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”.


I’m sure you will be aware that Dutch politician Geert Wilders has posted a film critical of the Koran on the internet. The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. The 17-minute film was posted on video-sharing website LiveLeak. (It’s been posted over on my own blog as it all helps the general debate on the Religion of Peace AND Love.)

Now then, the BBC reports this but the BBC report itself is laced with all kinds of subtle poison. For example, if you read it you will note that the State Broadcaster cannot apparently find anyone to interview who is in FAVOUR of this film on the nature of Islam. Furthermore it immediately characterises Geert Wilders as “right-wing” however no other political comment is prefaced with such a description. Is anyone who opposes the advance of Islam a right-winger?

Now I don’t hold the BBC responsible for the cowardly Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende who disowns this questioning of Islam, but I do hold the BBC responsible for ensuring that the topic is covered by providing a range of views. However anyone who raises questions about the Koran and those who use it to justify their terrorist pathologies seems to be persona non gratia in Beebland.


Well what do you know? The BBC reports that a priest has been attacked in the grounds of his church, in what police described as a “faith-hate crime. Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was injured by two..ahem… Asian youths at the church, in Tower Hamlets, east London. Canon Ainsworth said a third youth watched as he suffered cuts, bruises and black eyes in the assault at the church of St George-in-the-East. The “youths” also jeered at the priest for being a churchman in the attack on Wednesday night, the Met Police said.

“Two Asian youths”? Oh, I see, that must be the same kind of “youths” who ran riot in the Banlieues of Paris. I think this is a patronising media euphemism for…. Muslims. When we see the media censoring itself we know something is very rotten in the State, broadcaster.

When I posted this story over on my own site. A Tangled Web, the point was made that the BBC are merely reporting what the Police said. That’s a fair point but surely it is up to the BBC to confront the reality that a Christian minister was attacked by two Muslim ouths and report it as such, no matter what precious sensibilities it offends?

UPDATE: Just a little more detail on this vicious attack, none of which is sourced from the BBC.

The Reverend Alan Green, Area Dean for Tower Hamlets, said it was the latest in a series of “faith hate” crimes in the borough. He said: “It was a nasty cowardly attack. There were several groups in the churchyard and two from one group attacked him and the other group came and helped him back to the house. “He was kicked and punched in the head as he lay on the ground, I believe that what was shouted was ‘you f***ing priest before they attacked him.

And then…Mr Allan Ramanoop, a member of the Parochial Church Council, said often parishioners were too scared to challenge the gangs. The Asian church member, who lives nearby, said: “I’ve been physically threatened and verbally abused on the steps of the church.
“On one occasion, youths shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here’.

“Should be a Mosque” …right, I think we have now now ruled out the Zoroastrians… so which group might this leave?


I was listening to an item on the BBC “Today” programme this morning concerning the missing children of Bradford. Essentially this relates to the disappearance of mostly teenage girls who it seems have been forced into marriages with Pakistan featuring heavily in the story as the destination for these unfortunates. However at no point did the BBC see fit to point out that this problem is one that is inextricably linked with British Muslims and instead it postures that “many minorities”could be involved. Yes, they could be, but they are not. The smug Keith Vaz was then interviewed and he was quick to point out that this should not be looked upon as a Muslim problem but a broader societal one. Rubbish. Could the BBC not find anybody who was prepared to come on-air and explain that forced marriages, like “honour” killings, are all part of the rich cultural tapestry that Islam has brought into the UK? Why does it shy away from stating the obvious? It KNOWS that many of these children are sent back to Pakistan and it KNOWS that this is part of Muslim family arrangements. Why can it not just state that?


We have already covered the story concerning how MP Sadiq Khan was “bugged” when he went to visit a senior Islamist terrorist suspect in prison. So you will know that the media, including the BBC, pathetically misrepresented what actually happened. It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged, and rightly so in my view. But the BBC peddles the line that it was poor Mr Khan who was under surveillance, even when the facts are to the contrary. One presumes that if even Ronald McDonald had dropped in for chinwag with Babar then he too would have had his conversation recorded. So, even after all of this, now come the BBC headline alleging that Khan was bugged twice, even though he hasn’t been bugged once! This headline is very misleading as the article itself makes it very clear that it was Ahmad who the security forces were monitoring. Is this just sloppy writing by whoever wrote the headline, or else is it a desire to use this headline to convey an impression, with the detail contradicting it buried deeper in the article?


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.


