat, to keep it continually in the background of people’s minds even when there is little to no evidence to prove it conclusively…perhaps the suggestion that ‘racism’ is behind  every bad experience for a black person or that every social ill can be linked to Tory policies, especially Austerity…or failing that a quick double take and we’re back to the eighties and the fall back cause of all the world’s woes is of course Thatcher.

 

Yesterday we had three classics:

Demand for food banks has increased hugely…..due to welfare cuts.

A Labour MP states that a constituent may commit suicide because of the welfare cuts.

A black cafe owner claims customers won’t eat at her cafe because she is black.

 

 

All given headline treatment but you could argue all stories that are baseless…at least on the terms the BBC wants to portray them.

 

Just look at one…suicide rates…..I’ll note this here first, that the figures given below indicate a fall in the suicide rate per 100,000 of the population….the BBC reports a rise in overall numbers but without that all important qualification…..amongst others that it also conveniently misses out.

The BBC et al became very indignant when arsonist Mick Philpotts, and his benefits funded lifestyle (£60,000/year), was used as the poster child for Tory suggestions that welfare might need to be reformed.  The BBC were more than happy to label the Tories as heartless monsters politicising a tragedy linking welfare reform to the killing of Philpott’s children…which of course the Tories never did…a highly politicised invention of the ‘Left’….but no one said anything about that exploitation.  

All that indignation at alleged politicisation and exploitation of personal tragedy gets thrown  overboard when the BBC scents Tory blood.  They are more than happy to link the personal tragedy of suicide to Tory Austerity policies….such as they are.

 

Here the BBC makes it clear the importance of how this is presented:

Tragedies such as the one that befell Stephanie Bottrill have the potential to cut clean to the heart of a debate that has the potential to intensify still further.

 

In this recent article the BBC takes a press release, likes the cut of its jib and slots it into its own world view of the economy…for which it is a perfect fit:

Will the age of austerity harm health?

It starts off with the usual anti-Thatcher rhetoric (Not the only BBC reporter to try and make the link…Mark Easton blamed a rise in depression on Thatcher…and of course Thatcher’s ‘Big Bang’ was the ‘real cause’ of Gordon Brown’s economic crash):

Sandwell, like many areas that were heavily reliant on manufacturing, was hit hard by the recession of the 1980s……But it has only been over the past few years that the impact on the health of the local population has been fully felt.

A host of areas badly affected by the 1980s downturn can point to a similar impact.

It is further proof that economic hardship is bad for health.

 

Then we get onto the figures for suicides….the numbers are rising…due to austerity the BBC tells us:

The problems could be further compounded by cuts to the welfare system.  The charity Mind has drawn attention to research just published by Manchester University.  It shows that the number of suicides among mental health patients rose from 1,175 to 1,333 last year.

 

The figures are taken from a 2013 report by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide

Here is a video on YouTube from the NCI which explains some of the findings….one of which I repeat here:

That rise is unexplained…though it coincides with a rise in suicides in the general population which most people have related to the difficult economic circumstances at the moment.

So..the rise is ‘unexplained‘….though ‘attributed’ by others, not the NCI, to the state of the economy.

 Here are some of the reports actual findings and explanations:

Our figure for suicide by patients shows a rise in 2011. This figure should be interpreted cautiously as it is a provisional figure based on incomplete data.

 

So the BBC reports as fact a ‘provisional figure based on incomplete data’.

 

The BBC also reports:

Prof John Ashton, the new president of the Faculty of Public Health, believes we need to heed the warning.

“Young people have been the hardest hit this time,” he says.

 

But the NCI says:

Suicides in patients aged under 25 and those aged 25-44 fell in the report period. A rise in 2011 is projected for most age-groups but not in those aged under 25.

 

 

And why have the figures risen anyway?  Is it purely a result of more people committing suicide or what?

The NCI says:

Suicide by mental health patients has risen – 1,333 deaths in 2011 (England). A change to the coding of causes of death has contributed to this figure and changes to the Mental Health Minimum Dataset (MHMDS) method make comparisons with earlier years difficult but it is likely that this is a true rise in patient suicide, following a previous fall. The rise probably reflects the rise in suicide in the general population, which has been attributed to current economic difficulties.

