Two of the BBC’s most important, powerful, influential and dangerous narratives are undermined by…the BBC.

The BBC has an orthodox narrative that the ‘institution’ follows on many subjects.  The presenters all casually assert the truth of that narrative and promote it without thought or insight, undoubtedly much of it handed to them from whatever central resource provides the material for their programmes….backed up by the presenter’s own prejudices and leanings which are all too often in  line with the left, progressive, ‘liberal’ worldview which centres around the West and white people being the enemy.

On climate change the BBC narrative has been driven by Roger Harrabin who has hijacked the BBC for his own purposes and thereby also had a huge effect in not, not, holding government to account when it drives forward with policies based upon that climate change theory that Harrabin promotes so assiduously with disastrous results such as Port Talbot steel works being driven out of business caused in major part by the rocketing cost of energy due to climate change taxes.

Harrabin enforces a strict control over the narrative that the BBC produces in its programming about climate change…that narrative being that climate change is man-made and the worst of that has happened since the 1950’s and that it is the West’s industrial revolution that was the catalyst for that change….and we therefore are guilty of that and must pay reparations to less developed countries.

That’s a very, very political narrative that serves the purposes of the Left who seek to undermine the West and pass power and economic success to anyone else, preferably not white.

But how true is Harrabin’s narrative?  Not true at all.

For a start he happily ignores other warm periods such as the Medieval, but also ignores the correlation between massive population rise and changing land use in developing countries that result in huge ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions since the 1950’s, one you would have to include if you were genuinely saying ‘man’ was to blame.

But more importantly as with much of the BBC his choice of when climate change began is merely the usual BBC folly of applying the ‘Justinian’s flea’ principle to history…..claiming that one moment in time and place is the cause of huge changes….all the ills of the UK starts with Thatcher, 1997 to 2010 are a blank in the BBC’s political history books, then in 2010 the terrors of Conservatism happen again…and all present day disasters can be traced back to the 2010 election…or Thatcher.  [As an aside here’s our old BBC chum Paul Mason, now freerange & deranged telling us how the failure of white boys to achieve in schools today was a Thatcherite conspiracy]

So did climate change, that is global warming, start with the industrial revolution?  Not according to a small video on the BBC which tells us that the world’s natural condition is to have no ice and that we were saved from another ice age by the development of farming in the Middle East 11,000 years ago or so.  The Arabs once again the cause of all the problems!  These two BBC videos explain the ice ages and how the present one was stopped in its tracks.

Professor Iain Stewart describes a new theory that the rise of farming about 11,000 years ago released enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to prevent the onset of another ice age.

So farming is the cause of global warming…farming developed by the ‘Arabs’ in the Fertile Crescent.  Only  have to quibble with the ‘new theory’……it’s been known a long time that farming changed the climate as forests were cut down and burnt and animals were domesticated and farmed in large herds….farming also allowed people to specialise in other skills and trades and to study and develop science..leading to the industrial revolution…not our fault then…blame the Arabs who now also sell us the evil oil that fuels the toxic industry that chokes the planet.

Wonder why Harrabin isn’t keen to push that narrative.

Anyway that’s a small couple of videos tucked away on the BBC website that no presenter will pay any attention to….they’ll still be merrily plugging the West is evil and we must all wear hairshirts to make up for it narrative.

And here’s another classic example….Jihadis, radicals and extremists…just what created them?  The West yet again, in particular the 2001 Afghanistan war and the 2003 Iraq War. Before those two wars the Muslim population in the UK was peaceable and integrated into UK life.

That’s the narrative we get day in day out from the BBC.  However anyone with the slightest knowledge of what has gone on in the UK will know that is an utterly false narrative that is intended to serve a political purpose….once again to blame the West and to excuse Muslim terrorism and to shut down criticism of the Muslim community and any exploration of the real meaning of the Koran and what its introduction to the UK society means.

Which might mean you are surprised when the BBC comes up with something like this today…

Masood Azhar: The man who brought jihad to Britain

Masood Azhar, today the head of one of Pakistan’s most violent militant groups, was once the VIP guest of Britain’s leading Islamic scholars. Why, asks Innes Bowen.

When one of the world’s most important jihadist leaders landed at Heathrow airport on 6 August 1993, a group of Islamic scholars from Britain’s largest mosque network was there to welcome him.

Within a few hours of his arrival he was giving the Friday sermon at Madina Mosque in Clapton, east London. His speech on the duty of jihad apparently moved some of the congregation to tears.

The most surprising engagement of the tour was the speech Azhar gave at what is arguably Britain’s most important Islamic institution – a boarding school and seminary in Lancashire known as Darul Uloom Bury. It is also home to Britain’s most important Islamic scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Motala.

According to the report of the trip, Azhar addressed the students and teachers, telling them that a substantial proportion of the Koran had been devoted to “killing for the sake of Allah” and that a substantial volume of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad were on the issue of jihad.

The story of Masood Azhar’s trip to Britain does not fit the narrative promoted by Muslim community leaders and security experts alike.

No kidding, and it doesn’t fit the narrative that the BBC has been pumping out in the ‘interests of community cohesion‘ [Though how excusing radicalisation and terrorism is in the interest of community cohesion is hard to fathom].

Why has the BBC suddenly decided to come clean about what is going on in the Muslim community and just when radicalisation began?  Have they sat down, perhaps with government liason, and realised they need to change that narrative and start to ask the awkward questions about Islam and radicalisation?  Will they ask if Islam is compatible with European society, and I mean ask properly and not to allow the likes of the MCB’s Ibrahim Mogra and the slick and sly Tariq Ramadan to blithely dismiss all concerns telling us how peaceful, tolerant and integrationist Islam is?

Will this be a one-off programme or is it the start of a BBC deradicalisation drive aimed at Muslims rather than the usual BBC policy of trying to persuade non-Muslims that they are the problem not Muslims or the Koran?  The likelihood is that this is a one-off that will be rapidly forgotten and the amiable, pleasant ‘useful idiots’ such as Peter Allen, Nicky Campbell and Adrian Chiles, amongst many others, will continue to blame terrorism on poverty, racism, marginalisation, single mothers, anything but where the real, root, cause originates…the ideology.

