Search Results for: Chris cook

Cook’s Charter

Why did the all-powerful BBC refuse to tell the truth about Mr Corbyn?

Theresa May surely has only herself to blame for the Tories’ appalling performance on Thursday. Even before the polls closed it was impossible to find a Conservative MP who thought she had run a good campaign.

But there is another group of people who certainly made a contribution to the outcome and should be hanging their heads in shame this morning. I am speaking of the BBC.

Our national broadcaster accounts for about 50 per cent of news output in this country via its multiple television, radio and web outlets. It is immeasurably more influential than any other news channel or newspaper. That is why it is so important it fulfils its sacred duty to invigilate politicians without fear or favour.

In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, it failed miserably over the past few weeks…..Auntie was laughably indulgent over the past few weeks.

Stephen Glover in the Mail


The once head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said:

Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation.

Today, Britain goes to the polls. And frankly, I’m shocked that no one has stood up and said, unambiguously, how profoundly dangerous it would be for the nation if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister. So let me be clear, the leader of the Labour Party is an old-fashioned international socialist who has forged links with those quite ready to use terror when they haven’t got their way: the IRA, Hizbollah, Hamas. As a result he is completely unfit to govern and Britain would be less safe with him in No 10. 

Why has the BBC not made the  slightest attempt to investigate that…in fact why has the BBC done the complete oppsosite and fed us the lie that Corbyn is the best man to defend us from terrorism?


Why did Corbyn do so well in the election?  Having one of the most powerful and influential news broadcasters on-side might have helped.  There is no doubt that the BBC corrupted annd undermined the democratic process and helped rig the election in Labour’s favour.

The Conservatives made an historically bad decision to hold a general election when they already had a majority, a slim one but a majority, and that,  as they should have noted as a caution, had been won against all the odds and the punditry.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  May of course had repeatedly stated that there was no need for another general election only to change her mind in what looked a very opportunistic way.  They then made a catastrophic misjudgement in hammering their core vote…the householders who want to pass on their earnings to their children to help them in the future (On top of cutting fuel allowance and the triple lock for Tory voting pensioners).  May had learnt nothing from the Tory voting ‘white van man’ national insurance fiasco and subsequent u-turn.  She compounded the error by back-tracking on it and changing her mind, whilst refusing to admit she’d changed her mind.  Two u-turns whilst proclaiming herself in her main battle-cry to be ‘Strong and Stable’…powerfully undermining her own campaign and the founding principle for her appeal to the electorate…that only a strong and stable leader could deal with the Brexit negotiations.

The other major influence on the outcome of the election were the terrorist attacks which suddenly brought in to play a whole new narrative about police numbers, funding and security.  May, having been Home Secretary and having overseen cuts to the police was all too easily put in the frame for the blame…lack of funding led to the attacks was the simplistic message…a message that was all too effective especially as it met with little scrutiny and examination from the BBC despite clear evidence that police funding was not the issue when it comes to identifying and stopping these killers….after all the police actually already knew who these people were and what they were about.

May made one final ‘error’…one that made sense, but it only made sense if the BBC were neutral and took a non-partisan view…which naturally they didn’t and perhaps the Tories should have factored in the BBC’s hatred of them. [The BBC are back to calling them the ‘nasty party’ as they seek alliance with the ‘socially conservative’ DUP’…question…are Muslim conservatives ‘nasty’ then?] May decided not to take part in any of the debates between the leaders…having seen the TV debates and listened to some on the radio you’ll know they are total nonsense and a bearpit for loud voices chanting well rehearsed soundbites and attack lines…the audience learn nothing.  The BBC however decided this was a good opportunity to attack May and its presenters constantly criticised her for not appearing in the leaders’ debates telling us she was scared….here’s the BBC’s US correspondent, James Cook, giving us his two penneth worth….

Now that’s a complete lie isn’t it?  May was out on the stump, she appeared in many interviews and did several audience question and answers as well as one-on-one with interviewers.  She in no way ‘dodged the public’ nor rigorous interviews…and of course put herself up for election, the biggest ‘interview’ of all.  So just a BBC lie….but one that was spread and encouraged throughout the campaign…naturally a Labour narrative.

BBC presenters relentlessly attacked May for appearing on the One Show telling us this was a soft interview and she was ‘dodging the public’, however when Corbyn did the same interview he was applauded, not a word of criticism from his fellow travellers at the BBC.

And therein lies the real problem.  The BBC.

The Power and the Inglorious Bias

The BBC is extraordinarily powerful and yet unaccountable with politicians too afraid to tackle its blatant partisan support for Labour and its extreme liberal ideology that it propagates without fear of any genuine censure and retribution.  The BBC is by far the most trusted and goto source for news relying as it does on past reputation, the audience’s innate attachment to it based upon years of ‘brainswashing’ as they grew up watching its programmes and ‘bonding’ with the BBC, putting aside any qualms about bias because they love Top Gear or Poldark or David Attenborough…and of course because the BBC pumps out relentless propaganda on its own behalf telling us how fantastic, how trustworthy, how accurate, how much better quality it is when compared to other news sources…and of course only it can be trusted to deliver the news in an era of ‘post-truth alternate facts’ and ‘fake news’…which is an irony because the BBC is the biggest peddler of fake news out there and is completely untrustworthy as we will show here in an account of how the BBC corrupted British democracy and rigged an election.

The Tories lost it but with a little help from their enemies

It wasn’t all the Tories’ failure but a highly successful campaign by Corbyn, or rather his team, which completely reframed how Corbyn and his fellow disasters-just-waiting-to-happen, Abbott and McDonnell, presented themselves, their policies and ideologies.  From being actual terrorist supporting, far-left, Britain-hating extremists they had a complete make-over, new suits, new hairdos and new policies that were astonishing u-turns after decades of saying the complete opposite. However they got away with it because the BBC did not challenge them at all.  May was pilloried and vilified for her u-turns, McDonnell was allowed by Marr to whitewash over his avowed Marxism despite clear evidence that he was a Marxist including an incriminating video, only Andrew Neil making any attempt to seriously challenge him, Abbott waffled about a change in hairstyle and Corbyn got away with murder as he dumped his career-long love of terrorists, denied his ambition to thwart all anti-terror legislation and to claim he had always supported shoot-to-kill, actually lying in an ITV interview with Peston about a Kuenssberg interview with him in which he claimed he only opposed shoot-to-kill in the 1980’s in NI…that was a total lie…one that the BBC itself challenged at the time when the BBC Trust ruled in Corbyn’s favour that Kuenssberg had misquoted him…she hadn’t…Corbyn had lied but now that the election was ongoing the BBC suddenly forgot that Corbyn had supported shoot-to-kill, and then lied on Peston, and were presenting him as a man who could be trusted to deal with a terrorist threat…also failing to register his long, long support for such terrorists…Muslim ones as well as IRA.

Putting the record straight by bending the truth

A classic example of the BBC’s highly partisan favouring of Corbyn and the whitewashing of his past is this interview with Boris by Mishal Husain ‘putting the record straight’ as she tells it, Husain insisting that Corbyn supports shoot-to-kill and has said so many times…she makes no note that this is a massive opportunistic u-turn on terror and shoot-to-kill by Corbyn preferring instead to make this strident defence of Corbyn against all the documented facts…



Note how Husain, whilst being very unwilling to talk about Corbyn’s voting record on terror laws, and indeed stopping Boris talking about that, tried to turn the tables by cherry-picking one example when Boris opposed a terror measure…the 90 days detention.  This is highly selective and unbalanced…Corbyn just about voted down every anti-terror law he could, and boasted about it, Boris votes against one and this somehow absolves Corbyn for his career long pro-terror stance?  I don’t remember Boris honouring IRA murderers or calling Islamic terrorists ‘friends’ and inviting them into parliament…I do however remember Corbyn doing that.  Husain just ignored all the inconvenient facts that showed Corbyn to be the terrorist’s friend.

Those who control the past control the present

Quite extraordinary how the BBC can totally ignore Corbyn’s past, his celebrated steadfast refusal to change his ideology in 30 or more years and now his astonishingly convenient and well-timed change of heart on terrorism.  Extraordinary when you compare it with how they absolutely slaughtered May for her u-turns and how they now conduct a relentlessly negative and critical ‘exposé’ of the DUP’s ideology, very definitely adopting a censorious tone towards them that is utterly at odds with the indulgent, see-no-evil tone used for Corbyn….the DUP’s sins are being climate sceptics(or ‘deniers’ as the BBC maligns them), opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage….compare that with Corbyn’s unfaltering, until now, support for terrorists, his failure to tackle anti-Semitism in his party, his desire to abolish NATO, MI5, the Police and the Army and his ruinous economic policies and  you wonder who is really the major threat to Britain, world peace and stability.

