A Muslim shopkeeper, Asad Shah, in Glasgow, has been savagely murdered soon after posting an Easter greeting to Christians..
The Mail says that ‘Police Scotland confirmed to MailOnline that everyone currently involved in the investigation was Muslim following the arrest of a man aged 32.’
Why does the BBC not report that? Instead it limits its report to this ‘Police Scotland said the death was currently being treated as “religiously prejudiced”. ‘ which gives an entirely different, and possibly misleading, take on things.
Guess what? Asad Shah was an Ahmadiyya Muslim….in other words someone not considered to be ‘Muslim’ by most other Muslims…Sunni Muslims that is.
Lovely tributes to Asad Shah an #Ahmadiyya Muslim who was murdered last night in #Glasgow UK pic.twitter.com/rW3ivqJzaY
— Ehsan Rehan (@Ehzan) March 25, 2016
If the BBC is going to publish inflammatory half-truths such as “religiously prejudiced” then we need to know why the murder was considered so….if the police say this is what they believe then does the BBC not ask why they think that? Presumably they know just as the Mail does, but have decided not to publish the full facts…why? You can see the reaction in many of the comments to reports on Asad Shah’s murder that the ‘Right’ is to blame, and even UKIP.
The BBC know this would be the result of speculation based on that misleading phrase but do nothing to damp down such false narratives, happy to just sling mud as much as possible before the truth gets out there.
If the BBC is going to publish limited information then at least publish the fact Asad Shah was Ahmadiyya and then allow the readers to leaven their speculation with other possibilities other than the one the BBC knows will be the immediate thought…that Asad Shah was the Muslim victim of a white, right-wing, islamophobic thug incited by a right-wing Press to hate all Muslims….when the inconvenient truth may be far, far different.
If I can find this why can’t one of the biggest news services in the world?……Maybe they’re just not interested in the truth…..
Our brother of Ahmadi has martyred, Asad Shah in savage street attack in Glasgow last night.
And the head of Glasgow Central Mosque – the biggest in Scotland – has been caught out praising a murderer who killed a politician who opposed religious laws in Pakistan
Meanwhile, Alex Salmond unwittingly blunders into the debate, claiming Scotland would have better intelligence than Europe as “we are more in touch with our immigrants” (Interview in the Times, but sadly I do not have the full link). To hell with the Belgian victims and how they feel, Scotland’s doing alright
And of course, our left wing bbc currently swooning over the IRA “rebels” , and turning a blind eye to this. Pacific Quay one of the worst offenders
It was easier when Scotland’s left wing politicians were merely IRA supporters. They only had to call Rangers’ fans bigots, and they won the moral high ground, at least in the media. Thank God I left years ago
Typical of the BBC to lump in the Easter Rising with Easter today.
Pretty sure that Easter at that time was in April…so, factually we`re a few weeks early.
But hey-The Oirish Rebels were rebels, and against the Crown.
Especially when most British soldiers had bigger things to fight that failed poets and traitors-like World War One.
It was THAT aiding and abetting the enemy in treasonable acts that got them shot at Kilmainham.
NOT the crap poetry-albeit that there ought to be a trail at the Hague for Tom Paulin after HIS crimes against The English language.
And-all those rebels eh-all in the Euro with no way out, and taking their orders now from Brussels.
No mention of THAT though eh?-that`s the RIGHT kind of rebellion.
Letting the worlds chancers in to eat your nation alive from the inside..but with gay marriage, Colm Toibin and Brendan O Carroll to carry the EU flame.
Bloody Celtic Circus…
Imagine the BBC will push for the Easter Sunday 1916 date to be the one that Christians can use…we`d then get Pearse, De Valera,Connolly and Casement commemorated every year-and Muslims will be able to see their alarm clocks to British Bombing Time that bit easier
The BBC have to find some way of fitting any occasion into their political agenda. It is quite pathetic.
This is a must watch
Part 1 on Islam by pastor Sharam Hadian
Parts 2 and 3 in side bar
Absolute must watch
But hey-The Oirish Rebels were rebels, and against the Crown.