It’s always heartening when an Islamist terrorist warlord gets sent to paradise and the waiting 72 virgins a little ahead of schedule and so it is that the death of Imad Mughniyeh, who has died in a bombing in Damascus, is welcome news. Mughniyeh was a senior terrorist within Hezbollah, and his death has seen him eulogised him as a “jihadist” and as a “martyr” by those who hate Jews and Americans. This monster was involved in a series of bombings that took the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. And yet, the BBC headline describes him as a “top Hizbollah leader.” The BBC studiously avoids describing him as a terrorist because as we know that would be judgemental and that would never do. The BBC lets itself down by shying away from calling terrorists by their proper name. In failing in its’ duty to accurately describe Mughniyeh the BBC conveys spurious credibility on this evil man. It’s moral relativism and it is rampant in the BBC.


The BBC has long been a convenient echo chamber for left-wing propagandising over the war in Iraq. For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.” The talking heads were declaring that it was going to be “another Vietnam” scarely after our forces went in. Then we were told that Iraqis did not want our military there, that the Ba’athists were not really that bad , and that it was all doomed to be a quagmire anyway. I often thought that poor old Saddam must have had friends in the BBC such has been the outrageous revisionism of the Baghdad Butcher’s reign of terror. He got what he deserved of course and Iraq is the better place without Saddam and his thuggocracy. But of course we all know that Al Queda have declared this the front-line in their war on civilisation (Well, all of us except Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the “troops out” siren chorus) and so it is vital we prevail.

The US surge, so ably led by Gen Petraeus, has worked wonders over the past six months, to the evident chagrin of the “cut and run” brigade. But it is impossible to completely eliminate the sheer evil of Al Queda and this has become evident in the massacre that took place in Baghdad yesterday when the Jihadi used two women suffering from Down’s syndrome, getting them to wear explosive vests and then detonating them by remote control – causing carnage. The malign intent behind such an act is almost beyond words.

But I wonder why the BBC seems unable to accept that Al Queda would stoop so low? In their report of the massacre yesterday the BBC stated categorically that the two women used in this attack were mentally disabled. Today, I note that the BBC is now suggesting instead that “allegedly” two mentally disabled women carried out this. I was wondering if the BBC fear Al Queda sueing them? Why so coy?

I am also interested in the statement the BBC makes that these atrocities have “shattered” the “fragile peace”which has descended on Baghdad care of the actions of the US military and local Iraqi forces over the past six months or so. Obviously they have caused a temporary and understandable sense of horror but the truth is that Baghdad has been transformed by the Surge and there is no evidence that all of this has been lost despite these horrific Al Queda terror attacks. But to admit this runs contrary to the BBC “Quagmire” narrative and that is the problem. The BBC fails to define Al Queda as terrorists even as they conduct this sort of depraved act. If detonating women suffering from Down’s Syndrome is not terrorism, what is it? What stops the BBC accepting this?

The moral murk

From the pathetic (see below post) to the poignant. Joseph Loconte notes the frenzied way in which the BBC is campaigning for the release of its journalist Alan Johnston.

Naturally one feels a little of their desperation; we’ve seen far too many atrocities and needless deaths over recent years in the name of Islam and the Palestinians.

Quite whether almost daily Johnston-centred updates, pleas and reports from the BBC is a good use of telly-taxpayers money is a question almost indecent to mention, yet inevitable because the BBC is a state-sponsored organisation. One wouldn’t wish to be brought into it, but where one’s wallet is compelled, one is drawn afterwards.

There is also the question of the BBC’s closeness to Government, as HMG seeks to draw near and reason with Abu Qatada, a radical (terror enabler) believed to have close links to Al Qaeda, believed to have influence in the group holding Johnston. To what extent the BBC is using its influence to manoeuvre the Foreign Office- which funds the BBC world service – is as unclear as ever.

Loconte zeroes in on the words of Mark Thompson, BBC DG:

“Alan…is a brave, dedicated and humane journalist who was deeply committed to reporting events in Gaza to the wider world,”…“The people of Gaza are ill-served by kidnappings of this nature.” (highlight mine)

Loconte points out the strangeness of saying “kidnappings of this nature”, which implies that some kidnappings might be justified. Certainly such a distinction is in keeping with BBC moral equivocations over terrorism. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, just as any of your nuanced imams might say.

Two hand grenades; big news on the veils

The BBC seem to have hit a new low in Somalia with this report.

The two grenades going off which I mentioned in the heading seem to offer a figleaf of an excuse for reporting this incident, but the real focus of the article seems to be the outrageof Government troops opposing sharia apparel, namely the veil or niqab.

The real focus is here:

“The BBC’s Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says women were fearful of leaving their homes wearing veils on Wednesday morning.”

I think that to non-totalitarian understanding of the world, not tolerating the niqab in all circumstances may be a sign of many things- security concerns or concerns about social cohesion. Whereas the enforcement of the niqab (common in much of radical Islam) indicates one thing only: totalitarianism.

In this new world of BBC “balance”, however, an overtly political and intimidatory symbol should be allowed supposed equality in the news, along with the extremism and male supremacism which goes with it.