The BBC lionised him and covered over his extremism in this profile and highlighted his unchanging policies as a notable part of his career…

He has refused to cave in and now has a chance to fight a general election on his own terms – making the case for a different kind of government in line with the principles he has held, more or less unchanged, since he first entered politics more than 40 years ago.

Strange now that the BBC should make little to no comment about his astonishing make-over and revision of his policies just as an election came into sight.

Greed is good

Consider this…Corbyn is all for fairness, community and an equitable spreading of wealth…and yet one of his major vote catching policies, dumping student loans, is the exact opposite of that appealing as it does to the greed in people, the individual’s self-interest at the expense of the community.  Rather than take responsibility for their own further education and career advancement Corbyn presented the young with a vote-winning proposition they couldn’t refuse whatever it cost society…free university places.  Greed and self-interest is now good under Corbyn…everything that he is supposedly against.  No comment from the BBC?

Safe in his hands

What of that narrative that if only we had more community police officers on the beat we’d gather more intelligence and be able to identify these terrorists?  Complete nonsense.  These people were already on the radar, the problem was that the police could not arrest them and charge them as it was not an offence to merely think certain thoughts, not even to have an ‘ISIS’ flag in your possession as the Muslim who walked freely through Westminster with one draped around his shoulders proved.  One reason of course is the lack of legislation allowing stricter laws that cracked down on ‘thoughts’, legislation so often opposed by…Jeremy Corbyn.  The BBC refuses to allow the salient facts about anti-terrorism to take hold in the public narrative that we have one of the most efficient and effective counter-terror forces in the world…we make arrests every day and have stopped 18 attacks in the last few years….whatever happened to the wise old words that the BBC used to trot out….the terrorists only have to get lucky once, we have to be lucky everyday?  Oh hang on…after the Manchester attack they quote this…

“We used to say that a terrorist only has to be lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.”

Funny though how that doesn’t seem to apply here for May….the attack isn’t just a terrorist getting ‘lucky’ it’s May’s fault for cutting police budgets….despite pumping in billions more into security and intelligence and the fact that there are 23,000 people ‘of interest’ on the radar…an impossible number to monitor effectively….but remarkable that they know of them all… no?

As Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, noted in a piece in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph that Corbyn’s response was ‘nakedly political’.

Sir Richard — who is no Tory stooge — wrote that ‘if you ask professionals in the police, they would recognise that creating 10,000 jobs for community policing won’t have the slightest effect on the problem of Islamic terrorism’.

Remarkable that the BBC has ignored the fact that Labour in 2015 were proposing to cut the police budget by a further 10% above what the Tories had already cut.  Consider that the police budget has not been cut since 2015 by the Tories and yet they get criticised for the level of funding and that Labour would have cut further…how is it possible that this is not worthy of comment from the BBC?

How is it not worthy of comment that Labour’s ex-shadow home secretary and now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and Corbyn, have both opposed the counter-terror Prevent programme?

Foreign Policy black propaganda…The Jihadist’s narrative

Corbyn came straight out after Manchester to blame foreign policy for radicalising Muslims…this has long been a BBC narrative as well…it is an utterly false and dangerous narrative, one that is embedded in the Muslim community as a whole and which feeds the Jihadi recruit conveyor belt…it is an entirely false line of propaganda.

The other incredibly dangerous and false narrative is that these terrorists are not driven by religious ideology, that they are somehow perverting the teachings of Islam.  The fact is they are not, ISIS is living history, a revolution that is televised in full technicolour as the Islamic State re-enacts what Muhammed did 1400 years ago as he blitzed the Middle East with a tiny force and established what would become Muslim dominance of the area and beyond….and they are doing it in obedience to the teachings of the Koran and its commands to ‘defend Muslims’ who are under attack…the BBC has been telling Muslims they are under attack, that the West is at war with Islam, for over a decade now.  Any wonder so many British Muslims believe that?  Where is the counter narrative that tells the real story?

Character assassination

The BBC’s ‘flagship’ current affairs programme, Newsnight, broadcast a profile of Corbyn, a profile put together by a left-wing supporter from the New Statesman, Stephen Bush.  This turned out to be a somewhat narrow, dishonest  profile, more idolization, an acclamatory tribute, that airbrushed away any controversial aspects of the Corbyn ideology and turned him into a moderate, reasoned and statesman-like politician well respected by everyone.  Newsnight then balanced that with a somewhat narrow, dishonest protrayal of May…but this time far from being a glowing, positive tribute as Corbyn received we had a snide, sniping, extremely negative attack from Tory wet, Matthew Parris…a fanatical Remain supporter who hates the fact May is actually going to carry out what the voters expect…Brexit.

The BBC had from the beginning of the campaign targeted May and her slogan ‘Strong and Stable’ relentlessly mocking and deriding it and its use making people embarrassed to use it such is the power of the BBC to intimidate and police what you can and cannot say in public, people now self-censoring themselves in case they get ridiculed by the BBC.  The BBC had successfully undermined the Tory’s main theme…..and they couldn’t believe their luck when May did a u-turn on care.  The BBC did not do a similar attack on Corbyn despite the fact that he used his ‘For the many not the few’ slogan again and again, naturally.  Nor did the BBC bother to note he had stolen the slogan not just from Blair but that the LibDems had used it in 2010.  The BBC knew Corbyn was seen as disorganised, weak and incoherent economically so they set out to destroy the Tory message that they represent the only alternative providing in contrast a strong and stable government…and when have you heard a serous attack on Corbyn’s economics….consider that the IFS has said he would impose a rate of tax not seen in peacetime Britain before and you have to ask how the BBC could avoid taking him to task over this.

When May made her speech reacting to the London Bridge attack Laura Kuenssberg claimed that this was an ‘intensely political speech’ hinting that it may be just campaign rhetoric..if you listen to the speech you will hear a perfectly measured speech from the Prime Minister that would be exactly what you might expect from any PM in such a crisis…this was not campaign rhetoric but reasoned comment that laid out how the government might respond, as any member of the public would want to know.  Corbyn, who made a massively political and factually wrong statement after Manchester placing the blame on foreign policy and cuts to police budgets, escaped any negative comment and cirticism from the BBC…quite possibly, not only because they support him, but because they fully back that narrative as well…so far from being impartial they were promoting two of their favourite things…the Labour Party and the narrative that terrorism is just blowback from the West’s actions in the Muslim world…thus we must make amends and open our borders to all the refugees.

Right-Wing online trickery

The BBC has targeted Social Media and blamed it for the rise of Trump and Brexit despite the fact that it is dominated by the Left.  Facebook was pumping out left-leaning ‘news’ before it got caught and all the tech bosses are of the left and anti-Trump.  It suits the BBC  narrative however to portray Social Media as a place that ferments and promotes Right-Wing narratives and discontent, the BBC hoping to discredit what are its biggest rivals now for the attention of the young and the news agenda.

It has continued that false narrative into this election as it claims the Tories have conducted an aggressive and highly negative attack campaign online whilst on the other hand Labour have had a far less aggressive, far lower profile and far more positive campaign aimed at getting people to vote rather than using social media to attack the other side….this articel is almost all about the Tories…the Tories bad, Corbyn good…

The rise of Tory attack ads on Facebook

The Conservatives seem to be targeting Facebook users in marginal constituencies with anti-Jeremy Corbyn attack adverts, designed to draw away the Labour faithful.

Labour are also using Facebook advertising, but their messages are not focused on leaders and their personalities.

The Conservatives are paying for numerous adverts that attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or his close allies, particularly John McDonnell and Diane Abbott. They broadcast a broadly negative message – warning people about the perceived threats of a Corbyn-led government.

Negative political adverts are particularly widespread in the United States, where parties routinely attack the credibility of a candidate and try to alienate their natural supporters. Donald Trump’s election campaign, for example, directed anti-Clinton Facebook adverts at potential Clinton supporters, including African-Americans and young women.

Change of tone for how they describe Labour…

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also been pushing adverts on social media, though with a different tone. Labour ads on Facebook focus on positive messages, often using the party’s election slogan: “For the many, not the few”.