From what I recall loyalties in Ireland were more divided than the likes of the BBC will ever tell you – something like 50,000 lads from the (now) Irish Republic signed up to fight in WW1 for example – and it was the British response to the Easter Rising which turned opinion heavily in favour of the nationalists. (Equally the American War of Independence was in many aspects more like a civil war, with splits between members of the same families fighting on different sides.)
I’ve not Googled that to confirm so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
>And the head of Glasgow Central Mosque – the biggest in Scotland – has been caught out praising a murderer who killed a politician who opposed religious laws in Pakistan
And it’s the same mosque that Sturgeon chose to take her minute’s silence in for the Paris attacks. She made a foolish decision there; I’ll never forget that. Amazing, though, that in Pakistan – one of the most dangerous countries to live in the world – you have a politician standing up to blasphemy laws, yet here, in Britain…I’m sure you get the absurdity. And the Scottish Police…well.
Appalling story this one.
Yet the BBC have continued to push the bloke from S.Croydon who asked some Muslim to explain “what Brussels was all about.”
So he“s to be charged with asking a Muslim to explain the role of Islam in the Brussels atrocities?
Well if the f***in BBC actually ASKED the same questions as our Croydon friend-we might no longer be losing so many citizens of Paris,Brussels and Cologne.
So 24 hour coverage from S.Croydon as we wheel him out of a hospital to Guildford magistrates to “stand trial”…but no peep from Stugeons Magick Kingdom about what kind of integration she`d like to see , so we might prevent a Sunni murdering an Ahmadiyyah.
Appalling-but no BBC coverage that I`ve heard yet on radio or telly today.
Does Croydon not have a magistrates court ? I never heard of a court sitting on a saturday, let alone Easter Saturday. Anyone might think that this is a show trial.
Look, day after day the Guardianista leftists of 38 degrees are spamming every ones E-Mail addresses with the “Latest frightening threats to our beloved BBC” propaganda, blaming the right for everything but pestilence and famine…
The BBC are simply returning the favour to their self righteous Comrades, in reporting the news the way the Guardianista see fit…..
It’s not rocket science……The BBC are fully aware of what the political right think of them…So why the hell would they change at all….The pathetically vapid and spineless Cameron wont challenge them – They’re also fully aware of that..
I agree. There is no way the BBC is going to change under this government – nor under any likely alternative. In fact, over the past six months or so I would say the line has been hardening with even the pretense of balance being abandoned.
The stream of Guardian hacks being recruited for the ailing Newsnight, the open bias over the EU referendum – the BBC doesn’t care that we know what it’s up to. It knows that the Tories are too weak to challenge it, so it can, and will, do as it pleases.
Cameron’s main agendas – in terms of their potential devastating impact on this country – are the EU and ‘fighting climate change’.
Add in his support of the UAF and the bollox-all he’s done about immigration and he couldn’t be more in tune with the BBC if he donned a shell suit and bicycle clips, grew himself a beard and got George Osborne to wave around a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book at the Dispatch Box.
The BBC site still has the terribly misleading information that this poor chap’s murder was caused by religious prejudice. Anyone reading that would, of course, believe that the bloke had been murdered by someone of another faith…most likely a Christian. It’s both devious and dangerous. This really is just what the doctor ordered, isn’t it. With an already heightened terrorist threat, paranoid Muslims being told by our state broadcaster that THEY are under attack from us.
I wouldn’t trust the BBC further than I could spit.
It’s both devious and dangerous.
Spot on Jeff, but it is exactly what they do time and time again and 99% of the public are oblivious to it because they still believe the BBC will only ever report fact and truth.
Given they have 70% of the news coverage in the UK it’s subversion on an epic scale, distorting every topic they cover be it Islam, immigration, global warming, Israel, British history, feminism, slavery, gay rights, ‘right wing’ politicians etc etc etc.
BBC website reports a murder and arrest in Glasgow. The murder was “religiously prejudiced ” ( interesting use of english). But, hey, it was one muslim killing another. Needless to say the victim was a “lovely man ” etc. etc…..
He was a nice guy. I keep in touch with several people from that area. No-one had a bad word to say about him. Look at the tweet at the top of the page for further proof
His reputation is being thrown to the dogs by the bbc, to protect a murdering bigot who happened to share his religion
Typical of the BBC and the Left in general, they don’t care who they sacrifice for ‘the cause’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8711026.stm
Who are the Ahmadi? (28th May 2010)
‘In 1974, under severe pressure from clerics, Pakistan’s first elected prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, introduced a constitutional amendment – known as the second amendment – which declared Ahmadiyya NON-MUSLIMS’ (BBC reporter)
But the BBC know better.