 When the Tories claimed knife crime was rising under Labour Mark Easton jumped in very quickly to claim that the figures couldn’t be compared to previous years…as the methodolgy for collecting them had changed…no such scruples here for the BBC….no qualification that the figures may have risen, at least in part, due to a new ‘coding method’…..as the NCI goes on to reveal:

Prior to 2011, some narrative verdicts were coded as accidental deaths where intent was not specified which may have led to an underestimation of suicide. However, in 2011 guidance was issued to coroners in England and Wales when returning narrative verdicts to provide clearer information on the intent of the deceased. This has led to improvements to the coding of narrative verdicts by the ONS coding team, and some cases which would previously be coded as accidental may now be coded as suicide.

 

 

What other inconvenient ‘facts’ might we find if we actually read the report?

 

First there is the same report by the NCI but from 2012:

In 2000 there were 4,819 suicides, in 2010 there were 4,021.

The report tells us that there was an average change in the general suicide rate in England between 2000 and 2010 of around minus 20%…that’s a drop of 20%.

For people with mental health issues who committed suicide in 2004 the figure was 1,317 and in 2011 1,333……..so at the height of Labour’s boom we had a very similar suicide rate.

So it must be austerity…right?  And remember the population was lower in 2004…hence…

 

The NCI report in 2013 claims that the suicide rate per 100,000 people with mental health issues was in:

2004  117.7

2010  91.7

2011  87.8

 

So in fact the rate of suicides has gone down…though the numbers have gone up…the population having grown enormously since 2004.

 

Here are some charts of the general suicide rates and the rates for mental health patients in England…note differences in the figures in the two reports (2012 and 2013)…which should be the same:

 

 suidice patient 2012

 

suicide patients fig 1 2013

 

 

Here are the figures for the general population:

 

 suicide figs 2012

 

suicide figs 1

BBC Salivating Over Possible Race Riots?

Yes, I know that’s a bit over the top, and I’m deliberately phrasing it as a question because I’m not categorically stating that’s what they’re doing over the possible result of George Zimmerman’s trial. But it sure seems that way. Having said that, let’s all note that this is the first BBC mention of the trial since just before it actually started. They’ve been absolutely silent about the trial the entire time it’s been going on, and it’s not difficult to suspect their silence has something to do with the fact that most of the testimony – from both sides – has discredited the case for the prosecution. BBC reporting on the incident before the trial has been dishonest, misleading, and has censored key facts in order to lead their audience to the approved thought: Zimmerman killed an innocent boy from a distance, in cold blood, due to racism and racial profiling, and Trayvon Martin was murdered simply for what we call “Walking While Black”. Let’s also remember that the BBC tried to stoke racial tensions with their World Have Your Say segment in which they encouraged discussion about how the US is essentially run by white supremacists, with a legal system driven by white supremacists. They did everything in their power to suggest to the audience that Zimmerman remained free initially due to a racist State, again misleading the audience to the desired thought. After five-plus years of Beeboids in the US finding racists under the bed and telling you that opposition to the President has racist underpinnings, the Narrative is all but assured.

Now that it’s pretty much over, bar the closing statements, and a verdict is coming soon, the BBC can resume normal operations. Notice that they continue to use the “undated family photo” of a smiling, angelic, pubescent Martin, instead of the more updated photos Martin himself posted on Facebook. This is a deliberate editorial choice to lead the reader in a specific direction. If they had shown the more recent photos of Martin in a hoodie, with the golden “grill”, the gun, etc., that might prejudice the reader into thinking maybe the lad was a possible troublemaker. What’s particularly galling about this editorial decision – for that’s what it is, the photo didn’t come up randomly – is that the mere fact that Martin had grown into being a bit of a troublemaker, and was all about the gangsta act, absolutely shouldn’t make anyone think he had it coming. Yet the BBC News Online geniuses decided that they didn’t want to portray Martin as anything other than in the best light possible. It’s only natural to wonder if someone with thuggish tendencies would start the fight, which is why the BBC kept all this from you. This is dishonest, and a failure of journalism. Of course, BBC journalism on this story has been a failure from start to finish.