According to the report of the trip, Azhar addressed the students and teachers, telling them that a substantial proportion of the Koran had been devoted to “killing for the sake of Allah” and that a substantial volume of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad were on the issue of jihad.

Not a good day for the BBC.  Or, in other words, just another day for the BBC.

On the Today programme as someone from the RUSI,  Dr Karin von Hippel, came on to discuss Brussels and who said that ISIS’ success in recruiting lay in it’s image of ‘invincibility’…the BBC presenter asked if it wasn’t really the unfairness of the West’s attacks on IS targets that radicalised Muslims…The RUSI spokeswomen said  ‘I’m not sure I’d say that.’….the presenter’s ‘OK’ in response said so much in its tone of disappointment.  So, BBC, explain why attacking the Islamic State sponsors of terror can be seen as ‘unfair’ by your everyday Muslim?  Think such an attitude from Muslims might go a long way to explaining the real problem.

Frank Gardner blames the Belgium government for not being nice to Muslims for the fact that one terrorist was able to hide in Molenbeek…it showed, apparently, that the people were disaffected and alienated and so do not want to talk to the police.  Or…or it could show that they support the terrorists or at least their ideology if not the violence.

After the arrest of Abdeslam in Molenbeek there were reports of local youths attacking ­Belgian security forces. This was not simply because the police were in ‘their’ area, but because the authorities had taken away someone that some of them admired.

Then we had Nicky Campbell asking how we can stop radicalisation and the attacks.  Surely he should show more respect for the dead?  How dare he raise such a question as the blood is still being cleaned up from the attack sites?  How is it OK for Campbell to ask such questions about stemming the flow of Jihadi recruits but not for anyone from UKIP to do so?  Schengen is clearly a problem that enables terrorists to themselves move freely around Europe and to ship weapons around as well…the result of which we see repeatedly….and which the BBC prefers to blame on ‘unemployment’.

Adrian Chiles yesterday attacked UKIP for mentioning Schengen as a security risk...“This horrific act of terrorism shows that Schengen free movement and lax border controls are a threat to our security.”    I do not see any mention of the EU referendum despite Chiles himself continuously linking that statement to it.  Also odd he does not mention this…

Other parliamentarians took a different view to Ukip. Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope said he was in the European Parliament at the time of the explosion.

“[This attack] highlights need for pan European co-operation on counter terrorism,” he tweeted.

So it’s OK for a pro-EU Tory to promote closer EU co-operation without being accused of disrespecting the dead?

In fact Europe thinks the lack of border control is a problem…just not Schengen….’The European Union will tighten checks at external borders of the passport-free Schengen area, including for its own citizens who enjoy free movement within the bloc, to boost security after the attacks in Paris by armed militants.’  

Chiles today had a UKIP spokeperson on his show along with other politicians and he again raised the subject and he demanded she ‘disassociate herself from Nigel Farage’s comments’.…despite the fact that it wasn’t Farage who made the comment…and never mind that Farage had already made the link between terrorism and Schengen long ago…‘In December last year Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader, said that the “idealised Schengen area” had led to “the free movement of Kalashnikovs” around Europe’.. ..perhaps if people had listened then 34 people might still be alive.

Chiles later returned to the subject and again tried to attack the UKIP spokesperson by saying ‘they’re still pouring disinfectant on the blood in Brussels…just give it a bit of tme’.  Once again though the BBC man ignores the other side using Brussels to promote EU co-operation as the Labour and Libdem people weighed in attacking UKIP but then saying that it is ‘safer to stand together, we must not fracture Europe.’…Chiles himself ridiculously came up with the comparison that Europe gives us not only free movement of people but of information and intelligence…suggesting therefore it is safer to stay in Europe….so not only does he side with the pro-EU camp he also uses the Brussles attack to do so.  Hypocrits?  Whilst the blood is still being cleaned up?  Anyway he clearly hadn’t been following the news as the free flow of intelligence, the lack of, was being pinged as one of the major problems.

Here’s a BBC report attacking Farage and his comments…note what’s missing.  Apparently it is OK for Lord Hill, European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union to say no real problem with Europe….though he admits ‘”I think there are questions obviously about Schengen, how it’s operating. It needs to operate better.” ‘  So Farage is right.

The BBC reports ‘Former Conservative minister Peter Bottomley – who called at Prime Minister’s Questions for people to unite with “hope not hate” – has tabled a Commons motion saying Mr Farage’s comments “should be challenged within and outside his party”.’

Odd they miss this from former PM, Lord Howard…..EU fails to keep us safe, says Michael Howard: Tory peer says Schengen is like ‘hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe’ 

The BBC reports ‘Rob Wainright, a former director of Europol, said police co-operation across the EU had improved considerably over the past decade, with the European Arrest Warrant speeding up extradition procedures and the UK having access to the Schengen Information System – a network containing details of hundreds of thousands of wanted criminals and missing people.’ 

Odd no mention of this from Rob Wainwright: Isis: Up to 5,000 jihadists could be in Europe after returning from terror training camps abroad. 

Wainwright says ‘“Europe is currently facing its biggest terror threat in more than a decade,” he told Germany’s Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper’….and yet the BBC and pro-EU politicians want to hide that fact and silence those who want to secure the borders.  The BBC would rather we all die in terror attacks than admit any fault with the EU structures and the EU itself.

The BBC….anti-UKIP, pro-EU, pro-hiding difficult truths.  Just another day on the BBC.

Muslim terrorists strike again and for the BBC what is the real concern?  The victims….not the ones killed and injured, not their relatives, but those who bombed Belgium, those who provided the narrative that encouraged and incited those bombers.

Nicky Campbell was straight off the mark with talk of  a ‘disaffected’ community in Molenbeek and then we had the EU politicians who came onto the programme to tell us how wonderfully multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Brussels is and how everyone gets on so well…it is important of course not to point fingers of blame at any one community, ethnicity, religion or race…note no mention of Islam in the many comments.

Then we had Afzal Ashraf from the RUSI on the Adrian Chiles show who told us that it would all be OK in the end as ISIS would eventually fizzle out just as Communism and Fascism did…no mention  it took a world war to get rid of Hitler, and Communism was faced down by a massive NATO military force and nucear weapons. ISIS will just fade away as potential recruits realise that they will not succeed.  Well it’s been 1400 years so far and counting.