Oh…and that’s it for the analysis of Labour’s use of Social Media…that’s despite the fact that Labour are using highly negative attack ads….I saw them every day on YouTube…and there’s stuff like this…an utter fabrication, faked news…

The mock poster that was 'fake news'


Such attack ads by Labour supporters drove the anti-Tory narrative aimed at young voters….

The post was one of many to swarm Facebook by groups in favour of Jeremy Corbyn.

An analysis of the site’s content suggests it may have cost the Tories their majority by driving young Labour supporters to the polls.

Millions used the social network to share articles praising Jeremy Corbyn and trashing the Tories and Theresa May.

These ‘posts’ are likely to have had a powerful effect on Facebook’s predominantly youthful users, who are increasingly reliant on social media as their main source of news.

Of the top 20 most popular political subjects talked about on Facebook, almost all of the discussion topics about Labour cast it in a positive light.

By contrast, six of the seven most popular topics about the Conservatives were deeply critical.

Is it not odd how the BBC could miss all that or indeed how they forget that it was the Left who dominated and originated the use of social media as a means to manipulate the vote…..the Facebook founder even helping Obama…

Army of helpers

With the help of Facebook founder Chris Hughes – who devised an innovative internet fundraising system – the campaign eventually attracted more than three million donors. They donated about $650m (£403m) – more than both presidential contenders in 2004 combined.

Mr Obama had the money for four times as many campaign offices as Mr McCain and a vast army of campaign staff and volunteers. They developed and exploited a vast database of information about potential donors and voters in every key state.

Everyone who visited the Obama website was asked to sign up to get more information. Everyone who did so was asked to contribute, or volunteer. If they did, they received several follow-up calls and messages asking for more money, or more assistance.


The 2008 Obama Presidential campaign made history. Not only was Obama the first African American to be elected president, but he was also the first presidential candidate to effectively use social media as a major campaign strategy. It’s easy to forget, given how ubiquitous social media is today, that in 2008 sending out voting reminders on Twitter and interacting with people on Facebook was a big deal.

The huge success of Barack Obama’s campaigning during his 2008 presidential campaign, when he raised over half his money online and organised huge numbers of “offline” events via the internet.

Tory use of social media is being presented by the BBC as a rather scheming, underhand and dishonest way of tricking voters and manipulating the election…the same tactics by Obama and Labour are applauded with any negative issues airbrushed out of the story.  Once again a very selective and partisan narrative from the BBC.


The BBC is always ready to police our language and will often refuse to use language that it claims is too negative or that presents only the narrative of one side.  Famously of course ‘Terrorism’ is one word that it is reluctant to use despite the fact that it is easily defined and clear when something is a terrorist act…the BBC though has trouble when Muslims commit terrorist acts…then it becomes conflicted as it believes, as said above, that Muslims are only reacting in response to Western aggression and therefore theirs’ is the justifiable violence of Freedom Fighters and Resisters.  The BBC series, ‘The Honourable Woman’, was based upon this theme, the evil Israelis forcing Palestinians to use terrorism as they had no other weapon to combat the all powerful IDF.

The BBC though are quite happy to adopt and use the language of one side when it suits, such as the ‘Bedroom Tax’, or the ‘Dementia Tax’, when such language is used in a derogatory fashion meant to malign and demonise a Tory policy.

How different when it came to Labour’s ‘Garden Tax’…not only would the BBC not use the term but actually refused to talk about the subject at all, John Humphrys dismissing it out of hand when raised on the Today show by a Tory MP, claiming that it wasn’t in the Labour manifesto…when of course it is in there.

And also, thanks to Toobiwan for reminding me, there is ‘Hard Brexit‘and ‘Soft Brexit’, two terms that the BBC is happy to use despite the fact that such things do not exist…as May says ‘Brexit means Brexit’...the purported ‘Soft Brexit’, ie Corbyn’s favoured approach of a tariff free trade deal with all that entails, ie, free movement, is not Brexit at all and is in fact just continued memebership of the EU…in other words a lie…a lie that the BBC is happy to peddle.

Finally, at least all that I can remember off the top of my head, there’s Nick Robinson’s and Dimbleby’s demand that Corbyn get a good Press.  Bias?  Just a bit.

The BBC has been involved in one of the most blatant attempts to steal an election that we will witness, an astonishing corruption of the democratic process, a rigging of the election that very nearly put a terrorist sympathiser in No10.  Putin must be taking notes.

The BBC is running out of lives.




Here’s a great guest post by a Biased BBC regular. I think it illuminates the essential point that the BBC’s bias is dangerous. Give this a read, well worth your time.
“The BBC’s contemporary battle for hearts, minds and souls extends far beyond the purile petulance of its news outlets. Such is the BBC’s eagerness to produce the next generation of politically correct, self-loathing social justice dhimmis that they are now indoctrinating school children via the BBC Bitesize guide to National Curriculum.
Al-Beeb’s sinister agenda is evident in Key Stage 3 resources, such as “The Islamic World in the Middle Ages”. The licence fee is helping fund a programme of propaganda that is telling children as young as 11 that Allah really is the greatest. Indeed, you will notice that they openly refer to the “Prophet Muhammad”. Does that mean that the BBC officially believes that Mo WAS a prophet of God?

Our children are told that Muslims were going to beauty parlours, using deodorants and drinking from glasses, at a time when the English were telling children not to pick their nose over their food, spit on the table, or throw uneaten food onto the floor (hereand the city of Cordoba in Spain (omitting the fact that Muslims had invaded and conquered Spain) was a city of over half a million inhabitants with street lighting and running water while, at the same time 10,000 Londoners lived in timber-framed houses and used the river as their sewer (here).

Continue reading

Christian Jew Dog



The Sunday Times reports:


‘Christians Offer Safe Houses To Muslim Converts’


Now why the hell would they need to do that in secular, democratic Britain where Muslims are tolerant and live by the guiding light of the Religion of Peace?

Apparently it is necessary to offer such sanctuary as Muslim converts to Christianity face ostracism and violent reprisals.

The penalty for them is at best to be cut off from their families, at worst they face death.’


Death?  In Britain?   When Christian churchs have visists from the police for saying non-Christians will go to hell how does a religion that preaches death, literally death, get imported into this coutnry and its text sold in bookshops up and down the country and preached in schools and religious establishments, often paid for by a foreign power?

Where is the outrage from the BBC…a BBC which religiously exposes the death penalty regime in the US?


The Telegraph reports:

I renounced Islam, so my family think I should die


Not in  the Sudan or Somalia…here in the UK.

Apostasy is not just something that scandalises people in far off lands. Harriet Alexander hears the story of a British woman whose life was turned upside down when she left Islam – echoing the plight of Meriam Ibrahim, who awaits a death sentence in Sudan for the same “crime”

If Amal Farah were not living in Britain, she believes she might well be dead.

For the 33-year-old financial manager had carried out an act so heinous, her family felt she deserved to die.

Her crime? She had renounced her Islamic faith – “and within my community, that’s a capital offence,” she said. “They believe you deserve to die.”

In the eyes of the deeply-conservative Somali community in Leicester, of which her family was part, renouncing Islam was an act potentially punishable by death.

“It became more threatening. My mother felt incredibly guilty – she was also very, very angry.

“She blamed herself for the exposure to corrupt Western ways, and said: ‘I knew it was wrong to bring you here. It was like putting you in the sea and asking you not to taste salt.’”

Mrs Farah has not spoken to her relatives since 2005.



Dr Alan Sked (he who makes unfounded claims against Farage…and says UKIP is islamophobic) revealed, in a discussion about the differences between Islam and democracy (but Sked somehow isn’t islamophobic for raising that issue whilst UKIP are!) that when an audience of 100 Muslims were asked should apostates die they all replied that they should be killed.

Sked went on to tell us how wonderful Islam you get the head in sand attitude that those in the ‘Establishment’ and academia have….indeed even Mrs farah above proclaims that the problem isn’t Islam….‘She is adamant that it is not a problem with Islam, but rather one of intolerant societies.’

Islam is those ‘societies’.

It is here in the UK:

I could never have imagined, nine years on, that the Taliban
would be claiming to have ‘won the war’ in Afghanistan. Or, much worse, that our
politicians and Muslim ‘leaders’ here would allow their twisted ideology to
spread across Britain. Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools,
playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms
and universities.


DC Alden in a previous post has spotted a BBC interview on this subject…I haven’t heard it but can only guess from previous experience how it went….Muslims are free to leave their religion, there is no compulsion in Islam, Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and forgiveness, and that any Muslims who make such threats are not real Muslims but extremists perverting the real Islam.