Reminders of the BBC’s failure can be read here, here, and here. Note especially how the BBC has censored the fact of the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman from all reporting – except for one article. This physical altercation is the key to the entire case, as Zimmerman’s defense is that Martin was beating the crap out of him and then, when he noticed Zimmerman’s holstered gun, made a reach for it. It was then that Zimmerman grabbed his gun and shot Martin. This should be included in every single report about the case, from start to finish, because it’s the single most important element on which the jury will base their verdict. If one doesn’t know about this very close physical contact – and BBC audiences who blinked and missed the lone mention don’t know about it, as its been deliberately kept from them in nearly all reporting – then the entire case looks dramatically different from reality. Even though the BBC didn’t mention the fight once, I think they got away with it as they’ve never mentioned Zimmerman’s testimony that Martin was reaching for his (Zimmerman’s) gun, which would then make a clear case for self defense. An acquittal would seem like a sham of a travesty of a joke. Which would then mean that BBC audiences would not only be unsurprised at a resulting race riot, but would be inclined to understand and support the outrage. I think that’s the goal of BBC News producers and journalists here: to direct their audience to a specific opinion on the case.

As far as I’ve been able to determine, the BBC has never reported on Zimmerman’s history of fighting against racism, or his efforts in support of blacks. Nor have they every made mention of Martin’s checkered recent past. Can’t have those inconvenient truths interfere with the Narrative.

The  way the BBC opens the report betrays their agenda:

Florida officials have appealed for calm as the trial of a neighbourhood watchman who shot dead an unarmed black teenager enters its final phase.

“Unarmed”. This is “accurate”, but at no time does the report mention the physical altercation between the two. The BBC is once again censoring the most important fact of the case, and it’s important to call them on it. This makes it all the more bizarre for the BBC to then mention further down that both Martin’s and Zimmerman’s mothers said that the screams heard on a recording were their own son’s. Why was anyone screaming? Without the key fact of the fight, this is a non sequitur. Expecting the reader to remember the one mention of the fight from two weeks ago doesn’t work. Just in case anyone might possibly start edging toward an unapproved thought, the BBC makes sure to tell you that Martin’s mother was “absolutely” certain it was Trayvon. Wasn’t Zimmerman’s mother also sure? I guess the BBC thought her opinion was not as relevant because she didn’t qualify it with such a strong word. By elevating one mother over the other, the result is that the BBC guides you once again towards the desired conclusion that Martin was completely innocent, and that Zimmerman was possibly beating the crap out of him before drawing his gun and murdering the lad in cold blood. They reinforce the notion of Zimmerman’s complete guilt by informing everyone that the prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman killed Martin “because he wanted to”. Again, without the knowledge of the physical contact – especially about Zimmerman’s repeated testimony that Martin was reaching for his (Zimmerman’s) holstered gun – people already inclined to believe the racist Narrative – which the BBC encouraged – will draw the desired conclusion.

It’s entirely possible that the BBC journalists who put this together believe in their hearts that Zimmerman is a racist who killed an innocent boy in cold blood. But that’s no excuse to censor the most important fact of the case, or to emphasize one side’s argument over the other.

In actual fact, the only racist remarks made were by Trayvon Martin to his girlfriend moments before the incident. He referred to  Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker”. This was all over the news after her testimony in the trial, yet the BBC censored it, as they have everything else during the trial. So BBC audiences have no idea about reality, and know only the dishonest Narrative forced on them by BBC journalists. As it became increasingly clear that the racism angle was a non-starter in the trial, Martin’s own family made a public statement that it wasn’t about racism. Yet the BBC kept that from you, and are now wringing their hands over a potential race riot in the event of an acquittal, because, well, that’s been the Narrative from their friends and acquaintances and thought leaders in the US mainstream media, as well as their friends and acquaintances and thought leaders in the far-Left blogosphere.

