Well then, did you read the BBC’s report on the story concerning the owner of a hair salon being ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf? Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King’s Cross, central London. An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old’s claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination. During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal (with an onion in one hand?) that she was “devastated” that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist “due to my headscarf”. The £4000 was to salve her “hurt feelings.”

However the BBC IS disingenuous because the “interview” it repeatedly talks about in the 6th and 7th paragraph never happened. Noah was interviewed over the phone and turned down then not because of any headscarf (which Desrosiers was unaware of) but because she lives in Acton (North West London) and Desrosiers thought this too far from Kings Cross (North London). Subsequent to this, Noah pleaded to come in for a chat and to make her case. Desrosiers reluctantly agreed out of politeness and it’s this 15 minute chat which has wrongly been reported as an ‘interview’ when it was no such thing. Desrosiers again explained at this meeting that Noah lived too far away and then made her fatal error – she asked about the headscarf and BINGO. To repeat the BBC piece states: “The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.” Wrong. She was turned down, on the phone, before Desrosiers knew of any headscarf, because of where she lives. The BBC may delight at the news that a professional Muslim whinger gets more of our taxes in compensation for no good reason but that does not excuse them misrepresenting the facts of the matter.


Along with other eagle-eyed Biased BBC readers, I noted the BBC lead story at the moment which is entitled “Men planned explosions”. Mmm.. all sounds a bit vague, doesn’t it? I wonder why? Here’s a clue – the prosecutor said the men planned to inflict heavy casualties, “all in the name of Islam”.


You will recall that we discussed the story the other day of how an Anglican priest was viciously attacked by “asian youths” in Tower Hamlets in London. The BBC apologists that frequent this space immediately took issue with my suggestion that the “asian youths” were, in all likelihood, Muslims. They also cheered the BBC’s refusal to suggest that there may have been any Muslim involvement. But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”! Abdul Qayum, imam of the East London Mosque, also said: “Our congregation is united in condemnation. The imam described the attack as “cowardly and despicable.” Now naturally all condemnation of such brutality is welcome but isn’t it odd that whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to suggest that Muslims may have been the perpetrators of this violence, it provides a soap-box for Muslims to make clear that they oppose all such attacks. The thing is that this same East London Mosque hosted Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who refers to Jews as monkeys and pigs and in 2004 was denied entry into Canada. It also has Muhammad Abdul Bari, the guy who believes the UK should adopt Islamic arranged marriages, as chairman. Moderation incarnate.


I see that the BBC carry a report that the Liverpool teacher who was jailed in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, is preparing to start a new job at a school in China. Our loss, ahem, China’s gain? Gillian Gibbons was spared flogging but was sentenced to 15 days in custody after being convicted of insulting Islam. She was graciously pardoned after eight days by President Omar al-Bashir last December. Mrs Gibbons also said she had not ruled out working in a Muslim country again at some point. (Proving she never learns) The BBC report goes on to say that the divorced mother of two was freed after two British Muslim peers flew to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to champion her cause. Further, it states that her treatment caused international outrage, with British Muslim groups describing it as “excessive”. (Wonder what punishment they felt was “appropriate” for such a “crime”? )

The problem is that this report completely misleads as to precisely what Baroness Warsi and Lord Ahmed actually did when they met with the Islamic thugs who runs Sudan. It paints a picture of heroic British Muslim establishment figures, backed by well meaning “British Muslim groups” bravely securing the release of this foolish woman from Liverpool. Problem is, this is far removed from reality.

Let’s just remind ourselves that the publicity-craving Ahmed and Warsi grovelled to the Sudanese government, they apologised for so-called “misunderstandings” concerning the heinous crime of calling a Teddy bear “Mohammad,£ and their visit merely conveyed spurious credibility on the genocidal monsters that run Sudan. They also were curiously mute about the fact that this wicked regime has murdered hundreds of Christians, for example. One presumes murder is even worse than being up on a charge of offending Mighty Mo? But not a cheep from the intrepid pair on that. Nor did they go to into the fact that it was the same Shari’a law which 40% of British Muslims (plus the Archdhimmi of Canterbury) want to see introduced in the UK that created the circumstances that led to Gibbons being arrested in the first place! President Al-Bashir scored a propaganda coup through the lamentable actions of those such as Ahmed and Warsi and this BBC rewrite of history shall not pass.