Anyone heard the full thing?  Let us know how close I am.

There is absolutely no doubt the BBC will try to play this down…happy to make a mention of it in ‘far off fields’ but closer to home the Muslim community must be protected from themselves and their religious tendencies…if you get my meaning….the truth mustn’t be revealed to the non-Muslims about the ideology that expands and grows in influence everyday around them.


This is one requirement placed on the BBC by its charter:

“The BBC exists to serve the public interest” and that its main object is the promotion of the following Public Purposes:

  • sustaining citizenship and civil society


How it interprets that is up to the BBC it seems..and they have decided that it is in the public interest, in order to sustain a ‘civil society’ to airbrush out certain problems that are existent and increasing in this country.

So in effect what they are doing is the very opposite of what they think they are doing…sweeping things under the carpet, keeping a lid on a pressure cooker just puts off the difficult questions that need to be asked….and makes the solution all the more difficult.




Newsnight Fails Again….Cooking The Books


The BBC made a huge fuss over its claim that the government was hiding a report that undermined a previous one upon which the government was basing its immigration policies.

Newsnight generated a massive amount of headlines that were damaging for the government and suggested that the government’s policies were wrong….the BBC got what it wanted regardless of the fact that their story was completely baseless.


The Newsnight story was hocum…..telling us that:

Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed.

This was considered potentially incendiary, BBC Newsnight has learned.


The BBC makes this claim about the figures in the new report:

The BBC understands the report suggests the number of UK workers unemployed due to non-EU immigration is well below the figure previously cited by ministers.


Problem with that?  There is no figure state in the new report….so the BBC made that up.


Newsnight continues to polish the turd that is their ‘scoop’…..

The report has now been published and here is Cook’s second stab at it:


Chris Cook Newsnight policy editor 

[The new report which]  Newsnight revealed was being suppressed by Downing Street, showing a weaker link between immigration and unemployment than the government had claimed.

  •  The new report, now published, says that there is “relatively little evidence that migration has caused significant displacement of UK natives… when the economy is strong.”
  • While it does find “evidence of some labour market displacement, particularly by non-EU migrants in recent years when the economy was in recession“, it adds this is a short-term effect – one that is “likely to dissipate”.



Spot the difference with what the 2012 report said.….


  • We find no association between working age migrants and native employment:    (i) in buoyant economic times; (ii) for EU migrants; (iii) for the period         1975-1994.
  • By contrast, we find a negative association between working-age migrants and native employment:(i) in depressed economic times; (ii) for non-EU migrants;  (iii) for the period 1995-2010.
  • We found a tentative negative association between working-age migrants and native  employment when the economy is below full capacity, for non-EU migrants and for the period 1995-2010.
  • A ballpark estimate is that an extra 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native people employed.
  • We estimate that EU migration had little or no impact on the native employment rate, even when testing the relationship over the periods 1975 to 1994 and 1995 to 2010 separately.

The report in 2012 states that there is a definite short term negative impact of immigration on employment…but, in theory, long term, the economy may adjust to improve things….but that is just, as yet, a theory.

The only difference is that the 2012 report states an actual number, tentatively, and the new one doesn’t.

And yet the BBC manages to claim that the non-existent figure is somehow less that the previous 2012 one.


The BBC has some explaining to do.

Making false claims about the contents of a report in order to bolster their own pro-immigration narrative.

Making false claims that the government actively hid the report because of its ‘incendiary’ contents….even today when the report’s innocuousness is apparent Cook is still claiming the government ‘suppressed’ it.

As you can see the contents are not at all incendiary and make the very same claims the 2012 report makes.


So the BBC has exaggerated, lied and slandered its way to an ‘exclusive’ scoop.

Tony Hall should start asking questions before people start asking questions of him.


And remember in 2012  the BBC said this about the MAC report:

‘The Mac report is arguably the most persuasive because it draws on in-depth analysis and research – and it just makes sense.


And here the BBC is fact checking itself yesterday and backstabbing Newsnight:

So the new report, when it comes out, may not disagree that dramatically with the original one from MAC.

Anthony Reuben Head of statistics, BBC News



Alistair Cooke

died the other day, aged 95 and just weeks after broadcasting his final Letter from America. This page contains well-merited tributes to him and excerpts and transcripts from the longest-running speech radio programme in history.

I remember listening to his distinctive, gravelly voice literally as a child at my father’s knee. I liked his voice. After a while it dawned on me that I liked and was learning from what he was saying too.

From all the vast range of topics he covered, this obituary couldn’t resist the opportunity to cherry-pick.

The lyricism of his broadcasting and the urbanity of his voice did not disguise his fears for America which he saw becoming a more violent society.

A liberal by nature, he reserved particular dislike for what he saw as the shallow flag-waving of the Reagan presidency.

True, he was a liberal. I would guess he voted Democrat for most of the many, many US elections he covered. But he was a liberal of a different era, or more accurately of a more timeless sort. He started writing for the Guardian when it was the Manchester Guardian and started speaking for the BBC when it was what I once meant by the BBC.

His character changed a great deal less than that of the institutions he worked for. Despite that – correction, because of it – he was an acute observer until the very end. Here’s a letter he wrote last Christmas about the urgency of fighting the Iraq war.

Wonder why News Online didn’t pick that one for the obituary?

Just why is there so much bullshit…er…meaningless speech on the BBC these days?


The BBC have had to alter the way they report Boris’ article…previously every bulletin said he claimed that Brexit woud save us £350 million…now they have had to actually tell us what he really said…that we would take back control of, roughly, £350 million.  A completely different meaning to his words.  Were the people who drew up the original reports unable to understand what he said or did they understand and decide to alter it to make it sound as if he was lying?  Either way whoever drafted those reports is unfit for the job.

Interesting to hear the BBC’s Chris Cook ‘explain’ the issue.  Several times over the last couple of days his expertise was called upon to run us through things…and yet all we got was a run down of the mechanics of events with no analysis or conclusions about who was right….could that be because Cook knew Boris was in the right and the BBC et al in the wrong?  Unusual for the BBC not to treat us to their valued judgement on events as in Cook’s latest piece in which he has decided that May is not serious at all about ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’….the BBC once again interfering in the negotiations by spreading negative partisan speculation as fact in support of the EU.  When you consider that that stance of being ready to accept a ‘no deal’ is major bargaining chip in the negotiations you then recognise the betrayal that Cook’s attempt to undermine Brexit is with his purely speculative and highly damaging verdict.

The BBC moved on from the actual figures to trying to nail their man….Boris.  Naturally when arch-Remainer Phillip Hammond tried to hijack Brexit when May was on holiday the BBC did not attack his statement or question his motives, nor did they then go on to try and discredit him with utterly false innuendos and inane smears.  The BBC cheered and applauded Hammond as he proposed we ‘transition’ out of the EU, or rather stay in the EU, and they didn’t suggest this was a machiavellian ploy by Hammond to dethrone May.

On Monday Humphrys began a piece by comparing Boris to ‘the most devious politician in French history’ and suggested that Boris’ article in the Telegraph was mere ‘petulance’.  Apparently it was all a devious ploy to keep the Brexit voters on his side as he attempts to go for the Tory leadership and was also meant to insulate him if [when] Brexit goes wrong.  [No need for that as the fault would purely be with the Remainers who oppose and undermine Brexit at every chance].

Paradoxically they finished the hatchet job with the thought that it was ‘strange times when the foreign secretary is criticised for making comments on the biggest foreign policy issue of our time’…and yet the BBC continues to slate Boris at every turn….today was no better as the Today show dragged in two Remainers [08:50] to tell us what they thought of Boris….Craig Oliver and Margaret Heffernan…both ex BBC and, as said, both Remainers.  No guesses for the line they took.

Apparently Boris is guilty of blustering optimism as he speaks nonsense devoid of reality….Boris, they told us ‘had lost touch with reality.’  Boris, they said, was lying.  Presumably recorded after a few bottles at the wine bar the night before as clearly the stuff of drunken, loose lipped prejudice slipping out…no?

Heffernan it seems is the one who has lost touch with reality as any glance down her Twitter feed will show….competition…bad…..wages low…such a mystery [er no…due to immigration…usual supply and demand distorted by open border and unlimited supply of cheap labour]…..and let’s talk gender fluidity…no such thing as boys and girls…and of course a Clinton supporter… wonder the BBC likes her….