‘Police Scotland said the death was being treated as “religiously prejudiced”. They said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims.’
Police Scotland said both men were muslims, but Islam says they are not both muslims. Who’s view do the BBC take on muslim issues? Muslims or the police? The one that fits their narrative (disgustingly in this case, no surprise)
‘Described by rights organisations as one of the most relentlessly persecuted communities in Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya have seen their personal and political rights erode steadily over the years under pressure from orthodox Muslim groups.’ (BBC reporter)
‘Today, the Ahmadiyya community faces restrictions in many Muslim nations, saying followers are constantly persecuted.’ ( BBC reporter)
Are we a muslim nation yet? The paraphrases are all BBC comment. And still they [BBC] call him a muslim! Even though they have previously reported that he is classed as a non-muslim, ie a heretic, by Islam itself.
“Why does the BBC not report that? Instead it limits its report to this ‘Police Scotland said the death was currently being treated as “religiously prejudiced”. ‘ which gives an entirely different, and possibly misleading, take on things.”
http://bbc.in/1UOYRJs
“Police said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims.”
Not being honest are you Zero….time stamp 1 hour ago for that updated story….so explain why they waited so long to report what the Mail knew 10 hours ago? Could it be that the BBC couldn’t hide that fact any longer as the Mail promoted it to its lead story on its frontpage with this headline…‘Popular Muslim shopkeeper, 40, is stabbed to death outside his business in a religiously motivated attack by ANOTHER MUSLIM hours after posting a message wishing his ‘beloved Christian nation’ a happy Easter’ [Maybe the BBC read ‘Biased BBC’…if not perhaps they should more often] and the Telegraph and others reported it hours before the BBC? Curiously the lefty papers the Guardian (No comments allowed on its report) and Independent still haven’t caught up.
The BBC obviously knew the same as the Mail knew……it’s an obvious question to ask the police, the identity of anyone arrested. How did the BBC miss that from the police statement for so long?
Why not report what the Ahmadiyya community were saying very early this morning, the BBC makes so much of its news gathering by monitoring social media how did it miss the fact that Asad Shah was Ahmadi?
Why are the BBC not explaining why this is a “religiously prejudiced” attack?
The BBC is always dragging its feet when a story undermines its own particular narrative about Muslims under siege…..how quick would it have been to report the killer’s identity if he had been a dreaded ‘Islamophobe’? Tell Mama would be on the airwaves in no time at all revealing the terrible plight of the Muslim community.
I await Nicky Campbell’s indepth investigative phone-in on intra-Muslim ‘racism’.
Curiously the lefty papers the Guardian (No comments allowed on its report) and Independent still haven’t caught up.
Coincidence or magic?
You decide.
According to my clock, they only reported it 2 hours ago .
A little bit later than the rest of the independent & free media?
Hello Zero, working night shift after the ‘hand over’ from Jerrod ?
The pair of you would make a great ‘tag team’.
“Not being honest are you Zero….time stamp 1 hour ago for that updated story….so explain why they waited so long to report what the Mail knew 10 hours ago?”
How am I not being honest? It’s a breaking story; both the Mail and the BBC reports have been updated several times throughout the day.
“Why are the BBC not explaining why this is a ‘religiously prejudiced’ attack?”
It was the Scottish Police that described it as ‘religiously prejudiced’, perhaps you should ask them.
“…how quick would it have been to report the killer’s identity if he had been a dreaded ‘Islamophobe’?”
Unfortunately; “what if?” arguments are based on nothing more than your own paranoid imagination and as a result completely meaningless.
You complained that the BBC had; “decided not to publish the full facts”.
The BBC have published the full facts. Or in other words, they made no such decision.
You were wrong Alan. Suck it up, move on, and try to stop making a bigger fool of yourself.
Zero, why do you and Jerrod post on this site ? Your efforts are futile as its called ‘http://biasedbbc.tv’
The only people that visit it are those who think its ‘biased’.
In simple terms , you are wasting your time .