ISIS, he tells us, is not about ideology, it’s all about land, territory, but then again he told us Communism was all about ideology…tell that to the Hungarians etc etc.  The Iron Curtain was not just a metaphor.

Ashraf did say one thing of note….the only way to defeat ISIS is for the world to unite against them and commit land forces….who’d have thought?

Then he did the usual thing and told us ISIS was absolutely not the way of Allah and that there is no basis in history religion for their actions…except of course the example, he might have mentioned, of the Prophet himself.  Apparently ISIS is a ‘very modern phenomenon’ with no ideology other than to capture territory….to do what with?  Who knows…maybe set up an ‘Islamic State’?

We then heard that UKIP had linked the attacks in Brussels and the freedom of movement of the terrorists coming as they did from Syria to the Schengen agreement and the lack of border controls. The BBC played a clip of Cameron saying this is not the time to be talking of such things…before he then went on to say he was locking down all the airports and sea ports and transport networks…so presumably open borders isn’t such a good idea unless you are grandstanding and playing politics by denying you are playing politics.

Adrian Chiles then came on to say he was wondering which would be the first party to exploit the attack and mention the EU referendum….not that I heard UKIP mention the referendum just Schengen….no criticism of Cameron’s playing up for the cameras and public perception.

On Newsnight we had Evan Davis say this wasn’t the time for asking what went wrong…he then proceeded to ask precisely that question as he mentioned a ‘pretty catastrophic failure of intelligence’, that we must protect soft targets and start profiling passengers.

Of course the real problem is those ‘disaffected’ Muslim youths with no jobs, no education and no prospects…it’s all the Belgium government’s fault.

Muslims in Molenbeek are the victims twice over, a school teacher is missing and they are subject to police checks, searches and racism…..however the reason so many get radicalised is because the were no controls on the recruiters in previous years…presumably no police checks, searches and ‘racism’.  If only the government had acted….all those unemployed, disaffected, marginalised and frustrated youths would be usefully employed and valuable members of society….or maybe, if mass immigration from North Africa hadn’t been allowed we wouldn’t have so many people who are not suitable for the job market and who profess an ideology so radically different to everything European.

Anyway, radicalisation..it’s all our fault in the West and there is no other rhyme or reason to it, it’s all a mystery as to why only Muslims are so radicalised….and they are the real victims here…as with 7/7 and all the rest.

Good old BBC, pro the terrorist, anti UKIP.

 

‘Our grandfathers smashed fascism – outlawed it, executed its leaders, suppressed its ideas – because they knew how seductive that stiff-armed salute can be to idiots with a grievance, once all the illusions start to burn.’  Paul Mason

 

 

There is a war being fought and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs.  The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge.  And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals’ like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society, on that phantom menace ‘Islamophobia’.  Of course what is even more frightening is that these men have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.  Biased BBC

For a long time this site has noted the BBC’s readiness to uncriticially give airtime to those who would like to neuter the anti-terrorist Prevent programme….’those’ being Islamists of many shades and their fellow travellers on the Left…. we illustrated a perfect example of the BBC’s pro-extremist stance just the other day.  But, unfortunately it’s a story that has been brewing for a long time…

Nearly a year ago we said that....

‘The BBC has leapt upon the words of ex-chief Superintendent Dal Babu as he tries to discredit the ‘Prevent’ programme….and there is remarkably little comment on the BBC from people who would say otherwise.  Discrediting the ‘Prevent’programme is the Holy Grail for Islamic extremists, amongst others, and Babu’s words align neatly with their own rhetoric about the programme and do great damage as they give authority and credibility to those extremists.’

Baroness Warsi, the woman who wanted to disarm Israel and arm Hamas, who constantly supports Islamist student societies, who spends so much of her time undermining Prevent, always gets a warm welcome at the BBC…

‘Here is a classic example of the BBC ‘looking the other way’ as it is fed a line by the Islamist Baroness Warsi on the Today programme yesterday(from 08:10) who declares that the solution to radicalisation is to let extremist groups, those defined by government as ‘beyond the pale’, put their agendas in place….by not talking to them the government is not talking to the Muslim community….the government has ‘disengaged’ with the Muslim community….The BBC completely ignored the implications of what she was saying….that the extremists and their views should become ‘acceptable’ and even more worrying that these organisations are in fact representative of the Muslim community as a whole….in other words they are not ‘extremists’ or people who pervert the religion, and far from being ‘outside’ the community they are the voice of it.’

The way to counter radicalism is to let the radicals have their way…yep…that’d work and Warsi always gets a free pass at the BBC, allowed to spread her toxic narrative without challenge.

The BBC continues to this day to work alongside the Islamists to attack the Prevent programme as it naively, or not so naively, reports stories fed to them by people who are well known Islamist activists..

Here’s something from a recent post we did…

Did the BBC get the story wrong because it had been fed to them by the extremist MCB which has, along with other extremist groups, worked insidiously to neutralise the Prevent programme?….what better way than to feed news organisations sensationalised stories of Muslims ‘under attack’.  They know full well the BBC will lap them up….and it worked.  Now why would a Muslim organisation want to nobble a programme designed to prevent Muslim terrorism?

The BBC used that story fed to them by the extremists to run another story attacking Prevent…a story they rapidly had to withdraw when the police complained it was based upon lies….

The BBC fell for this narrative by the MCB hook, line and sinker…here’s a report they hurried out in the wake of this story…

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy

Interesting….try the link to that story and you get this…

404 – Page not found

The BBC are backpeddling furiously on this…..they have been caught out by Muslim propagandists….the reason for that is because they are so willing for such stories to be true.  As I have said a few times here the BBC’s uncritical cheerleading of Muslim extremists, like Moazzam Begg, is a deadly game that almost certainly will have serious consequences.

Back in December we had the fake fury of the family denied entry to the US which the BBC reported endlessly as an example of anti-Muslim prejudice…we noted that…

Have to think this is an organised attempt to generate as much media and political pressure as possible to portray Muslims as victims of unwarranted discrimination with the intent that they are then given a special status as untouchables as we know the likes of the BBC and Guardian will happily fill the airwaves and pages of their websites with stories of ‘victimisation’ but offering no context or other side to the stories.