BBC Caves In To Political Pressure

Nick Robinson questioning the first minister Alex Salmond.




Nick Robinson may joke but it looks like Alex Salmond and the SNP intimidation has worked….the BBC is creating a ‘Scottish Editor’.

BBC to appoint new Scotland Editor in admission “Scotland has become the story”

THE BBC is to appoint its first Scotland Editor as a response to the vociferous criticism of its coverage of the referendum.  The corporation will shortly advertise the new post, and hope to appoint journalist to the high profile role by the end of October.  The Scotland Editor will report on Scotland and its issues for the UK BBC network while being based in Scotland.

Which is curious as just two days earlier Robinson had written this…The BBC must resist Alex Salmond’s attempt to control its coverage

The BBC naturally deny this new job was as a result of the SNP bullying:

The new post, insiders say, was not prompted by high profile criticism of the BBC such as former First Minister Alex Salmond’s critique of the broadcasting of political editor Nick Robinson, or this week’s speech by Nicola Sturgeon, the current First Minister.

Instead it has been discussed for months and the BBC hopes to have the successful candidate in place by next month.

As the Guardian says:

The attacks on the BBC are deeply political too. Mr Salmond led a party that wants independence. He dislikes British institutions and has a vested interest in attempting to deny them legitimacy in Scotland – as the Glasgow protest against the BBC also aimed to do. He judges the media by whether they support his nationalist cause or not. At the SNP’s spring conference he proposed that the Scottish parliament, with its SNP majority, should be given control of broadcasting and the BBC in Scotland, even before any further referendum.

This should be seen for the bullying that it is.

The Guardian also tells us that:

Encouragingly, the current first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has attempted to distance herself from it. Last week, she even invited Mr Robinson and his family to a private dinner at Bute House, her official residence.

However Sturgeon has just made a speech in whih she tries to annex the BBC in Scotland and put it under SNP control:

Last night, Ms Sturgeon demanded that Scotland must get a dedicated BBC television channel to counter the often “ill-informed” coverage of London-based journalists who have “totally failed” to cover constitutional change.

As a minimum, Ms Sturgeon called for BBC editors based within Scotland to have greater ability to influence UK reporting, a specific Scottish site for iPlayer programmes, Scottish Parliament oversight for the BBC in Scotland, greater use of Scottish opt-outs,and more powers for the BBC commissioners based in Scotland.

Ms Sturgeon insisted, during her Alternative MacTaggart lecture, she does not believe the BBC’s coverage of the referendum was biased, but said BBC network journalists flown in during the final stages of the campaign “sounded less than fully informed”.

Scotland does indeed seem to get more like Putin’s Russia than is comfortable as Nick Robinson might say.

Strangely enough that old ‘fellow traveller’ Paul mason has leapt to the defence of Alex Salmond:

Paul Mason comes to Alex Salmond’s defence over BBC bias

With Alex Salmond currently engaged in a war of words with Nick Robinson over the BBC’s ‘disgraceful’ coverage of the Scottish referendum, there is one former Beeb employee he can turn to in his time of need. Step forward Paul Mason….who said the BBC’s unionist values were part and parcel of the corporation:

‘I’m absolutely sure that the BBC believes it is a unionist institution. It thinks if Scotland becomes independent there is no provision for a Scottish independent BBC so in its DNA it’s a product of this polity.’

And also:

Mason went on to hint that the corporation is not diverse enough, with its more senior staff often belonging to the same social set:

‘I have this theory about the BBC, that what most people don’t like about it is to do with the social group from which its managers and senior people are recruited.’

But then again Paul Mason, like Alex Salmond, is pretty thin skinned and prepared to use ‘violent’ language to close down debate…here denouncing a commenter who criticises his beloved Syriza as a ‘Nazi collaborator:

Paul Mason calls Syriza critic a ‘Nazi collaborator’

Covering the Greece crisis appears to be beginning to take its toll on Paul Mason. Channel 4′s economics editor became embroiled in a bizarre Twitter rant last night during which he accused an anonymous blogger of being a ‘Nazi supporter’ over their criticism of the Syriza government.

Perhaps Mason’s anti-BBC stand is influenced by the lack of support he seems to get from his ex-BBC colleagues:

However, not everyone is convinced by the explanation. Newsnight‘s policy editor Chris Cook has been quick to claim that @GreekAnalyst is not a troll:

And of course his latest ramblings about the future of Capitalism got panned by the BBC Trust’s Diane Coyle when she asked ‘Is that it?’ as she realised there was a lot of hot air and not a lot of substance to Mason’s towering economic edifice.

Maybe Mason should apply for the job…seems like a win win for him and his new pal north of the border:

Media Job: Head of news and current affairs, BBC Scotland

LEADING BBC Scotland’s newsroom is one of the most exciting and challenging jobs in the BBC.

Based in centres across Scotland, the department provides local, national and international news on radio, television and online for audiences in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

It provides in depth coverage of Scotland’s business and politics and makes stand-out current affairs and investigations programmes for the nation and the network.

Oh, hang on…could be a difficulty:

You will be able to gain respect at all levels due to your credibility, integrity and professionalism.

You will be a natural strategic thinker, with the ability to plan and evaluate people and editorial decisions in the short, medium and long-term, alongside the day-to-day needs of leading a fast-paced news agenda.

You will have strong editorial judgement and an unwavering focus on impartiality.





Bradford school governors ‘promoted Islamic agenda’



The BBC has started its own Islamophobic witch hunt….and hints that the Trojan Horse letter might not be fake after all:

Bradford school governors ‘promoted Islamic agenda’


After having spent such a long time firstly ignoring the Trojan Horse allegations, then downplaying them, the BBC has jumped aboard the bandwagon with allacrity and is banging out a new tune with the vigour of the converted, hunting out Islamic cultural colonisation in Bradford despite that ‘Ofsted and Bradford Metropolitan District Council say no schools in Bradford are currently being investigated in relation to Trojan Horse.’

‘Teachers in Bradford have reported instances of governors promoting a more Islamic ethos, the BBC has learned’


I like this excuse from the governors:

The chairman of the governors rejected claims of an Islamic agenda, saying his aim was to meet community needs.

‘Meeting community needs’?…..that could excuse all sorts of sins couldn’t it…Honour killings?  Just meeting ‘community needs’…and so on.


The BBC has seen documents which may suggest an attempt to bring an Islamic agenda into the classroom at Carlton Bolling, a state secondary school with a largely Muslim governing body.

The chairman of the governors at Carlton Bolling College, Faisal Khan – an independent local councillor formerly of the Respect party – said his aim was to improve academic standards and meet the needs of the communities the school served.

“At the end of the day we have a school that has 90-95% Muslim children, we meet their needs – whether it is halal food, whether it is prayer within school [or] wearing the hijab.

“We don’t want children – irrespective of their background – to compromise on their faith.”

He was meeting “the sensitivities of parents”.


Note Faisal Khan…once of the Respect Party as was Salma Yaqoob who was from the very area of Birmingham that the Trojan Horse allegations first arose..and which she refuted vigorously on the Today programme…small world eh?


The BBC here makes claims of school governors driving out heads who oppose their Islamising agenda…just like the Trojan Horse allegations then:

Confidential documents seen by the BBC reveal head teacher Chris Robinson resigned from her position in 2012 because she felt her reputation, integrity and leadership were being questioned by governors.

Nick Weller, a head teacher in Bradford and chief executive of the Bradford Partnership, believes Ms Robinson was unfairly driven out by the governing body.

“I think an excellent, outstanding head teacher has been driven out by a governing body because she would not give in to their agenda of making it reflect the culture and traditions of the Muslim students, more than it did, or more than is right and proper for a state-funded school.

“There’s a co-ordinated attempt by a small group of unrepresentative people, whose views are not shared by most of the Muslim parents that I talk to, to gain greater control of governing bodies in Bradford and advance their agenda.”


The BBC goes on:

Mr Khan was also a governor at another Bradford school, Laisterdyke Business and Enterprise College, where the governing body was sacked en masse in April and replaced with an interim executive board.

It followed an Ofsted inspection that concluded relationships between governors, school staff and the local authority had deteriorated markedly; actions by the governing body were increasingly undermining senior leaders; and governors were becoming too involved in operational matters.



This is interesting…the BBC has long painted the Trojan Horse letter as a fake but here it suggests that it might have some substance:

The so-called Trojan Horse document names Bradford as a city in which a Muslim takeover of schools could be co-ordinated.

