Some of you have already noticed the title of the BBC’s piece.
I thought it was a Muslim bomb plot but there you go, don’t believe what you read in the papers.
Couple of other things of interest:
‘The EDL rally finished early because of a lack of speakers’
Highlighted in this report and mentioned in another report as well….‘However, the men arrived after the EDL rally had broken up because the right-wing group had insufficient speakers to carry on later into the afternoon.’
Why would they highlight that…a less than subliminal attempt to suggest the EDL is an insignificant group with little support?
The ‘other’ report being this one:
Six admit planning to bomb English Defence League rally
‘Six’ being? What? Heros of an Enid Blyton story? I guess our resident troll could be right in this case….Blame the ‘Muslims’.
Important for the BBC to emphasise this as well;
‘A statement from the Birmingham Coalition of Muslim Organisations and Mosques, which says it represents most of the city’s 230,000 Muslims, said: “The Muslim community in Birmingham wishes to make one thing absolutely clear: These acts are not carried out in our name.”‘
I just wonder how many would have cheered a successful attack….in the BBC corridors I mean, of course.
Another interesting use of language:
‘He was an associate of another group of Islamist terrorists, also based in Birmingham,’
The BBC use the term ‘Islamist’ to denote extremist or fundamentalist, often associated with violent actions…it is not used for ‘moderate’ Muslims, so called…..it is the preferred descriptive to separate extremist, political ideology from the spiritual ‘Islam’….which is impossible…as Islam is highly political….and not too spiritual….there is no distinction, no separation in reality.
David Cameron for example said:
‘We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.’
That tactic of separating the fundamentalist Muslim from the Western politician’s, and the BBC’s idealised ‘normal’ Muslim is under attack….by Muslims themselves.
Denying the ‘Islamic’ motivation for political attacks is beginning to be less credible….as ‘Islamist’ is being defined by Muslims themselves to mean every Muslim…that is , every Muslim is ‘political’ because Islam is political.
That well worn escape clause may have to be revisited in light of this recent development….
CAIR, a high profile group that represents Muslims in the US has persuaded the Associated Press Agency to change its definition of ‘Islamist’ and no longer use it solely in association with any groups that give a negative impression of Islam…in other words an ‘Islamist’ is also a good Muslim now……an Islamist is every Muslim….
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like'” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”
As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:
”An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.
Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.’
CAIR praised the AP’s update. “We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims,” Hooper said. “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”
So any one can be an Islamist not just the ‘bad guys’.
In other words an Islamist is an apt description for any and all Muslims who wish to re-order society so as to live under Allah’s Law….surely the very description of a Muslim.
If you don’t want to live under Allah’s law you’re not a Muslim.
BBC perhaps should take note for future reference.
Listening to radio 5 earlier (against my better judgment, but i was travelling)…
Laughing and joking about the attack and about EDL not organising it’s rally’s well enough for attackers to kill them….???
WTF…
Then linking UKIP to EDL so that’s allright then a valid target??????????
If R5’s finest did indeed ‘discuss’ the incident in such terms, they may find this will reflect poorly on them, and any colleagues within the BBC or fighting the good fight on its behalf outside, if seeking to mount higher horses on the basis of taste or variably-selective cohesion on the line.
As the BBC quotes its heroes…
‘It is the greatest honour for us to what we did’
One is sure. Worked out well too.
has anyone from the BBC?, interviewed a single member of the EDL? as they were the targets/victims?.
as they usually break a leg to give a platform for the “victims ” views?
appears that true to form, the whole thing can be explained away, with a three way split
of the gutless wonders from community police, muslim advocacy groups, and al bbc … how queer …
hows that for doctoring the narrative.
how queer
Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon was clipped on BBC news at ten talking about this, to be fair.
that was an old blink and miss it clip.
it has been shown before.
the tirade of this 3 way split narrative,
again and again yday, i mean i listened in and caught some on 5live
as i was out on call, it seemed to be wall to wall at one point
Ok another complaint. I have complained in the past when they have used a misleading headline so no surprises here. Oh and by the I do not support the EDL in any way all I want is for the BBC to actually report the facts. The BBC will no doubt reply that if you read the whole article it is made clear. Which is the reply I got last time. For the record this is my complaint.