Just in case anyone doubts where the BBC’s sympathies lie, just look at the one report which mentions the fight. As always, we get the angelic photo of Martin, plus a sympathetic picture of Martin’s mother wiping tears from her eyes. Of course everyone is going to feel sorry for her, feel her pain. It’s still manipulative for the BBC to juxtapose that with the angelic, smiling image instead of the more recent and relevant thug shots. The BBC has also censored the recent news that the judge blocked from the trial a load of texts from Martin about learning to fight, how he could sucker punch somebody, and getting a gun. Again, this might make Martin seem less than angelic, and possibly responsible for his own actions and starting the physical altercation. It might lead the BBC audience to suspect that this wasn’t a cold-blooded racist murder after all, so they left it out. They know about it because even the Guardian made a brief mention.

John Anderson in the open threads has been keeping us apprised of the craziness of this trial, including how even prosecution witnesses end up supporting Zimmerman’s case. A couple of examples here, here. and here. The BBC certainly doesn’t want you to know any of that, and it’s not included in this report, either. So BBC audiences will have absolutely no idea why Zimmerman might be acquitted, if that’s what happens. There’s a reason the prosecution has demanded, and the judge has in one case allowed, that the jury consider lesser charges instead of the one they brought. Their case is a disaster, and they’re desperately trying to get a conviction on something, anything. But BBC audiences don’t know about the reality, so this news of a lesser charge being introduced must seem very curious indeed.

Quite simply, you cannot trust BBC reporting on this story. And it’s because of the personal ideological biases and prejudices of BBC journalists.

The ‘Get Out ‘ Clause

 

 

 

Nigel Farage stated that the BBC used him as a ‘get out’ clause…they have had him on a show…therefore that proves they are not anti-UKIP or pro Europe….box ticked.

He also said this:

Sure, there may have been criticisms about its abject failure to report the rise of Euroscepticism or reflect the public’s concerns about immigration in the past. But now the BBC is, it tells us, “pleased our coverage has been deemed ‘remarkable’ and ‘impressive'”.

 

Unfortunately for the BBC, and those who have to pay the licence fee and all those extraordinary wages nowt has changed.

 

On Thursday Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph wrote this:

The Europhile CBI continues to be wrong about almost everything

 

Friday morning in ‘Wake Up To Money’ , entirely by coincidence I’m sure, we had the CBI’s Katja Hall on to be given free rein to promote European integration…we must not leave!  The BBC fed her the questions and she fed us the Party line.

 Katja Hall, Chief policy director fo the CBI, who previoulsy….

Prior to joining the CBI, Katja worked at the BBC on employee relations, change management and reward.

Like minds eh?

A small world…even smaller if they get their way and submerge all the nations under the EU empire’s jack boot.

So that’s Europe being dealt with with a renewed vigour and transparency by the BBC.

 

As for immigration…well Victoria Derbyshire leapt into action to repair the wrongful impression that the BBC is in any way pro-mass immigration and will examine seriously and in depth the issues that arise from such policies. 

Last week there was a Home Office report which suggests half the population of England and Wales has felt the impact of immigration…Derbyshire is apparently basing her investigation upon the concerns raised in that report.

So what did we get from the BBC?

 

Off the BBC trekked to darkest Birmingham where we had a white Brit on….who was…er…pro immigration.

Then more voices…..

We were told that government measures alienate immigrants.

Immigrants do jobs lazy Britons won’t.

There is no recognition of the contribution made by immigrants.

Immigrants are ‘ghettoised’…not by choice…they’d love to be out there amongst the natives.

Oh yes….Birmingham is under pressure not because of the mass immigration but because of the government cuts….says the BBC reporter.

Then onto darkest Wales…..we are told there may be some concerns about integration…but just give it time, it will get better.

 

Then 5 minutes from the end we finally got a sceptic….though moderately so….his main concern is that he can’t get his kids into the school of his choice…but….you have to look at both sides and not look for scapegoats.