“This is a long-term plan and one which we are sure will lead to great success in taking over a number of schools and ensuring they are run on strict Islamic principles,” the document, which has not been authenticated, states.


Here the BBC reports of the response of local politicians:

The local MP in Bradford, David Ward, said: “We cannot allow the situation that has developed in Birmingham, where it has spread to many more schools than are currently affected in Bradford.

“It really needs to be dealt with before it gets out of hand.”

Bradford Metropolitan District Council said it was ready to act quickly in any case where there was concern about relationships between head teachers and governors.


So here the BBC are proactively seeking out the story and taking the allegations seriously….all welcome but a bit of a turn around from its initial response to the Birmingham allegations and the repeated assertion that the letter was fake….but at odds with the likes of Mark Easton and Chris Cook’s ongoing analysis.



‘Take Back Our Children’




‘It is astonishing that a Labour government has managed to lead the country into this religious quagmire.’  Polly Toynbee


A large download of information regarding faith schools, of all faiths, and the consequences of their ever growing presence….starting from a very biased promotion of Muslim faith schools by Mark Easton and the downplaying of the hijacking of secular schools by extremists…..there’s lots to read and chew over…. but try and read it all….it tells you that opposition to faith schools is not just about Muslim schools…so no Islamophobic  ‘witch hunt’, and that Labour played a huge role in creating this mess…for instance it allowed Muslim and evangelical schools in 2008 to opt out of Ofsted inspections… might ask how you don’t hear such things on the BBC in relation to the recent revelations (especially as it was revealed in a BBC Panorama programme in 2009 and 2010…can they really have forgotten?)….or how the direct evidence of a ‘Trojan Horse’ plot that Andrew Gilligan reports in detail is ignored by the BBC.


The BBC instead of standing back and reporting events has decided to try and change the course of events with the likes of Phil Mackie, Chris Cook and Mark Easton providing a rather unusual and personal view of those events not completely at one with the facts.

You might want to know if there is any substance to the ‘Trojan Horse’ claims….there isn’t according to these three.  You might want to know if it is merely an anti-Muslim thing as suggested so often….but you won’t get any reference to opposition to Christian faith schools in relation to this story.  You might want to know what part Labour played in creating this debacle when Tristram Hunt et al are constantly in the BBC studios…but again little to no reference is made to past sins of Labour in the run up to an election.

There is plenty of that ‘unusual and personal’ analysis but no nuance, context or history.  For the BBC the job is to playdown any idea of Muslims hijacking state sector secular schools whilst conversely playing up the government’s part in recklessly ignoring that…’non-existent’ threat.


An interesting day yesterday watching the BBC negotiate the tricky revelations about the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair.

All morning we were assured that there was nothing to be concerned about, Nicky Campbell even telling us that this wasn’t a Muslim/non-Muslim issue…his message being that perhaps a school would always take on the ethos of the parents and if you get good exam results maybe that’s acceptable.

The hapless Phil Mackie came on to tell us that the Trojan Horse allegations were somewhat exaggerated…perhaps coming from disgruntled staff who weren’t up to the job.

That’ll be like headmaster Tim Boyle who raised the alarm in 2010 and whose warnings the BBC based its criticisms of Gove upon for apparently not taking them seriously (though he might have…read on)…..or the headmistress of the ‘outstanding’ Park View School who has been forced out by Tahir Alam….

‘Outstanding’ head teacher allegedly targeted by Muslim radicals confirms that she’s retiring

Lindsey Clark, the respected executive head of Park View, one of the Birmingham schools targeted in the alleged “Trojan Horse” plot by Muslim radicals, has confirmed that she is to retire. She becomes the fifth non-Muslim headteacher to leave one of the schools linked to the plot over the last six months. The others are Balwant Bains (Saltley), Tina Ireland (Regent’s Park), Bhupinder Kondal (Oldknow),  and Peter Slough (Small Heath). A sixth head, Golden Hillock’s Matthew Scarrott, left a little earlier.
As I have described, the replacement of secular, non-Muslim heads has been a key goal of the radicals leading the campaign.
Mrs Clark told Ofsted inspectors probing her school last month that she had been marginalised by Tahir Alam, the hardline chair of governors at Park View, and the school’s principal, effectively its number two, Mohammed “Moz” Hussain.


The Tahir Alam who has suddenly disappeared and left the PR to the only non-Muslim governor of the school.



After all the downplaying the BBC finally had to admit that there was more to this than they had previously liked to say:

“A culture of fear and intimidation has taken grip” in Birmingham schools caught up in the Trojan Horse claims, says Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw.
Head teachers have been “marginalised or forced out of their jobs”, said Sir Michael, as he delivered his findings on claims of hardline Muslim takeovers.
The Ofsted chief said there was evidence of an “organised campaign to target certain schools”.
Sir Michael’s conclusion is that there had been deliberate attempts to change the ethos of schools – and he has made recommendations, including the use of “professional governors”, to the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who will respond later on Monday.
“Some of our findings are deeply worrying and, in some ways, quite shocking,” says the Ofsted chief

Coincidentally on the same day this happened:

Ofsted has issued grave concerns over a Luton Islamic faith school found to have books which “promotes and condones” stoning, lashing and execution.
The Department for Education ordered Ofsted to carry out an emergency inspection of Olive Tree Primary School beginning May 13, but inspectors were forced to leave the school after parents became enraged over questions posed to nine-year-old students surrounding homosexuality.
During the visit the DfE asked inspectors to “pay particular attention to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils.”
The schools watchdog has now said, in a report published on Monday, that it found literature in Olive Tree’s library which has “no place in British society” and “does not support pupils’ development for life in modern Britain”.

One problem with the BBC is a disconnect between its factual reporting and its analysis and comment/interpretation by people like Mark Easton who have their own agendas.

Despite “A culture of fear and intimidation has taken grip” and an “organised campaign to target certain schools” and “Some of our findings are deeply worrying and, in some ways, quite shocking,” says the Ofsted chief  the BBC’s Mark Easton steps in to offer us his interpretation…and that’s all it is because facts are few and far between or ignored or distorted…although he mentioned the schools were not faith schools he continually gave  the impression that they were in fact faith schools and perhaps should be considered no differently to Catholic faith schools:

‘Trojan horse’ scandal – extreme or diverse?

What there may well have been is an attempt by some conservative Muslims to encourage an ethos within Birmingham schools that is true to their religious tradition. But is that very different from Michael Gove’s encouragement of parents in Catholic academies to be true to their religious tradition?
If, like 629 other state-funded English secondaries, Park View had been allowed to become a faith school, then one presumes the Islamic ethos would no longer be regarded as a threat to the welfare of the pupils. Conservative Muslims would be no different from conservative Catholics looking to escape from moral and cultural relativism.

The BBC’s Chris Cook took a similar approach peddling the line that if the parents want faith schools then that might be the best solution:  ‘Once you accept that certain schools are Islamic schools, you can then think about constructing a governing body with proper representation and management processes to prevent the problems in Birmingham.


Andrew Gilligan examines the Guardian’s coverage of this story and there is a distinct similarity between their coverage and the BBC’s:

Trojan Horse: how The Guardian ignored and misrepresented evidence of Islamism in schools

[The Guardian journalist has] done more than that – he’s ignored evidence, or misrepresented it as “crumbling” if it doesn’t fit his version of events. That’s not just bad journalism, but a betrayal of the liberal and progressive values The Guardian is supposed to fight for.



Are Easton and Cook right?  Just how good are faith schools and is there a difference between Christian and Muslim ones? Do they sow divison and distrust and what are the consequences of segregation?
Muslim parent: Radical school is brainwashing our children

Mohammed Zabar, whose daughter attends Oldknow Academy, has spoken out after the head, Bhupinder Kondal, was driven out

And in 2010 Gilligan reports this:

Extremist Muslim schools: Islamism’s most worrying manifestation of all

I’ve just finished watching John Ware’s excellent BBC Panorama about what’s being taught in some Muslim schools: a subject which I, and others, believe is the single most worrying aspect of Islamist and radical activity in Britain.
At present the vast majority of British Muslims have little or no truck with Islamist ideas. But in some Muslim schools – not in all, but in a significant and growing number – a new generation is being raised to be much more radical than its parents.
The BBC’s film is another encouraging sign of the growing pressure under which Islamism now finds itself.