The BBC failed to report the real reason the family were prevented from flying to the US…..Islamic State of Mind

We have frequently noted Mehdi Hasan’s attempts to present himself as a suit wearing, secular democrat with progressive, liberal views when he is performing in public, such as on the BBC, when we know that in private he is a hard core Muslim believer with a great deal of contempt for the unbeliever.  It is Hasan who urged Muslims to become journalists in order to push the Islamist line….indeed the BBC’s own Mishal Husain said she was glad to have the job on Today because it allowed her to increase our ‘understanding’ of Islam and what a wonderful religion it is.

This Sunday we had the ‘Big Question’ asking if we should have a ‘British Islam’.  This shows a clear failure to understand Islam…there is only one Islam…Islam was ‘revealed’ precisely because Christians and Jews, we are told, didn’t follow their scriptures word for word and then split their religion into many sects….Islam was the cure for that…one religion, one faith, one God.  Not to undertsand that basic principle shows either a massive lack of knowledge about Islam or a deliberate attempt to mislead those watching the BBC’s programmes.

What should also raise questions and concerns is why the BBC continues to have MPACUK on as a spokesman for Muslims when it is a well known hardline Islamist group that advocated Jihad…

The Obligation of Jihad

“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95

A high rank, forgiveness and mercy are gifted from our beloved for those who are the Mujahideen. Those that struggle and strive to protect the religion, that protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that protect our brothers and sisters in Islam and humanity are gifted with these amazing favours!

….for the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”

The page has vanished from their site since we started highlighting it…but who can doubt the sentiments are still there and being disseminated by other means?  Why does the BBC knowingly give airtime to such people?

Last week Nicky Campbell was proselytising for the veil to be worn in schools and other places and brought in someone from the NUT to talk about this…..he did not ask the NUT about this from Andrew Gilligan published just days earlier…

NUT leaders ‘colluding to undermine anti-terror policies’

Leaders and activists of Britain’s biggest teachers’ union are colluding with Islamic extremists to undermine policies aimed at preventing terror attacks.

Quite extraordinary that a ‘journalist’ like Campbell should not jump at the chance of tackling that issue when he had the chance, especially when the subject they were talking about directly connected with what Gilligan revealed and as……

“They [Islamist groups] are winding up vulnerable young people with lies in an extremely dangerous way,”

Might have thought the NUT would have their own concerns about that…but no, instead they side with the extremists and the BBC looks away.

Gilligan has now directly noted the BBC’s own predilection for itself siding with the Islamist narrative…

Muslim extremists’ ‘campaign of lies’ to undermine the government’s fight against terror

An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.

Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.

The BBC has long been tied to the Islamist cause…Moazzam Begg being their poster child…as they ‘Dance with the Devil’…

The BBC has a long history of pandering to Islamist extremists and presenting them to an unsuspecting audience as credible, authoritative and moderate Muslims whose words and beliefs are given all the more weight by the unquestioning platform afforded them by the BBC to push their ideology.

Recently we had Nicky Campbell allowing someone from CageUK to promote his Islamist cause which we looked at here…Jihadi Jock.

It’s not as if CageUK, or Cageprisoners as it used to be, is not unknown for its views….Statement by Gita Sahgal on Amnesty International and Cageprisoners

‘The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.’

Note that line ‘the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right. ‘

That is what the BBC does, deliberately and knowingly…it is impossible for the BBC, a news organisation with huge resources, to claim it does not know the nature of the organisations and individuals it engages with in debate on its programmes.

Indeed…impossible for a news organisation with the BBC’s resources to not know who and what they are promoting.  Therefore the conclusion is that the BBC are wilfully giving support to known Islamists and their cause.

The BBC peddling such myths merely adds to the credibility of the Jihadi narrative and gives more ammunition to the Muslim grievance industry.

The BBC has a long history of serving that Islamist narrative and looking away from inconvenient and difficult facts about such groups….

BBC Plugs Jihadi Charities

The BBC is providing the perfect background noise for the Islamists to keep the evergrowing stream of new recruits flowing.

Time for the security services to have a little chat with Lord Hall Hall.

One of our commenters (apologies can’t remember who) linked us to a tale of the ‘Lancaster Plan’...an alleged plan that was concocted by the Establishment in order to not have to deal with the ‘Muslim problem’ that was inevitably going to ensue as bunches of Muslims swarmed into Europe…their plan was to prevent any objections and opposition to the encroaching Islamisation and silence debate and criticism to stop people realising there was a problem until it was too late.  By doing so they hope to prevent outbreaks of violence against Muslims as people woke up to the realisation that British society was being conquered and colonised by Islam.  They prefer to see Islam dominate than to see possible violence on the streets.  Never mind that Islam is the end of history and the beginning of a new Dark Ages.

There is of course no such plan, in writing.  However it most certainly is the plan in reality, by default and as a result of  overweaning cowardice. A plan in which the BBC has a leading role in trying to quell discontent and disharmony by spreading disinformation…to ‘maintain cohesion and civil society’….the classic example being the repeated, and false, mantra that Islam is the religion of peace.  Politicians are scared witless of actually doing anything concrete and taking the necessary actions to prevent the Islamisation of society, they would rather see Britain become Islamic than be the ones to go down in history as the racist and Islamophobic politicians who ‘fought’ Islam and Muslims…Cameron makes some ‘brave’ speeches denouncing so-called Islamism (that’s not Islam mind) and headline grabbing but half-hearted policies such as teaching Muslim women English or  wishy-washy policies on the veil in schools and other public places but doesn’t actually make any of it law, leaving it to others to decide ‘in the circumstances’ if it is appropriate that someone should wear a veil…knowing full well most will not brave the storm of abuse they receive if they do stop a Muslim wearing the veil.

We have others who actually endorse the Islamification of Britain….remarkably so many of them Christian clergy…..Rowan Williams suggesting we should allow a parallel Muslim legal system to develop, one of his chums astonishingly suggests Christian clergy should wear beards to engratiate themselves with Muslims…and then there’s Trevor Phillips.

Trevor Phillips’ journey into Submission illustrates perfectly how the ‘Lancaster Plan’ works……the plan isn’t so much a pro-active plan needing a positive investment of thought, policy and ideology, it is merely a plan to stand back and let things happen, quell any voices of opposition (such as the EDL) and allow Islam to gradually dominate society as leading public figures eventually cave in to the relentless pressure from Muslim attack groups and their supporters in the media not to make negative comments about Islam and indeed finally submit and go the other way and start advocating for Islam for a quiet life.