“Zero, why do you and Jerrod post on this site ?”
Shwmae taffman.
I would suggest the best description would be professional (beeboid) troll.
A.K.A. – PR@.
How am I not being honest? It’s a breaking story; both the Mail and the BBC reports have been updated several times throughout the day.
But amazing, nonetheless, that on such a sensitive and high profile news item the BBC with all its superior resources including its pool of ‘world leading journalists’ should be lagging behind the right-wing press that it dwarfs whilst mysteriously keeping in step with like-minded papers like the Guardian and Independent?
Seems to me they are either incompetent, agenda-driven or perhaps both.
“Zero, why do you and Jerrod post on this site?”
I can’t speak for Jerrod. I’ve already been polite enough to answer your question as to why I post here.
Zero my Apolls.
Well you could be really polite and answer it again, as I unfortunately missed it ?
You could ask Jerrod also while you are there .
Thanks .
Zero , where are you ?
Are you asleep on the job ?
“Well you could be really polite and answer it again, as I unfortunately missed it ?”
No you didn’t; “I like your cartoon, did you draw it your self . Does it mean your mother thinks its past you bed time?”
I cried non stop for several days after that put down. I’m not ready to go through that all again.
‘I cried non stop for several days after that put down.’
?
So what is your answer to “Zero, why do you and Jerrod post on this site?” ?
taffman, there’s nothing wrong with people posting opposing views on this site. It keeps the debate healthy.
Edward
Agreed, but it is good to know their motive , especially if their answer is honest.
I have some doubts though . Especially if they indulge in procrastination in giving us a reason for their efforts .
I was accused of being a BBC employee not many weeks ago.
You have to get out of this paranoid mindset that people who don’t agree with you OBVIOUSLY work for the BBC, or, they’re so BLATANTLY Muslim!
You need to get some early nights and plenty of sleep or you’ll give yourself a stroke.
Taffman, I have no problem with zero, Jerrod etc. posting here. Apart from anything else, they prove that Leftists have no sense of humour ! If we discourage them , we run the risk of being accused of stifling free speech. That job is reserved for the Left .
I completely agree with you Grant. My main objection to the BBC is that they crush open debate. Surely we are better than that here.
old, If this site ever lowers itself to the level of the BBC, I am offski !!!!
Edward – evidently you have never worked ‘shifts’.
Edward
We don’t need debate here, this is a site for like minded people.
Yes, that is very evident Jerry. But you know what happens when like minded people isolate themselves from those who do not share their views – their views become more and more extreme.
Just like those Muslims who isolate themselves and refuse to integrate into British society.
Or those Guardian readers who inhabit a liberal bubble in which many, many, posts are taken down for breaching the Guardians “community standards”.
Community standards which appear to mean, pro Islam, pro labour, pro abortion, pro EU, pro Irish, Welsh, Scots, Palestinian, African nationalism, anti Christian, anti Israel, anti US, anti British, anti nationalism (unless its stance is oppositional to the west).
But you know what happens when like minded people isolate themselves from those who do not share their views – their views become more and more extreme.
Sounds like a certain broadcasting corporation to me.
But agree with most of what you’re saying.
Zero, why do you and Jerrod post on this site?
Still waiting ……….
“Still waiting ……….”
“Wronged – I waste their time.”
Good luck with that taffman.
I don’t need luck for that . Simples
This is an interesting thread.
I don’t believe the BBC are religiously biased. As an atheist and member of the National Secular Society (NSS) I haven’t seen any BBC output that I would regard as ‘pro-religion’. And if the BBC were biased in any way towards religion or any particular religion then I would expect the NSS to be campaigning against it. If anyone should pick up on BBC religious bias, it would be those who are genuinely secular in their political views.
However, I was also scratching my head as to why the BBC were holding back with the full details of this story.
Surely, if someone has been killed as a result of ‘religious prejudice’ (which happens all the time in Northern Ireland), there’s no point reporting it if you’re not going to state the religions of the people involved. It is effectively a NON-STORY!
Of course, the BBC have subsequently included the facts in their reporting, which is basically an admission that they were wrong in the first place to omit such information, but this is a perfect example of BBC political bias and not religious.
This story does not entice people to Islam. This story does not put Muslims in a good light. This story does not favour Islam over Christianity or any other religion. Therefore the BBC have not promoted Islam in any way.