The BBC’s Panorama takes a look at faith schools in 2010 and tells us that the government is working on a programme to prevent radicalisation in schools….so does that indicate Gove did react to Tim Boyle’s concerns?


In 2009 Panorama looked at the issue of fundamentalist Islam in the UK…Panorama asks whether we should isolate or talk to the radicals…..The question has split those who work in counter terrorism

Note that…in 2009 how to tackle extremism was already a divisive issue in government….so Gove V’s May is nothing new…Labour were falling out themselves…finally coming down on the side that GOve took…wanting to tackle those who preach against democracy and British values:

BBC Panorama – Muslim First British Second

From 2009:
‘We want to move away from just challenging violent extremism. We now believe that we should challenge people who are against democracy and state institutions.’

The UK government is preparing a major shift in its counter-terrorism strategy to combat radicalisation, the BBC’s Panorama programme has learned.
Conservative Muslims who teach that Islam is incompatible with Western democracy will be challenged as part of a new approach, Panorama has been told.
A senior Whitehall source said that Muslim leaders who urge separation will be isolated and publicly rejected.
He also said this would occur even if their comments fell within the law.
This will include those who argue that Muslims should not vote and that homosexuals should be condemned on religious grounds.
Panorama’s source said that Britain “needs to identify and back shared values” and that this new thinking will be central to a new counter-terrorism policy called Contest 2 due to be launched this Spring.

From 2014:
On a mission to end extremism
Behind the row between Michael Gove and Theresa May lies a very real threat to our values – as the Education Secretary understands all too well

He will probably want to widen the debate beyond the classroom, arguing that the real issue underlying particular problems in Birmingham and his spat with the Home Office is: how should the British state deal with non-violent extremism? By that he means extremism of all sorts, though the Islamist is the kind most manifest at present.
Of course, there’s a problem with definition, not least because “extremism” is an emotive word. In the present context it needs other words alongside it, such as segregationism. That is what, essentially, is what appears to have been happening in Birmingham.
It is our tolerance of intolerance that motivates Michael Gove’s mission to resist the ideological subversion of our institutions and democratic practices.


The issue isn’t just about extremist violence:
We can’t avoid the threat of Islamism

The truth about how the Home Office views Islamic extremism – by Theresa May’s former speech-writer

The debate on how best to ensure that religious extremism does not generate terrorism takes place in the context of another one: how to integrate immigrants into British society, and to ensure that they adopt values that are not actively hostile to the central ideals of our society – secular democracy, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the equality of everyone before the law.
The number of immigrants coming to this country increased enormously when Tony Blair relaxed the rules restricting entry. Many of the new immigrants were from Pakistan and Bangladesh. They went to the communities in Britain that had been settled and shaped by people who came from the same area, sometimes even the same village, as they did.
It is perfectly reasonable that immigrants, arriving in a strange land whose values and even language they do not fully understand, should prefer to be with people who are similar to them and who share their own language and values. But the effect of that preference is to create “diaspora” communities that do not integrate or adapt to the values of the new society.
Sir Paul Collier, a professor of development economics at Oxford University, has produced a model that shows that it inevitably becomes a self-reinforcing process: each diaspora community gets ever more entrenched in reproducing the values of the society from which the migrants to it come, which in turn attracts more migrants from that society to it, which then ensures that it is less integrated with the host society – and more attractive to the immigrants from the traditional society in Pakistan, India or wherever.
Professor Collier thinks that unless the state takes very definite steps to stop this process happening, it will continue more or less indefinitely, with the result that migrant communities become ever more alienated and remote from the society to which they are supposed to adapt.
That leads directly to the nightmare scenario: a Britain made up of mutually antagonistic “monocultures” that do not trust each other, do not work together and do not share the values of secular democracy, freedom of conscience and the equality of both sexes before the law.
State policy in Britain over the last two decades has fostered the formation of unintegrated diaspora communities: multiculturalism, which was for many years the dominant approach, encouraged communities to hold on to their own values – with the inevitable result that they have become more entrenched.
White racism is not the biggest obstacle to integration: the highest levels of segregation anywhere in Britain are those recorded between Indians and Pakistanis in towns in the north of England. The segregation between
African-Caribbeans and Asians is markedly higher than the degree of segregation between whites and African-Caribbeans. And it seems to be getting worse, not better. Immigrant communities are getting more isolated, less integrated and more locked into their own traditional values.
It is of critical significance to all our futures: what kind of society the next generation will inherit depends on who is right – and who wins the battle in Cabinet and in Parliament.


How we are betrayed by people like Easton…what is the truth about faith schools?  Here Toynbee spells out the difference between a nominally Christian faith school and a Muslim one:
Get off your knees

Afraid of being labelled Islamophobic, the left has fallen into an embarrassed silence on religion. We must speak up.

Now that religion is dangerously hot and divisive again, with new power to excite enmity and exclusion, the separation between church and state is no longer a dry academic question.
Muslims want to keep their children separate, while most parents who choose Christian faith schools do it to help their children get ahead. In heathen Britain, anachronistic church schools thrive because they are a fraud. By definition, most (of course not all) parents choosing them are not religious. Often church schools are a semi-conscious device for screening out troublesome children, ensuring a calmer environment and better results. Surveys show that faith school on average take fewer children on free school meals or with special needs. Those with deprived intakes sink to the bottom of the league tables along with the rest: no magic there. It’s about results, not sectarianism.

The rise of the concept of Islamophobia has struck too many dumb. They no longer express anti-religious views for fear of being Islamophobic. So, apart from protests by the doughty scions of the National Secular Society and their British Humanist Association allies, the left has fallen into an embarrassed silence on the subject of religion, just as it needs to speak up.

“Islamophobia” blurs racism and anti-religion dangerously. It’s interesting to see how Christian activists are now keen to make common cause with Muslims, drawing on their heat and passion. (The far left is doing the same, even less convincingly.) Far from a Clash of Civilisations between Islam and Christianity, in Britain they join together over religious broadcasting, schools and other rights. Officialdom is easily frightened of Islam, with good reason, treading carefully in a minefield.

Parents want good schools, and might prefer not to have to get on their knees in their local church to get into them. It is extraordinary that secular Britain is rushing to re-invent religion and give state aid to promote superstitions of every hue.



Is it just a witch hunt against islam?  There were huge concerns about Christian fauth schools as well…..and the part Labour played in creating this fundamentalist mess:

The Economist was right, back in 2001: ‘handing over the children to the preachers is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice’

Keep out the priests

Tony Blair’s plan to hand over more state education to religious organisations is dangerous

The issue is not whether people should be allowed to educate their children according to whatever religion they choose. Certainly they should, so long as they give their children a decent amount of real education at the same time as imbuing them with ancient beliefs and superstitions. The issue is whether state-funded education should be in the hands of religious organisations. It shouldn’t.
Every religion believes that it has a monopoly on truth. By paying for religious schools, the state is spending taxpayers’ money to help schools promote one set of beliefs over another. But it ought not to be the business of the state to interfere in these matters, either by suppressing, or by promoting, particular religions. Most decent countries agree on that point these days. A few, including Afghanistan and Britain, do not.
Religion, as the world has been reminded over the past three months, is a divisive influence. Britain’s northern cities, where riots exploded this summer between Asian and white gangs, are already split along racial-cum-religious lines. Mosques are clamouring for state cash for schools just as churches are. Education based on religion tends to entrench existing divides. Anybody who doubts that should visit Northern Ireland.
Britain already has 7,000 state-funded religious schools. That is 7,000 too many. The government will not make British education better by promoting these establishments, and it will make British society worse.


Here’s Toynbee again:

Only a fully secular state can protect women’s rights

It is astonishing that a Labour government has managed to lead the country into this religious quagmire

The veil turns women into things. It was shocking to find on the streets of Kabul that invisible women behind burkas are not treated with special respect. On the contrary, they are pushed and shoved off pavements by men, jostled aside as if almost subhuman without the face-to-face contact that recognises common humanity.

The veil is profoundly divisive – and deliberately designed to be.

Segregation gets worse, with a third of schools now religious. The Young Foundation’s study, The New East End, warns that in Tower Hamlets white parents have taken over four church secondary schools, making them virtually all white, so neighbouring secular schools have become 90% Bangladeshi. Church schools aid segregation

The Leicester Islamic Academy turns state school next year, but the duty to accept 25% non-Muslims may not trouble it much. The principal said on The Moral Maze that all girls must wear the school uniform, both the hijab and the head-to-toe jilbab. Not much choice there.