That old bogey-man, Hitler, mastered the take-over of a society by terrorising it and at the same time making the Establishment think he was the answer….Muslim activists employ the same tactics….propaganda is far more effective when backed by terrorism…everytime a bomb goes off they are there denouncing the violence but claiming Muslims are the real victims and that the media needs to silence any debate about the role of Islam in terrorist ideology otherwise Muslims will feel ‘besieged’ and become ‘radical’….a blackmailing bluff that politicians dare not call…..these activists  launch relentless attacks, in the media, poltically and in the courts, to bully and intimidate opponents who they know will eventually tire and submit as Hitler himself understood……

I realized the infamous intellectual terrorism of this movement targets the privileged-class, which is neither morally nor spiritually a match for such attacks. They tell a barrage of lies and slander against the individual adversary it considers most dangerous and keep it up until the nerves of the group being attacked give in and they sacrifice the hated figure just to have peace and quiet again. But the fools still do not get peace and quiet. The game begins again and is repeated until fear of the villain becomes a hypnotic paralysis.

They  are  successful  in  creating  the  impression  that  giving in  is  the  only  way  to  win  peace and  quiet  from  them  while  they  quietly,  cautiously,  but  unerringly,  conquer  one  position after  another,  either  by  quiet  extortion  or  by  actual  theft  when  the  public  attention  is  on other things. The public is distracted and either unwilling to be interrupted or they consider the  situation  too  small  to  worry  about  and  believe  it  is  not  worth  provoking  the  angry  foe again.

Trevor Phillips has fallen victim to the enormous pressure that any critic of Islam or Muslims is forced to endure.

In 2005 Trevor Phillips told us that we were sleepwalking into a segregated society with the Muslim community especially ‘marooned outside the mainstream’ and he predicted that this will have serious consequences …..

Those communities are set up for destruction.

And second, even if there is no calamity, these marooned communities will steadily drift away from the rest of us, evolving their own lifestyles, playing by their own rules and increasingly regarding the codes of behaviour, loyalty and respect that the rest of us take for granted as outdated behaviour that no longer applies to them. We know what follows then: crime, no-go areas and chronic cultural conflict.

We have the chance to prevent this happening; but we have to act now. We have a vital duty: to make sure that, insofar as it lies in the hands of our own communities, we are a safer society, not just next week, or next year, but in the next generation and the one after that.

A vital duty to stop that segregation….to stop crime, no-go areas (yes those) and chronic cultural conflict (bit late for that).  How times change….no doubt due to the barrage of abuse Phillips received as a result of that speech in 2005.

Trevor Phillips now says that Muslims should be allowed to live separate and parallel lives as they will never integrate..…indeed...“it was disrespectful to suppose that Muslim communities would change”….

Muslim communities are “unlike others in Britain” and “will not integrate in the same way”, according to the former head of the equalities watchdog. 

He claimed that we should accept that Muslims “see the world differently from the rest of us.”

Mr Phillips said part of the integration process was for “the rest of us to grasp that people aren’t going to change their views simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us.”

Phillips has blown apart the narrative that there is a ‘British Islam’, that Muslims will integrate, that Islam will reform to fit in with a liberal, democratic, Western progressive society.  It won’t.  We’ve always known that.  The BBC et al just refused to admit it because then they would have to start explaining what that will mean for Britain, for Europe, for the World, as Europe, one of the main bulwarks of freedom, democracy, liberal beliefs, succumbs to an ideology that is directly opposed to so much of its own beliefs.

Any wonder that the BBC has not published a word of Phillips’ speech, nor has the Guardian?  The BBC knows full well he has made the speech…Nicky Campbell had quotes from it at the ready this morning because he knew it would be mentioned on his programme….he used the quotes to try and crush criticism of Islam strangely enough.

Campbell’s programme was about the Ofsted announcement that schools could be marked down if they allowed pupils or staff to wear the veil.  Consider that Phillips’ comments were a highly dramatic and devastating admission about how society is being shaped, one that has enormous and unpleasant ramifications for everyone, you would be justified in asking why the BBC chose instead to talk about a relatively minor matter of wearing the veil in public.

Campbell thinks of himself as an expert in Islam and the Koran having been mentored and intellectually succoured, or is that suckered, by the clown Mo Ansa.  As we’ll see, Campbell is mistaken…Mo Ansa had no answer.

John Morris, former Ofsted official, stated (8 mins 50 secs in) that Trevor Phillips said that Muslim communities were “unlike others in Britain” and “will not integrate in the same way”.

Campbell jumps in and states that Morris was quoting Phillips ‘rather selectively’…Phillips said it would be disrespectful to expect Muslims to change…Trevor Phillips is actually calling for tolerance Campbell claims.  Campbell says Morris is ‘falsely inferring from what he is saying’.  No he wasn’t, he quoted exactly what Phillips said and did so in correct relation to what was being discussed.

It seems a highly appropriate quote in a discussion about the veil in that it shows that Muslims have no intention of integrating, and indeed cannot…the veil is jst one very obvious example of that.  It is Campbell who selectively quotes and inteprets as he wants….is Phillips calling for tolerance or is he saying because Muslims refuse to integrate we should just roll over and accept that?…that’s submission not tolerance.

At least we know Campbell knows what Phillips has said…so again I ask why is that not the subject of this discussion when it is such a bombshell admission with cataclysmically dire consequences for our society?

Campbell, who as you may expect, is always edging towards acceptance of the veil, then claims that this is not a religious requirement but merely cultural…..if that is the case then why do Muslims have such an issue with a ban in certain places?

Campbell states that the Koran makes no mention of the veil and there is no Koranic requirement for the veil to be worn.   The Koran however does clearly stipulate that women must cover up if they go out in public…but in fact the preferred place for a woman is to stay closed up in the home away from the eyes of other men.

And stay in your houses and (do) not display yourselves (as was the) display (of the times of) ignorance the former.

It shall be no offence for the Prophet’s wives to be seen unveiled by their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, or their slave–girls. Women, have fear of God; surely God observes all things.

Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested. God is ever forgiving and merciful.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty.