“Nice to see you are up to your old tricks again. I have complained in the past about misleading headlines to an on line news story.
Any casual reader scanning this story in my opinion would be lead to believe that the there was an EDL bomb plot.
Perhaps Muslims plot to kill innocent members of the public (again) would have been more appropriate.
As a licence fee payer I would like you to advise me of the process that lead you to use the Headline you used?”
“Any casual reader scanning this story in my opinion would be lead to believe that the there was an EDL bomb plot.” – Hardly when the first sentence, in bold type, clearly states:
“The guilty pleas, at Woolwich Crown Court, of six men who planned to attack an English Defence League rally………..”
Assuming anyone scanning through will go on to read the first sentence, therefore my statement stands why use that banner?
Using EDL immediately identifies this plot. Just as Bedroom Tax identifies the changes to housing allowance. It is normal journalistic practice to add tags when there are multiple stories of a similar kind.
Yes, it immediately identifies the plotters as the EDL.
FFS which is the more accurate headline?
EDL bomb plot
or
Plot to bomb EDL
If the insinuation in the BBC headline is ‘innocent’ then the sub editor is incompetent, illiterate and should be dismissed.
Colditz does have a point: there are so many Muslim bomb plots that we would be confused which one the bBBC headline was referring to.
wouldn t a more truthful, header be
“Yet Another Muslim Bomb Plot”
Albaman and Colditz’s attempts to defend the indefensible here destroys any smidgeon of credibility they may have had, time they changed their log-ins again.
I have always used the same log-in. Why should I want to change it?
Pamela Geller’s site has:-
“ISLAMIC BOMB PLOT ON THE EDL FREEDOM DEMO FOILED ‘HOMEMADE BOMBS, GUNS AND KNIVES'”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“Our colleagues in the UK were targeted for mass death. Haven’t heard about it? Why would you? It’s counter jihad activists, so they deserve it — right? That’s how the media sees it. Tommy Robinson, EDL leader and SION board member, was targeted for assassination.
“Where is the outrage? Jihad is being normed by the enemedia, while opposition to the most brutal and radical ideology on the face of the earth is being criminalized.”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/islamic-bomb-plot-on-the-edl-freedom-demo-foiled-homemade-bombs-guns-and-knives.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef01901bb7c493970b
But in a later article they do it properly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
“Six admit” “Men” ITMA (It’s those men again). Anything missing from this?
Note too the different standards applied for the Islamically-inclined versus UKIP.
So far the total numbers of UKIP members convicted of trying to bomb Tory party meetings is hovering at less than one, but it takes more than the complete absence of any smoke to stop the BBC reporting that there totally is a raging fire there too.
There’s simply no metric by which UKIP can be described as extreme but these Islamic groups are normal, middle of the road groups plagued by the odd wacko.
There’s no getting away from it, the BBC have a seriously warped view of the world. It’s like some kind of mind control cult.
Channel 4 News had no difficulty talking about an Islamist plot and terror bombing.
According to Professor Anthony Glees Radio 4 “PM” [13:30] it is all the fault of the LibDems and David Davis preventing the police from snooping on our internet use. He goes on to say that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t Islamists. Eddie Mair questioned whether the UK population were happy about this game of chance, but apparently safety is ensured by more surveillance.
Do you remember when you could walk onto an aircraft unchecked; when you knew that we were all Britons and when the chips were down we were ‘in it together’?
Sure when you play Russian Roulette most of the chambers are empty but why exactly are we playing this game? I wish the BBC would ask that question and not just excuse the ’empty chambers’.