 

So, yes, the BBC has mentioned immigration…but not exactly the penetrating investigation of the sometimes devastating effects that mass immigration has on a community….nearly all the voices were pro immigration and seemed more concerned with the effects on immigrants themselves, which was hardly the point of the government report.

 

Still, the BBC has ticked another box, ‘The Get Out’ clause is up and running.

 

‘Remarkable and impressive’ coverage indeed.

 

 

 

Too Much Of A Good Thing

 

You have to despair.

 Mary Bousted, general secretary

Dr Mary Bousted is general secretary of ATL.  She was being interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on Monday  (11 mins) about Gove’s new curriculum proposals…..strangely before he had announced them…and she admitted she hadn’t read them yet in ‘their entirety’.

This is why she opposes the new curriculum:

‘The proposals will be riddled with knowledge and lack skills and understanding.’

Shocking…that schools should be expected to impart ‘knowledge’.

Child abuse surely!

Derbyshire didn’t bat an eyelid and carried on as if such a daft comment had never been made….which is about par for the course for teacher union reps. on the BBC.

Dr Bousted is also very concerned about fractions for 5 year olds…and the time scale for introduction of the new proposals…and about some ‘snippets’ she had heard.  The prospect for classroom chaos really is real she tells us.

Derbyshire asks if there is that much difference between the old and the new curriculum.

Bousted says: ‘We don’t know yet…we have to see the curriculum in its entirety.

 

Complete waste of time…..how can you get sensible comments when the person commenting hasn’t read the available proposals yet and doesn’t know what else will be announced ( and is ideologically in complete opposition to anything a Tory  minister proposes)…..the BBC could and should have waited…Gove was to announce the new curriculum in the afternoon.

 

Not What You Know But Who You Know

 

From The Commentator:

Baroness Tonge has spearheaded an appeal on behalf of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, claiming that the BBC is biased in favour of Israel! Laugh or cry?

 

The BBC has been having meetings with representatives of the PSC to discuss ‘BBC bias’…pro Israel bias that is.

 In the UK, BBC News reaches 81% of the total news audience. This is a massive figure but, unfortunately, the news this audience is receiving on the Israeli occupation is far from balanced and not always accurate.
PSC’s Chair, Hugh Lanning, has met with senior BBC executives, including the previous Head of News and Current Affairs, to put the case for better and fairer coverage directly to top management….It’s important work.

  

Will the BBC reveal what the PSC said…..and more importantly will the BBC reveal what the BBC said and intends to do, if anything, to accommodate the PSC’s demands?

If such representations have some effect upon BBC news output should there not also have been a balancing representation from the ‘other side’?  Was there one?  Perhaps the BBC could enlighten us.

 

‘BBC Watch goes into further detail:

Who has the ear of ‘senior BBC executives’? 

Of course one presumes that – in the interests of transparency – the BBC will take care to inform those licence fee-payers with somewhat less of an open channel to BBC senior management about the outcome of its tête-à-tête with a representative of supporters and enablers of a terrorist organization designated by the British government.

 

Murdoch, Lies And Video Tape

Last week Channel 4 had a ‘big scoop’…Murdoch on tape saying the police investigation into phone hacking was a crock and he would support any journalist who was convicted.

A stunning piece of journalism making astounding revelations.

The BBC must have thought so because this story was one of the headlines on all its news bulletins that day…..tone of voice was all as they relayed to us that Murdoch would support his journalists even if jailed… they managed to convey that this was somehow a reprehensible way of acting by Murdoch.  

Justin Webb though rather let the cat out of the bag, (08:43) and revealed more than he intended when talking to Steve Hewlett from R4’s Media Show about this. (Not  a sympathetic analysis by Hewlett…but he is BBC/Guardian….so perhaps not the most impartial person to be interviewed on this subject really…especially by another BBCer)

Murdoch said that this was the biggest inquiry ever into next to nothing…..

This is from Spiked magazine ‘This is the criminalisation of journalism’:

The police operation against tabloid journalists now exploded into the biggest in criminal history. Last year, deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, who was then running the three investigations, told a committee of MPs that the operations were likely to last three more years, involving almost 200 officers at an estimated cost of £40million.