Campbell also has an oft repeated mantra that there is no one Muslim community…there are many different ones….however, again, that’s just not true…there may be different cultural communities who happen to be Muslim but there is only one Islam, one God, one Faith, one Mosque…that’s the founding essence of Islam…it was revealed because Christians and Jews did not follow their scriptures to the word and broke up into sects…the Koran orders…..

Turn to Him and fear Him. Be steadfast in prayer and serve no other god besides Him.
Do not divide your religion into sects, each exulting in its own doctrines.

Do not divide your religion into sects…hence break-away sects such as Shias and Ahmadis etc are not considered Muslims.

There is a reason the Islamic State hold up one finger, it has a very real meaning…and there is a reason they feel able to kill Shias and anyone else not considered Muslim.  It’s in the Koran.

Campbell is either entirely ignorant and is bluffing his way or knows what the Koran says and is lying.  Either way he is covering up the truth, a very important truth and one that reveals exactly the thinking of those who ‘radicalise’ and explains their actions.  You might think that was important.  It is.  Which is why the BBC doesn’t like to admit it as it owuld start to raise very difficult and unpleasnt questions about Islam…as lefty academic David Goodhart said…the more people get to know about Islam the more alien they will find it.  The BBC’s aim is to stop you finding out those inconvenient truths.

Well, the BBC is making headlines itself today.

“People over 75 may be asked to give up their free TV licence or make a voluntary contribution to it, under plans being considered by the BBC.  The corporation must absorb the loss of £650m worth of licences for over-75s from 2020 as part of a funding deal agreed with ministers last year. A report on ways to appeal for voluntary contributions is due in 2016. The BBC has refused to comment on suggestions that older celebrities might front a publicity campaign.  The Times reported that such a campaign could be run by personalities such as Sir Michael Parkinson and actress Dame Helen Mirren.”

I was on BBC5Live this morning discussing this with Nicky Campbell. My contention remains the same. The BBC funding model is bankrupt, morally and financially. It’s not just over 75 year olds that should be offered a choice as to whether they should pay the BBC poll tax, we ALL should. Using millionaire oldies to try and flog us the idea is an indication as to how detached from reality the BBC has become.

The BBC has been relentlessly attacking Saudi Arabia for some time now whilst, as always, telling us what a wonderful, enlightened and moderate state Iran is…or would be if it weren’t for the Great Satan which sets out to surround poor little Iran with enemies necessitating an Iranian hardline response.

Any thought that perhaps the BBC’s take on Saudi Arabia is coloured by its security correspondent’s grudge against the Saudis?

BBC correspondent Frank Gardner reveals Saudi Arabia offered him £1million in compensation when he was left wheelchair bound after being shot by Al Qaeda covering a story there but they never paid

Frank Gardner was shot on the streets of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia in 2004

The horrifying attack left his BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers dead 

Now fresh batch of documents reveal he was offered £1m in compensation

But Saudis never paid up which Gardner said he was ‘pretty miffed with’

Here’s Frank analysing the situation in the Middle East…A gulf between them: Understanding the Saudi-Iran dispute

His conclusion….

When the Arab Spring protests erupted in 2011, Iran, which had crushed its own democratic protest movement two years earlier, claimed the credit for sparking reformist movements across the Arab world.

Today, Iran once again has a relatively moderate, pragmatic president in the form of Hassan Rouhani, while Saudi Arabia has embarked on a new and aggressive foreign policy that has seen it bogged down in an unwinnable war in Yemen.

Interesting to know that the Iranians claim the ‘credit’ for the Arab Spring which led to Syria et al….not the BBC narrative which blames the Iraq war and the West.

What of that ‘moderate, pragmatic’ Iran and the nasty aggressive Saudi foreign policy?

That’ll be the Iran which supports Hamas in its effort to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, which has essentially annexed Lebanon, which fights to support the murderous Assad in Syria, which interferes in Iraq and supported anyone from the Taliban to Iraqi insurgents who wanted to fight British and US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan…and is involved in stoking the rebellion of Shia populations inside Sunni ruled states.

Aggressive Saudi Arabia?  Maybe it has just-cause in the name of self defence.

The BBC complains of the brutality of the Saudi regime as it executes ‘so many’ people…why, the BBC asks, do we maintain diplomatic relations with them?  Why then do we maintian diplomatic relations with the US which also has the death penalty?  Or indeed Iran which has executed far more people than the Saudis and with whom we have just opened diplomatic relations.

Nicky Campbell ambushed defence secretary Michael Fallon a while back talking (18th December) about extremism and ISIS.  He asked if Fallon was totally against beheaders, abusers and torturers….you could see the trap a mile off and knew what was coming next…Campbell was not now talking about ISIS…and indeed when Fallon said he was naturally against such things Campbell leapt in and gleefully demanded what he was going to do about Saudi Arabia then?  All very childish and student politics, as we expect from Campbell and co.

What is curious about all the BBC’s anti-Saudi Arabia rhetoric is that, apart from never having been similarly disposed to attack Iran for its murderous regime killing gays and young girls, hanging them and flogging them, the BBC fails to mention the Saudi money and ideology that floods into the UK, and the rest of the world.

British Muslims are heavily under the influence of the Saudi fundamentalist theology, not only that but all levels of British society and the Establishment are also being subborned by Saudi money which pours into universities, schools, business and sport…the Royal Family (PBUT) and British politicians all are at the beck and call of the Saudis and their money….the FCO is infamously ‘Arab’.…including this memorable example...’Fucking Jews’….”If I had my way, the fucking international community should be sent in and if the Israelis got in the way, they’d be blown off the fucking earth.”‘

The BBC admits frequently that the Saudi ‘brutality’ is guided by Islamic sharia law and yet they fail to link that to what is being brought into this country.  If it is bad in Saudi Arabia which is a Muslim country how much more unacceptable is such culture and law in a secular western democracy?  The BBC don’t like to ask in case some people of a certain ideology get upset….one of them might be their favourite extremist poster boy, Moazzam Begg, against whom the evidence of his extremism mounts rapidly…the Mail having done a large scale exposé of him over the last couple of days…ignored totally by the BBC of course….Fanatics’ campaign of hate on campus is revealed: Islamic zealots who backed Jihadi John are poisoning the minds of students.