>i>” He goes on to say that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t Islamists.”
Been around all of them in the UK to check the differences in what they’ll support, has he?
I’m guessing that no matter what his word games, he’ll have a different outlook if it’s a ‘Muslim’ or an ‘Islamist’ making a note of his name for future reference, as opposed to say a Christian, Buddhist or Satanist.
“Been around all of them in the UK to check the differences in what they’ll support, has he?”
He can safely use that analysis because in his own mind he has fixed the title of Islamist to those who do the bad stuff. Therefore by elimination, all the rest are peace loving members of the ROP.
His pea brain is not capable of the conclusion that it’s the religion that’s the problem, as opposed to individual interpretations of it.
His views are formed by an ” I know better than the plebs” mentality. He sees himself as a superior intellect and therefore can not possibly be wrong.
I live in hope that him, and those like him will be sitting close to whatever blows up when the murdering terrorist scum who infest our once decent country next get lucky and manage to actually blow something up again.
Glees was a victim of the London bombings and is an expert on combating Islamic terror.. It is possible that the BBC is misusing him
Check Glees, a right wing academic, expert on terrorist activities in British Universities, has worked for a right wing think tank. Not a BBC man http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Anthony_Glees
Do you remember when you could walk onto an aircraft unchecked; when you knew that we were all Britons and when the chips were down we were ‘in it together’?
Eh when was that? I was searched on a flight from Belfast in 1971 and everyone on board was white + Christian. And have been on every flight since. I was detained in Florida in 1974 because I objected to practically being strip searched. And that was also on a plane full of white Christians.
In fact I’ve unaware of any moslems in the IRA or UDA. Funny that.
I
Absolutely fair comment about airline security Colditz.
So ethnic profiling works in your opinion?
Funny that .I flew around the USA in the 80s a fair bit. Just walked on the planes. Never a problem. And of course there was security in NI. What did you expect?
The average person on a holiday or business flight in the UK back when things were different never had any problems. We all know it . And we all remember.
The terrorist threat has made air travel just hard. Now if we profiled the passengers things might get easier but that would never do. An offence against liberal tenet number 16.5.
Once again absurdity trumps reality.
Perhaps the link was not in their identity but in their actions – had a bomb gone off in your aircraft it would not have mattered whether you knew any IRA or Moslem terrorists or not.
So your outrage at having been searched is just selfish posturing, and had you thought that your attitude just might have been the reason you were pulled out of line?
I also picked up on the vast majority of Muslims aren’t Islamists
According to a poll done by The Telegraph in 2006
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers’ motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were “right”.
41% to 40% is hardly a VAST MAJORITY, and I don’t know what the other 19% wanted. It’s also assuming that everybody wanted to admit their real view, and since we understand the purpose of Taqiyya there would be more concealing their real view than expressing it.
Either way – VAST MAJORITY is a lie.
Except he DIDN’T say “the vast majority of Muslims aren’t Islamists”. You and JimS must have misheard him.
He said “the vast majority of Muslim in the United Kingdom want to have nothing to do with this kind of Al Qaeda inspired Islamist terrorism”.
That poll in the Telegraph shows the same thing. 75% of British Muslims felt no sympathy with the 7/7 bombers and only 1% felt the bomings were “right”. Just like Glees says on “PM”.
Except that I didn’t quote him, I gave what I thought was a fair precis of his expressed opinion.
If your quote is accurate I still think my precis is fair, unless you think what he really meant was ‘most Muslims are Islamist but the UK-based ones don’t support the Al Qaeda wing’, which, I think, is stretching his words too far.
He said “the vast majority of Muslim in the United Kingdom want to have nothing to do with this kind of Al Qaeda inspired Islamist terrorism”.
Even if his guess was right that does not mean that they do not share the same overall objective.
(And a guess is all it is, because for Jihad it is permitted to lie to Westeners.)