 

Webb suggests that:

‘There’ll be people outside The Sun who think that Murdoch’s got a point….he said at one stage that people have been paying the police for information for donkey’s years and we didn’t invent it, and actually he’s right isn’t he?’

 

What does that reveal?   That the BBC, of course, knew all along that this was an anti-Murdoch purge and had nothing to do with ‘media standards’ or the police…..or indeed ‘phone hacking’ as a technique per se…as used by various other organisations such as companies and law firms.

This was political and the BBC was part of the attack.

Neil Wallis, ex Murdoch man, says:

‘This will have vast repercussions for journalism’, says Wallis. ‘The oppressive left wants to crush journalism that it doesn’t approve of. It will stultify and terrify a lot of journalism. Whether they like it or not, the tabloid press does an important job informing and entertaining millions of people. The Guardian and the Independent are not going to do that. The BBC is certainly not going to do it. And that’s bad for democracy.’

 

Other than this piece by Webb I haven’t heard anything on the BBC that takes a look at the phone hacking affair from such an angle…that Murdoch is the victim of a Left wing pogrom, and hung out to dry by those who used to stand side by side with him.

Bad for democracy?

The politicians have made a pact with the ‘devil’….they think they neutered Murdoch and have the BBC on their side….but the result is that the Press has been enraged and as you may have noticed the politicians have been under constant attack from papers that previously they counted on as ‘onside’…..and all they have to defend them now is the BBC and the Guardian…..good luck with that Mr Cameron.

MISSING THE NEWS

One of the things that strikes me about the BBC coverage of the Egyptian unrest is its reluctance to report the sheer savagery of the Muslim Brotherhood supporters or “Pro Morsi” to use the BBC preferred euphemism. When it comes to appalling videos like this and threatening incidents like this, the world class BBC journalists seem to have fallen asleep.  Their entire meme has been thrown into chaos and they seem to struggle to keep up with the story. Perhaps images like this unsettle them – on the wrong side of history yet again, BBC?

6a00d8341c60bf53ef0192abd17e5b970d-300x194

‘Popular British Culture’

 

The BBC undoubtedly thought this was a good pro Muslim story….I might suggest it was the opposite….far from showing Muslims ‘integrating’ it shows a distinct lack of will to do so and in fact shows that Muslims expect British society to adapt to them not the other way round…..you might even suggest that it was fairly disturbing that Islam is presented in such a positive one sided fashion in a Western democratic society….and that British children are being dragged into Islamic culture by stealth….and the BBC hopes this will ensure they ‘accept’ Islam as ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’.

 

Perhaps someone might like to point out the difference between these two images:

11   di-canio-fascist

 

 Why is one wrong and the other OK?

What is the difference between Islam and Fascism? When you read what the Koran instructs its followers to do you have to ask if that is any more acceptable than Fascism?

Would the BBC be just as pleased to see children giving a Fascist salute on the playing fields of Newcastle?

 

Some are already typing away…’How dare you etc etc…!!!’

But what’s the difference?  Define Islamic ideology and then define Fascism.   If you accept that Islamists are the  Islamic extremists then you have to accept the Nazis were the extremists of the Fascist movement…and you cannot tar all Fascists with the same ‘extremist’ brush….there are different levels of Fascism just as with Islam…as practised anyway….ideally there is only one ‘perfect’ Islam…as laid down by the Koran….you cannot have different versions or sects within Islam…hence Shia/ Sunni/ Ahmadi conflicts….fundamentalist Wahhabism is probably the ‘True Path’:

‘Do not divide your religion into sects, each exulting its own doctrines.’ 30:31

 

Perhaps the BBC might do better to show us this use of football pitches by Islamic practitioners…a woman being shot for ‘adultery’…which could of course just be a case of ‘unproven’ rape…if you can’t prove you were raped you must have been committing adultery under sharia law:

adultery-lower

 

 

The BBC are pleased that British children are copying Islamic practices and making them part of ‘popular British culture’:

Premier League: How Muslims are changing English football culture

Children playing football in the parks of Newcastle have even been spotted falling to their knees as if in prayer themselves after scoring a goal.