The BBC’s Phil Mackie (who insisted the Trojan Horse plot was a hoax) reported from Birmingham’s Green Lane Mosque and told us of how moderate it was and how it was fighting against extremism…this was the mosque which was at the centre of C4’s Dispatches ‘Undercover Mosque’ exposé of Muslim extremism…it is also a mosque with close ties to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, it’s mission in life is Dawah…the spreading of Islam.  The BBC is either entirely naive or dishonest in its reporting about such things….seemingly covering up the extremist nature of many in the Muslim community in the interest of community cohesion…which is a very short sighted approach as the extremists are just biding their time to take over.

Green Lane Mosque tells us that a Salafi Muslim…

‘Is not of the sects of the Shi’ah who hate and curse the Prophet’s Companions and claim them to be apostates, claim that the Qur’an has been altered, reject the authentic Sunnah and worship the Prophet’s Family, peace be upon them.’

Now as a Mosque, a Muslim mosque you might emphasise (not so funny when you know that the BBC disregards what Muslims say and invent their own intepretation  of Islam to suit the BBC’s own narrative…there’s the Muslim Islam and the BBC Islam), you might think that they knew what they were talking about when they explained what they were about.  Not so.  The Mosque says there is great enmity between Sunni and Shia….the BBC begs to disagree as Frank Gardner, the expert, in the Times told us today (Pay-walled)….

Islam, a handy excuse for a squabble over power.

So the conflicts between Sunni and Shia Islam has nothing to do with Islam or religion per se…it’s all about power…but power of what?  It’s about which religious intepretation dominates…it’s all about religion and Islam, which version of Islam is correct….and if you get the chance to read Gardner’s piece in the Times you realise the truth of that as he admits this again and again despite his headline denying the truth of that…

In practise this has led to a sort of quais-arms race for influence, with both Iran and saudi Arabia exporting and promoting their own versions of Islam.

Why does the BBC still insist on downplaying the role of Islam in conflicts around the world…and yet at the same time admits that it plays a role just as it admits the Saudi ‘brutal’ regime is guided by Sharia law and yet refuses to make the link to the export of Saudi religious fundamentalism to the UK?

The BBC narrative on events in the Middle East has always been that Britain, and actions Britain has taken over the last century, have been to blame for events today….this narrative takes on more urgency for the BBC as the refugees flee the Middle East and head for Europe…the BBC needs to pin the blame for the war in Syria on Britain in order to induce guilt about the plight of the refugees and make them our responsibility…after all we ‘carved up the Middle East’ in a secret agreement with the French, didn’t we?  We’ve looked at this several times on this site, just two days ago the latest example, and the BBC’s remarkable ability to ignore the actual facts and make up their own account of history to suit their own agenda.

The Sunday Times by coincidence has published a similar correction to the BBC narrative, a narrative that serves only to recruit terrorists for ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups…..which is ironic really as the BBC is always telling us we need to change the narrative in order prevent the radicalisation of ‘young British Muslims’ as the BBC always likes to describe them. In fact only this Saturday we had the finest and most senior BBC journos giving us the benefit of their analysis of world events and the likely way they will unfold in 2016…they told us that this was a battle of ideas, that we need to battle the narrative that makes those ‘young British Muslims’ act out their religious duty for real.  We also  heard that launching a war against ISIS would only serve to make Muslims think that once again Muslims were the victims and would result in more recruits for ISIS.   This of course is the favoured BBC narrative in its effort to stop military action….unfortunately it doesn’t make the slightest sense….though that didn’t stop Nicky Campbell in an interview with Michael Fallon(39 mins) telling us this would be seen as ‘yet another example of a war against Muslims’.

Firstly you cannot leave an apocalyptic religious cult intent on murdering their way across the world in power.  Second why would ‘young British Muslims’ think attacking ISIS was an attack on Muslims?  Isn’t another BBC narrative that ISIS is not ‘Islamic’ and has no relation to Islam, Jihaids are not ‘Muslims’ apparently….and no right thinking Muslim believes they are?  If they are not ‘Muslims’ how can attacking them be attacking ‘Islam’?  And anyway, if they are ‘Muslim’, and they are, why would it be wrong to attack them when they are quite clearly committing horrendous crimes across the world?  Why would ‘young British Muslims’ get angry about such a group’s demise?

Back to the Sunday Times and the BBC’s anti-British narrative…..here’s what the Times said about that ‘infamous carving up of the Middle East’ narrative  favoured by terrorists and the BBC….

ISIS proclaimed itself as the Islamic State caliphate with two propaganda videos, one of which was entitled ‘The End of Sykes-Picot’.….a gunman in  the video said ‘This is the so-called border of Sykes-Picot.  We don’t recognise it, and we will never recognise it……Inshallah we break other borders also but we start with this one Inshallah.’

The Sykes-Picot agreement is thus an integral part of ISIS’s philosophy of hatred and resentment…..‘feeding people’s own narratives of themselves as playthings of outsiders.’

However, ISIS’s Sykes-Picot narrative is a myth, as the historian Sean McMeekein has persuasively argued in his book, The Ottoman Endgame.

ISIS’s propaganda ‘bears little resemblance to the history on which it is ostensibly based.  The partition of the Ottoman empire was not settled bilaterally by Britain and France in 1916 but rather at a multinational conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1923’.  Neither Sykes nor Picot played a significant role at Lausanne where the dominant figure was Kemal Attaturk, the Turkish nationalist leader.

‘Even in 1916,’ McMeekin points out, ‘Sykes and Picot played second and third fiddle to Russian foreign minister Sergei Sazonov who was the real driving force.’

‘None of the most notorious post-Ottoman borders were drawn by Sykes and Picot…even the ones they did sketch out were jettisoned after the war.’

In short, the ISIS myth about the Sykes-Picot agreement might animate its followers profoundly, but historically it is simply bunk.

Simply bunk….the ISIS/BBC narrative,  simply bunk.  Dangerous bunk but bunk.

From Nicky Campbell’s good mate….

As Jews are once again being purged from Europe just for being Jewish, and the BBC looks on apparently with the feeling that they get what was coming to them, many people point out a few problems arising from mass immigration that the BBC is all too often not just reluctant to debate but actively seeks to hide and dismiss….denying and silencing truth.

The final image of Dr Jacob Bronowski, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth.