BUT! This story is more about the BBC and how they report controversial news stories in a way that minimises the incrimination of ‘the guilty’. Perhaps they have a duty to follow that process, otherwise they could be accused of bias against the accused.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Religious impartiality should not be misinterpreted as bias against [INSERT YOUR RELIGION HERE].
Edward, are you seriously saying that you do not think that the BBC is biased against Christians and Jews and in favour of Muslims ? As for Hindus, Sikhs etc. , they don’t even get a look in. And I too am an atheist.
Put it this way, I believe the BBC are no different to other mainstream media outlets that treat Muslims with kid gloves for fear of violent retaliation. As an example; the shameful refusal of ALL our media outlets to publish those Charlie Hebdo images after the attacks.
And yet they are all quite happy to publish content that would perhaps offend people of other faiths. So I don’t regard this as a purely BBC trait, it’s ALL our media and government at fault. And not just that of Britain.
Yes, I believe that Muslims get preferential treatment by the government and the media, but the BBC are not alone in this.
The Sky news article this morning that appeared on my Microsoft phone was exactly the same as the Beebs.
Sadly, that is really no surprise. Sky recruits from the same intellectual gutters as the BBC – quite frequently from the BBC. This is one of many things that makes the Left seem so ridiculous when it screeches about the demon Murdoch.
Yes, I believe that Muslims get preferential treatment by the government and the media, but the BBC are not alone in this.
In total contravention of its charter, then.
The BBC is not in fear of Islam – it is a cheerleader for Islam as not only does it avoid negative reporting (and thus is dangerously acting against the public interest) it promotes positive reporting. There have been endless citings of both on here over the years which I can begin to list for you if you like but I’m sure you’ve been around long enough to see the many examples.
Anyway, if there is a widespread fear of Islam amongst politicians and the media (though I do agree it’s a factor in some cases) how come the likes of the Mail and various individual journalists are more than happy to put their heads above the parapet (thank God)?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and its duty is to act in the public interest. Suppression of facts and distortion of history – prevalent in its coverage of Islam – contravenes that duty.
What’s all this bollocks about “positive” and “negative” reporting? The BBC have every right to avoid both and I would be very interested in seeing an example of “positive reporting” when it comes to Muslims or Islam.
Keep in mind that avoiding the negative does not denote a positive. It could just be that it’s a neutral.
But I already know this viewpoint will piss off the mushrooms who sit around here all day waiting to be offended so they can attack like a pack of dogs in a 64bit ASCII kind of way.
Oooh! I’m scared.
You all need to get out more!
Edward – you need to calm down . Keep Calm – its not the end of the world , yet.
Why do you post on this site ?
taffman, It is fine with me. Edward is very funny , always makes me smile !
This ‘you all’ of whom you speak so expansively being?
But your belief in belief is very clear. One is sure Jerry will agree.
Lets recall what former bbc dg Mark Thompson had to say,shall we?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9107689/Mark-Thompson-BBC-director-general-admits-Christianity-gets-tougher-treatment.html
Mark Thompson: BBC director general admits Christianity gets tougher treatment
The BBC director general Mark Thompson has claimed that Christianity is treated with less sensitivity than other religions because it is “pretty broad shoulders”.
In a wide-ranging interview about faith and broadcasting, Mr Thompson disclosed that producers were faced with the possibilities of “violent threats” instead of normal complaints if they broadcast certain types of satire.
He suggested other faiths had “very close identity with ethnic minorities” and as a result were covered in a more careful way by broadcasters.
“Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’,” he said. “This definitely raises the stakes.”
In the interview posted online for the Free Speech Debate, a research project at Oxford University, Mr Thompson said he was a “practising Catholic” who believed that the “truths of the Christian faith” were objective rather than subjective.
But he said Islam was a religion “almost entirely” practised by people who already may feel in other ways “isolated”, “prejudiced against” and who may regard an attack on their religion as “racism by other means”.
He appear to admit that the public broadcaster’s decision to screen the controversial show “Jerry Springer: The Opera” on BBC TWO in 2005 was a mistake.
More than 45,000 complained about people contacted the BBC to complain about swearing and its irreverent treatment of Christian themes.