They may not completely understand what it means, but it’s a sign that Muslim practices are becoming a more familiar part of popular British culture.

 

Interesting that last line….’They may not completely understand what it means…’

Perhaps if they, or their parents,  read the Koran they might get a better idea…do you want your kids to be taught this…the word of God…perfect in its Koranic recitation taught up and down the country, day in day out,  in Mosques, madrassas, faith schools and homes?:

 

‘The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.’ 98:6 

‘Believers take neither Jews nor Christians for your friend.’ 5:51

‘Some among us are Muslims and some wrongdoers. Those that embrace Islam pursue the right path.’ 72:14

Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them.’ 66:9

‘Believers do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of God.’ 60:13

‘God loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice.’ 61:4

‘Believers do not make friends with those who are enemies of Mine and yours.’ 60:1

‘Have faith in God and his Apostle, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons.’ 61:10

‘The true believers are those that have faith in God and His Apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and their persons in the cause of God. Such are those whose faith is true.’ 49:15

‘Do not divide your religion into sects, each exulting its own doctrines.’ 30:31

‘You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they embrace Islam. If you prove obedient, God will reward you. But if you run away, as you have done before this, He will inflict upon you a stern chastisement.’ 48:16

‘Those that fight for Our cause We will surely guide to Our own paths. Surely God is righteous.’ 29:69

‘Permission is hereby given to take up arms to those who are attacked.’ 22:39

‘We will surely punish the schismatics, who have broken up the scriptures into separate parts, believing some and denying others.’ 15:90

‘Believers make war on the infidels who dwell around you.’ 9:123

‘God has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of God, they will slay and be slain.’ 9.111

‘Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them.’ 9:73

‘If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men.’ 9:39

‘Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.’ 9:41

‘Fight against such of those to whom the scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.’ 9:29

‘Believers, know that the pagans are unclean. Let them not approach the sacred Mosque after this year is ended.’ 9:27

‘Believers do not befriend your fathers or your brothers if they choose unbelief in preference to the Faith. Wrongdoers are those who befriend them.’ 9:23

‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them everywhere.’ 9:5

‘Prophet rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, the shall vanquish two hundred and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.’ 8:65

‘A prophet may not take captives until he has fought and triumphed in the land.’ 8:67

‘The unbelievers give aid and comfort to each other. If you fail to do likewise, there will be disorder in the land and great corruption.’ 8:73

‘Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.’ 8:39

‘Have nothing to do with those who have split up their religion into sects.’ 6:159

‘You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ 5:82

‘They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ 5:72

‘They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god other than One God.’ 5:73

‘Believers, take not for friends and protectors the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a diversion.’ 5:57

‘Say: People of the Book, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and to others before, and because you are evil doers?’ 5:59

‘Believers take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends.’ 5:51

‘Unbelievers are those who declare: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ 5:17

‘Believers choose not the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends.’ 4:144

‘If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.’ 4:89

‘The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of the devil.’ 4:76

‘Believers do not make friends with any but your own people.’ 3:118

Had the People of the Book accepted the Faith, it would have been better for them, Some are true believers but most are evil doers.’ 3:110

‘He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will surely be among the losers.’ 3:85

‘Let not the believers make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful.’ 3:28 

‘The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.’ 3:19

‘To those who were given the scriptures and to the Gentiles say: ‘Will you submit to God? If they become Muslims they shall be rightly guided; if they pay no heed your only duty is to convey the message.’ 3:20

‘Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell.’ 3:12

‘Fighting is obligatory for you though you dislike it.’ 2:216

‘Fight for the sake of God those who fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed.’ 2:190

‘Fight them until there is no more idolatry and God’s religion reigns supreme.’ 2:193

‘Believers retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed.’ 2:178

‘Do not marry unbelieving women, until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do but beckon you to the Fire.’   2:221

 

 

 

Quite a list huh?  And every word from the Holy Koran.  And that’s not all of it…there’s much more in the Koran, not to mention the Hadiths.