And no…Muslims are not the ‘new Jews of Europe’.  An irony that the BBC recently tried to invoke the Holocaust to defend Muslim immigrants and to label opponents of mass migration as something akin to the Nazis….whilst at the same time ignoring the real ‘Jews of Europe’.

There’s the Truth, and there’s the Truth as reported, or not reported, by the BBC…as Rod Liddle points out…

In Sweden there are riots…almost all the people doing the rioting were, to adapt Nick Robinson’s phrase, people of non-Swedish orign.  These were…are..race riots.

It was not the ordinary Swedes rising up against the oppressive Swedish state; it was immigrants.  Come on James – why not tell us the truth?’

From Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

David Goodhart managed to slip this out on the BBC one day:

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

David Coleman, professor of demography at the the University of Oxford, said:

“Many of the consequences of large scale migration are damaging.  We do not need up to 13 million more people by the mid century.   Almost all that increase will be immigrants and their children.  It will not make the UK a happier or richer place.  Crowding and congestion will have entirely negative effects, increasing pressure on schools, hospitals and particulary housing.”

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi gave a speech on the occasion of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad on Jan. 3, when he called for breaking free from texts and ideas that were sacred centuries ago and that have become a source of anxiety for the whole world. In the presence of Tayeb, Sisi said, “How is it possible that the ideologies that we have sanctified for hundreds of years breed feelings of anxiety, danger, murder and destruction in the whole world and nation?”

“Moderate” Muslim Leader says all Muslims are “Radical” and “Extremists”

“Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they [the media] always come with the same accusations: This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports the death penalty for this crime or this crime or that he is homophobic, that he subjugates women, etcetera. I always try to tell them that it is not that speaker that we are inviting who has these ‘extreme radical views,’ as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has.

Every Muslim believes in these things. Just because they are not telling you about it, or just because they are not out there in the media, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in them.”

The measured and rational Charles Moore in the Telegraph voices some of his concerns about this influx of Muslims to Western Europe:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

Even the Mirror is dubious about Muslim agitprop…

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL

AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.

There are enough wedges between us without introducing more in the form of Sharia Law or Muslim Bank holidays.

Nor should we feel it necessary to beat ourselves up because willing recruits, who happen to be born here, have signed up to become human bombs.

Some people, John Reid reminded us last week “just don’t get” the seriousness of the threat facing the West.

What will it take to understand? Ten planes destroyed and thousands of innocents dead while the family of the perpetrators weep into the cameras and say, “he wouldn’t do a thing like that”.

Oh yes he would. And believe me, he will.

Definitely a discussion people should be having about the consequences of mass migration from Muslim countries into a western, secular and democratic Europe.

On the other hand we could just have pictures of women and children crying at razor-wire topped fences and dead babies on beaches as the preferred narrrative as well as the labelling of anyone who dares to criticise that approach as racist nazis.

Your choice…oh no…it’s not…it’s the BBC  that gets to choose the narrative…..

The BBC, paying lip-service to the issue, does a body swerve around the problem by adopting the usual stance that it is not Islam but Islamism that is the problem and that of course it is ‘moderate’ Muslims who will suffer the ‘backlash’, that problem that the BBC is really concerned about rather than the activities that are the cause of any such ‘backlash’….

Across western Europe, liberally-minded societies are beginning to divide over how best to deal with radical Islamism and its impact on their countries, while governments agonise over the potential for a backlash against Muslims living in Europe.

Today, mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK and France have unequivocally condemned the killings, saying that terrorism is an affront to Islam.

But the potential backlash, including support for far right parties and groups, may well hurt ordinary Muslims more than anyone else, leaving the authorities and religious leaders in western Europe wondering how to confront violence in the name of religion without victimizing minorities or being accused of ‘Islamophobia’.

Muslims themselves hate the term ‘Moderate’ as it implies they don’t follow the true Islam and all its teachings…“Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.”

Stop Saying “Moderate Muslims.” You’re Only Empowering Islamophobes.

 

Can we drop the term ‘moderate Muslim’? It’s meaningless

 

In fact, there is only One Prophet Muhammad, and there is only One Allah, and there is only One Quran, and there is amongst Muslims only One Islam, hence there can be Only One Muslim. A Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as a “Moderate Islam.” A Cultural Muslim

 

Turkey’s PM Erdogan: The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam

 

And of course Iqbal Sacranie, when head of the Muslim Council of Britain, stated that ‘There is no such thing as moderate or extreme Islam, there is just Islam.’

Islamists and normal, moderate Muslims?  The difference isn’t in the beliefs but in the way they try to impose them upon society.

The BBC weren’t so quiet  and in denial when it came to a Christian birthrate:

A Womb is a Weapon

First broadcast:

Saturday 18 May 2013

Across the world, and increasingly in Europe and the UK, a unique Christian evangelical movement is growing.

For some, encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.

The Jewish Chronicle has some serious concerns about Jeremy Corbyn’s associates:

We are certain that we speak for the vast majority of British Jews in expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

Because, although there is no direct evidence that he has an issue himself with Jews, there is overwhelming evidence of his association with, support for — and even in one case, alleged funding of — Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites.

If Mr Corbyn is not to be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community, he has a number of questions which he must answer in full and immediately. The JC asked him earlier this week to respond. No response has been forthcoming.

The Jewish Chronicle goes on to say:

In a nation where, thank heavens, racism and extremism are now regarded as beyond the pale, it is little short of astonishing that a man who chooses to associate with racists and extremists is about to become leader of one of our two main parties and could conceivably become Prime Minister.

Strong stuff.  You might think that such powerful sentiments as this ‘expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader‘  would immediately find themselves being reported by the BBC.  Certainly if this had been said by a Muslim organisation about a leader with close associations to the EDL you can pretty much guarantee the BBC would be giving it plenty of coverage and Nicky Campbell would be dusting off his tired old phrases about the wonders of Islam whist expressing shock that someone so obviously connected to an ‘Islamophobic’ organisation could have the opportunity not only to lead a political party but perhaps to be Prime Minister.

However the BBC has shown not the slightest interest, despite a Labour MP also raising the same concerns…

Ivan Lewis, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, attacked Mr Corbyn’s “anti-Semitic rhetoric” and said the party must have “zero tolerance” for such views.