I must admit I didn’t listen to the broadcast, and still haven’t, but was going on what was written Glees claimed. I know it is the BBC desired propaganda that Islam is the religion of peace, with all the attendant joys of multiculturalism.
It’s worth reading this examination of various statistics compiled by Daniel Pipes on Muslim viewpoints in the UK. One can gauge better from that just how Muslim perspectives differ from the general ones held by our own society, and where their priorities really lie.
here is the problem comrades with the bbcs coverage of this story today,,,and i mean a big problem…i just happened to listen to 5 lefty live with shelagh the ultra liberal i giggle alot fogarty take on it,,,she came very close to blaming the edl for the actions of these nearly mass murders of innocent men women and children,,,this 5 live idiot came across as almost having sympathy for these islamist muslim extremists,,,,it was a case with her as blaming the victims for the criminals behaviour,,,,you make me sick shelagh forgarty,,,,and i know you look at this site because mark mardell is a buddys of yours,,,sorry mark for bringing your name up,,i know your very sensitive these days,,,,you know what comrades..i am sick of radio 5 lives appeasing of radical islam,,,,do you understand shelagh fogarty you damm fool
http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/30/italy-police-arrest-suspected-islamist-terrorists-planning-international-attacks/…lets hope the mafia sort this lot out,
“BBC News website headlines are not written in the same way as newspaper headlines. They are formatted so that people can find them easily when using a search engine.
This is how the internet works..”
—-
Even pre-Leveson, I’m pretty sure that any print headline that is written for space or attracting hits over accuracy would be held to account.
Of course, OFCOM means, as it did with McAlpine, broadcasters such as the BBC appear able to do what they wish, self-assessed, with impunity.
That may be how much of the free Internet works as well.
But the BBC is meant to be a supposedly most-trusted global media monopoly that is uniquely funded to operate via Charter & rafts of Guidelines to ‘report’, inform and educate with accuracy and objectivity.
Not to knock out a 140 character or less for mobile ‘summary’ that misrepresents stories by ineptitude, ratings ambitions and/or giggling ideological ambition.
Rubbish more easily found by a search engine is still rubbish. QED. Or, GIGO.
And citing anything from the BBC CoJ as a route to understanding any more than how the bubbles you inhabit get blown… Priceless.
A lot is indeed explained. Not excused.
Beeboid Dhimmi Casciani asks whether more could have been done to stop [Islamic jihadists’] bomb plot against the English Defence League and its supporters.
Well one thing BBC-NUJ could have done, and could do, if its politics were different, is to stop applying the NUJ political line of demonising the EDL.
And another thing would be to call a spade a spade, and to name ‘Islamic jihad’ as ‘Islamic jihad’.
I for one don’t think many people would indeed just read the headline and make the assumption that the bombing was planned by the EDL without reading on.
I think the BBC is actually being more subtle here. It is using subliminal messaging that associates the bomb with the EDL. This is a well-recognised technique; indeed, it is the same principle but applied in reverse whereby the BBC never ever use the words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ juxtaposed with ‘terrorism’ or its derivatives.
It is a sinister use of word association. And all completely deniable, of course.
On this particular story I haven’t seen much, if any, bias against the EDL as many are suggested. In general the BBC has done a job of trying to portray the EDL as violent thugs – some of whom are, of course. Having been up close and personal with some of the EDL crowd (I’m not a member/fan/supporter so we’re clear) I can attest they’re a mixed bunch. Some are football hooligan types who just want a scrap. Some are nasty white supremacist types. But some are black ,and Asian, and see the group as an anti-Islamist movement. That latter part I am fine with, it’s the other parts I’m not. Trouble with the BBC view is that is ignores the latter part and focuses on the idiot skinheads who yell obscenities about Muslims.
“Islamic Extremists Admit Targetting EDL Demo”
http://englishdefenceleague.org/edl-news-2/1879-islamic-extremists-admit-targetting-edl-demo