What is it that the BBC finds so attractive about an ideology that teaches  children those thoughts and ideas?

People will jump in and say…context!…it’s all about context…those quotes are from a different time..they can now be disregarded.

 

Really?  The Koran is the perfect, unchangeable word of God….timeless and universal.  It is meant to guide you whenever and wherever.  To claim that parts of it can be randomly disregarded is false….the Koran tells you that you must accept the whole of its teachings.

If ‘context’ means you can disregard parts of it then in reality you can disregard the whole of it as it was created 1400 years ago in a time, place and culture that bares absolutely no relationship to modern Western society.

 

You cannot ‘reform’ the Koran, you cannot reinterpret the Koran and thereby change its meaning.

The Koran is what it is, it is what it says it is…..and therefore has to be taken at face value and read with that in mind.

 

Which begs the question….why is such an ideology deemed acceptable to be taught to impressionable youngsters?

 

In a time before everything became ‘relative’ and values meant something Islam was viewed in a completely different light by the Great and the Good:

In Of the Standard of Taste, an essay by David Hume, the Quran is described as an “absurd performance” of a “pretended prophet” who lacked “a just sentiment of morals.” Attending to the narration, Hume says, “we shall soon find, that [Muhammad] bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.”

 

Richard Dawkins believes that teaching any religion to children is a form of child abuse.…terrifying them with visons of hell and damnation and brainwashing them so that they believe those not of their religion are sinners or evil, unclean people….psychologically damaging them for life.

 

Standpoint magazine suggests that it is time that the likes of the BBC stop producing pro Muslim propaganda that hides the true nature of the beast and start a full on honest debate about the consequences of having Islam increasingly dominate proceedings in this country:

Census That Revealed a Troubling Future

Over the last decade the number of Muslims rose from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. These are the official figures. Illegal immigrants make the real numbers far higher.

Despite being hard to digest in a year, the census story passed over in a couple of days. But this is not an ephemeral story. It is an account of our recent past, our immediate present and a glimpse into a troubling future. Perhaps we passed over it so quickly because few people can bear this much reality

Successive governments of all parties have spent decades putting off any real discussion of this ….We also have a media class which has largely supported this state of defeatism. Instead of addressing concerns, politicians and press rarely bother, preferring to throw expressions of rage back at the public as surely as Gordon Brown did to Mrs Gillian Duffy of Rochdale. This is done — as reaction to the census confirmed — not only in accusations of “racism” and “bigotry” against ordinary people, but in a series of deflecting tactics which have become the replacement mechanism for action. These — all identifiable in the wake of the recent census — start with perhaps the most galling of all: “Get over it!”

For what it is worth, it seems to me that the vindictiveness with which the concerns of white British people, and the white working and middle class in particular, have been met by politicians and pundits alike is a phenomenon in need of serious and swift attention.

……were not the voices that everybody wanted to dismiss, in the final analysis, the only ones which were right?

 

 

 

Perhaps a perusal of this list of attacks might make you think again about the ‘religion of peace’….note  how many women are killed for ‘immorality’, how many Christians, how many Muslims who converted to Christianity, how many Shias killed for not being Sunni, or Sunnis killed for not being Shias.

 

2012.01.24NorwayHaugesund Two ex-Muslim converts to Christianity are stabbed by three attackers shouting ‘kuffar’ (unbeliever).

 

2012.02.02 Pakistan Rajanpur A woman and her neighbor are murdered by her stepson on suspicion of sexual activity.

 

2012.02.03 Pakistan Basti Damraywala A woman and her two daughters are shot to death by her sons for having ‘loose morals’.

 

2012.12.24 Germany Bonn  Islamic extremists slash the tongue of an Indian student who refused their offer to embrace Islam.
2012.12.31 Syria Ras al-Ayn A pregnant Christian woman is left widowed after her husband is beheaded by Islamic radicals and fed to dogs