Many argued that no one would have thoughts of making such a show about the Prophet Mohammed and Islam.
Mr Thompson said: “The kind of constraints that most people accept around racial hatred, the fact that it may be in certain forms of expression or certain forms of depiction, may be outlawed because of the way in which they go to racial hatred and potentially the promotion and incitement of racial hatred.
“I think religion should never receive that level of protection or sensitivity.
“But I think it is wrong to imagine that it therefore goes into the general swim and that a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed is no more challenging than a debate about what two plus two equals.”
In comments reported by the Daily Mail, he added: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.
“One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.”
Asked by his interviewer, Timothy Garton Ash, the historian, that the broadcaster would not air a “comparably satirical” show about as the Prophet Mohammed, he said: “Essentially the answer to that question is yes.”
‘The idea you might want to … think quite carefully about whether something done,
in quotes, in the name of freedom of expression, might to the Jew, or the Sikh, or the Hindu, or the Muslim, who receives it, feel threatening, isolating and so forth, I think those are meaningful considerations.”
He said he had no problem with the BBC decision to show Jerry Springer: The Opera, adding that he “thoroughly enjoyed it”.
A BBC spokesman was unavailable for comment.
Keep in mind that avoiding the negative does not denote a positive. It could just be that it’s a neutral.
No, it’s a distortion of reality and it diminishes the truth. Examples for you: the delay in covering the attacks on women in German cities at New Year; reluctance to report on the Rotherham (Oxford/Derby etc etc) paedophile/racist/rape gangs when it blew up; skirting round issues like FGM and gender segregation which would in other circumstances provide enough material for a years’ worth of programmes crammed with feminist outrage; the distortion of events and history surrounding the conflict between Israel and Palestine; no reporting of any negative views expressed by British-based imams….
P.S. You’re beginning to sound like Scott and Jerrod – the Glimmer Twins of bile and foot-stamping tantrums.
The bias is relentless.
Consider…women’s rights, especially regarding the right to terminate the lives unborn children in the womb are always reported as a Catholic Christian issue.
Homosexual rights….always reported in conflict with Catholic or evangelical or even “right wing” Christians.
Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists are never asked about or even mentioned in these contexts. Interestingly Communists and/or atheists are never asked about the history of homosexual repression in the old atheist, communist states.
Regards this dreadful murder and the awful reporting from the bBC. Has the bBC reported what exactly set off this murder.?
NO!
It was the message on social media wishing Christians a happy Easter. At a stroke silencing any other Muslim from doing likewise. funny enough regards that Pakistani mullah in Scotland who tweeted his support for murder most foul. Anybody know why he murdered the man he was supposed to protect?
NO!
It’s because he spoke out in defence of a Chritian woman on death row for blasphemy .
Same subject, different victims. bBc remains quiet, unless of course you’re a Muslim bBC reporter in Burma and then you can ask anything you like
Radio 4 this morning at 8:45am reported the news as “Muslim shopkeeper murdered after posting happy easter tweet. Police have arrested a man”
Perhaps their newsreader is paid by the spoken words and they are trying to save money!
BBC editorial integrity. Or no time. Or space. Or something.
I watched the newspaper review on Sky TV last night and when one of the guests dared to mention the perpetrator was Muslim the Sky presenter jumped around on his settee as if he had terminal piles and tried to move the subject on as quickly as possible. Sky and BBC news – identical twins separated at birth !
That Sky presenter was Mark Longhurst. Twice he tried to shut up Toby Young, who made the suggestion that it was Muslim on Muslim crime, and Young also mentioned another situation involving a Muslim cleric in Glasgow who praised a murderer in Pakistan for killing a moderate politician. Longhurst would have none of it, and erroneously thought Young was linking the two things, and then closed down any further conversation. He has form in this regard, and the BBC would welcome him with open arms. Another odious media virtue-signaller among many. Quite why these people will not question the violent fascist ideology in our midst baffles the hell out of me.
logiebored- thanks for putting some flesh on the bones of my post !
Donbob- Your welcome.
Young also mentioned another situation involving a Muslim cleric in Glasgow who praised a murderer in Pakistan for killing a moderate politician.
The BBC are always quick to inform us, via one of their carefully-selected Common Purpose speed-dialled proxy guests, how the vast majority of Muslims abhor views like this, whilst providing no proof whatsoever. So where is their spokesperson/spokesimam to condemn this piece of murderous ‘hate speech’?
Had similar extreme views been expressed by a Jewish cleric the BBC would have been all over it like a rash. Not only that, they would have bust every bollock in the Corporation to prove – in their usual insidious fashion – how widespread such views are amongst the Jewish faith (but lets face it, they’ve pretty well achieved that through their coverage of Israel/’Palestine’ anyway).
If I may I’ll throw my 2 pennies worth into this thread..
The holding back of information on the Al mujahideen Beeb webshite shouldn’t (and isn’t by my fellow Al Beliebers) be taken as a stand alone article. Time after time after time the Al Beeb have mis-reported/with held information on news reports that ‘potentially’ could show Islam in a negative light. That cannot be debated and is why Zero has to respond back on technicalities on what was written in a post by someone who has highlighted it on just this story. The reporting of Cologne, terror attacks daily in the name of Islam, Rotherham, every mass rape or white children….the list of reports that have been politically edited by the Al Beeb is endless. Why are the Al Beeb doing this? It’s clear that the Al Beeb have mandatory guidelines on how to report ROPer criminality, but this kind of fantasist world shit caused the rape and torture and humiliation of thousands of innocent white girls by the Muslim community. The Al Beliebers on this website keep seeing this same relentless appeasement of what is a sick and dangerous cult of people who have never mixed peacefully with anything in its entire existence.
Until the West are open and honest with the problems Islam causes to all walks of life then we will keep going over this same tiresome shite. Zero will keep pretending the only problem in the world is people that use this website, and the continual Islamification of the West and bloodshed will continue
Zero you think you are helping make things better in the world and I applaud the fact that you come on here to champion and debate your cause. You are part of the problem now and you and your people need to understand that you are as much to blame for the deaths in Belgium as the true followers of Islam carrying out Islamic acts to please Allah.
Well said – pretty much to the point methinks.
By “religiously prejudiced” I think the BBC is really struggling not to say “Islamic sectarianism”
To be fair, the minute the police said religiously prejudiced, it was obvious that it was, from a non-Muslim perspective, a sectarian killing. Glasgow has had a lot of sectarian killing over the years, so everything is reported in a similar code. The BBC have just reported it as it was written.
The best you can do for Asad is to ensure that this wakes people up to the fact that Muslims are at risk from other Muslims, which will make it somewhat easier to understand why the UK needs to consider assisting Muslim refugees whilst bombing other Muslims.
The fact that this happened on the same day that the Imam at Glasgow Central Mosque would effectively applaud the assassin of a Pakistani politician is not something anyone wants to discuss.
The clocks in Scotland go back 1400 years tonight – thanks Nicola.
The police in Scotland would have been unable to prevent the killing anyway as they’ve been ordered to take off their shoes and put bootees on dogs before they’re allowed to enter the holy of holies – the temples of Baal the moon god.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=746&q=baal+moon+god&oq=baal+moon+god&gs_l=img.12..0i24.2295.10500.0.23896.13.8.0.5.5.0.186.1028.1j7.8.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.13.1036.wF2afpSzynY#imgrc=4Gpc45YJ0R36nM%3A
Zero-Jerrod are trolls. Their kind have been around almost as long as the Internet eg the days of bulletin boards . They adopt standard troll practice in their contributions . They are probably BBC employees. They may be just one person or just work alternate shifts, as someone pointed out.
Don’t let them get to you , folks. In a way it’s a compliment to the sterling work done on this site to point out BBC bias, that Zero-Jerod have emerged. We are annoying some people at the BBC. That’s good !
We know who ‘Jerrod’ is – Scott, the screeching hysteric who doesn’t work for the BBC.
Zero, on the other hand, may do. He is an old hand here, having campaigned under many pseudonyms. His stock in trade is to dispute cases where the BBC has been caught censoring the news by selective reporting, which he does (sometimes suspiciously rapidly) by unearthing an example of the BBC running a story which everyone else is featuring as front page news – in the BBC’s case, usually in Gaelic on P. 94 of the Hebridean version of its ‘news’ website.
Neither is here to discuss BBC bias, that’s for sure.