Will the next Labour leader be brave enough to confront growing segregation? If so, start by ending all religious state education. It would be popular: a Guardian/ICM poll finds 64% of voters think “the government should not be funding faith schools of any kind”. Desegregating schools is a matter of fairness: Muslims have the poorest communities with the worst schools, and are in danger of increasing isolation and anger. The veil is another totem of that danger.



Here the Guardian looks at fundamentalist Christian schools:
Divine and rule
Evangelical schools might be a godsend for fundamentalist Christian families, but is their single-minded approach fostering intolerance in society?

In the US evangelicals have effectively created a parallel system of education which has schooled hundreds of thousands of pupils in its messianic world view and the evangelical social and political agenda has moved into the mainstream. Evangelical Christianity is far from being such a force in Britain, but it is clearly the desire of many of those I met that it should become so. They are being inspired by the growing confidence of other faith groups. Supporters of ACE talked admiringly of Muslims who make it clear they do not wish to join the mainstream. Fundamentalist Christians point enviously to the fact that more children are currently educated in Muslim independent schools than independent evangelical Christian schools – about 14,000 compared with about 5,000 – and independent Muslim schools are growing more quickly. Rather than confronting this sectarianism with a call to inclusiveness, they would like to react with further sectarianism of their own. The goal is a more, rather than less, divided society. “Christians have been leaving it to the government to decide on their values, while Muslims have said, ‘This is mine, this is my culture, this is who I am’,” says Maxine Hargreaves. “Now we Christians are saying that we want to defend our culture, too. We want to take back our children.”

Two thirds ‘oppose’ faith schools

Nearly two thirds of the public oppose faith schools fearing their impact on social cohesion, a poll suggests.
An ICM/Guardian survey found 64% of people opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools.
Barry Sheerman who chairs the Commons education committee questioned the idea of a “ghettoised” system.
“Schools play a crucial role in integrating different communities and the growth of faith schools poses a real threat to this.”

Teachers lack faith in Muslim schools

The row over whether faith-based schools help or hinder divided communities was reopened today as teachers rejected recommendations for more Muslim faith schools.
A report being published today at the House of Lords warns that too many Muslim pupils are being failed in their academic and spiritual education.
The Muslims on Education policy document, which has been compiled by Muslim academics and educationalists, says state schools need to make better provision for Muslim pupils. It also calls for more faith-based schools to be established to cater for their needs.
However, the National Union of Teachers said that introducing more faith schools would be an “admission of [the] failure” of schools to meet the needs of Muslim pupils.
Dr Nasim Butt, headteacher at Brondesbury College, an independent Muslim school. He said too many Muslim pupils were being let down in the state and independent sectors.
Dr Butt told “The most important aspect of this report is the underachievement of Muslim children.
“Faith schools are not more divisive, they are often beacons of excellence academically, spiritually and morally.
The report flies in the face of recommendations from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) select committee, which found that “ignorance and fear of other cultures” was pushing parents to send their children to schools where they would mingle almost exclusively with pupils from the same racial background. They also suggested that faith schools should not be allowed unless actively promoting multi-culturalism.

MP Andrew Bennett, Labour chair of the ODPM Commons committee, said Northern Ireland demonstrated the dangers of faith-based schools.
“Children live totally parallel lives. You start off with separate school, then you end up with separate health centres, you end up with separate supermarkets,” he told the Today programme.
“What we want is for children to have a good understanding of each other’s culture and separating them in schools is not going be a good idea.”

Top school’s creationists preach value of biblical story over evolution
State-funded secondary teachers do not accept findings of Darwin

Fundamentalist Christians who do not believe in evolution have taken control of a state-funded secondary school in England. In a development which will astonish many British parents, creationist teachers at the city technology college in Gateshead are undermining the scientific teaching of biology in favour of persuading pupils of the literal truth of the Bible.

Emmanuel is a non-denominational Christian school which achieves consistently outstanding academic results and received a glowing Ofsted report last year.

“All we are saying is that it’s up to children to make their own minds up. I haven’t had any complaints… The parents are happy, the students and teachers are happy; we have them standing in queues waiting to get in.”
A spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills said: “What schools need to do is teach the national curriculum in an impartial way. Personal doctrines should not override anything that should be taught in the curriculum.”


Here is a very long look at Labour’s part in encouraging the growth of faith schools and the quagmire that has created:

“Rome on the rates”‘

Public support for church schools was controversial, however. During debates on the 1902 bill, for example, ‘inside and outside Parliament there was outcry against “Rome on the rates”‘

Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett (pictured), assured them that he did not want to upset the compromises of the 1944 Education Act and that church schools would continue to enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy within the state system.

The government then turned its attention to other denominations and faiths. It was concerned that a system which gave huge amounts of state funding to thousands of Church of England and Roman Catholic schools but hardly any to schools of other faiths was inherently discriminatory. Anxious to demonstrate its commitment to multiculturalism, it quickly set about addressing the problem.

Tony Blair told a conference of faith groups organised by the Christian Socialist Movement that church schools were a pillar of the education system, ‘valued by very many parents for their faith character, their moral emphasis and the high quality of education they generally provide’
…religious groups would be encouraged to work with the private sector in running weak or failing schools

A report commissioned by Bradford Council concluded that communities were becoming increasingly isolated along racial, cultural and religious lines, and that segregated schools were fuelling the divisions. The report was prophetic. At Easter there were riots in Bradford and during the summer the disorder spread to Oldham, Greater Manchester and Burnley.

Professor Richard Dawkins, who, in an open letter to Estelle Morris, said ‘After everything we’ve been through this year, to persist with financing segregated religion in sectarian schools is obstinate madness’

There was more criticism of faith schools when, in March 2002, The Guardian reported that Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead, set up under the Tories with £2m of sponsorship from evangelical Christian Sir Peter Vardy, had hosted a ‘creationist’ conference and that senior staff had urged teachers to promote biblical fundamentalism.

The furore grew. At the beginning of April 2002 leading clerics and scientists wrote to the Prime Minister expressing their ‘growing anxiety’ about the spread of faith schools and the introduction of creationist teaching. Downing Street officials told the group that Tony Blair would respond to their concerns ‘in the near future’ (The Observer 7 April 2002).

‘In the end, it is a more diverse school system that will deliver better results for our children and if you look at the actual results of the school, I think you will find they are very good.’
However, Blair’s commitment to ‘diversity’ meant he was quite happy to hand over state schools not only to creationists but also to a bewildering variety of faith groups (not to mention electrical retailer Dixons, drugs company Pfizer, Anna Kournikova’s sports agent, and the chairman of Reading Football Club).

Others were less enthusiastic. Robin McKie noted that while Scotland was attempting to tackle the problems caused by its religiously-segregated schools, England was plunging towards a ‘sad, sectarian future’. This would be the unavoidable consequence, he argued, of the government’s ‘persistent encouragement of faith schools exclusively built for Muslims, or for fundamental Christians, or for orthodox Jews, or – while they are it – for aliens’

Researchers at Bristol University, led by Professor Simon Burgess, warned that the lessons of Sir Herman Ouseley’s report on the Bradford riots of 2001 had been ignored and that ‘white flight’ and the rise of Muslim schools were turning England’s inner-city playgrounds into monocultural zones which were potential breeding grounds for intolerance and racism (The Guardian 1 April 2004).

If we are going to not have divided, ghettoised communities we have to be very careful of this enthusiasm that some in the Department for Education have for faith schools, and we have got to be very careful about the growth of very religious minorities getting a hold on academies. (The Observer 7 August 2005)

Chief Inspector of Schools David Bell. In a speech to the Hansard Society in January 2005 he warned that a traditional Islamic education did not equip Muslim children for living in modern Britain (The Guardian 18 January 2005).

Oldknow Academy

A small group of governors is making
significant changes to the ethos and culture
of the academy without full consultation.
They are endeavouring to promote a
particular and narrow faith-based ideology
in what is a maintained and non-faith
Many members of staff are afraid to speak
out against the changes taking place in the

The academy is not adequately ensuring that
pupils have opportunities to learn about faith
in a way that promotes tolerance and
harmony between different cultural and
religious traditions.



What do some high profiel Muslims think?:
The solution is that each and every Muslim child should be in state funded Muslim schools because western education makes a man stupid and selfish according to Lord Bertrand Russell.
Iftikhar Ahmad 

What else has Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School Islamics say?:
There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

A community is held together by common values and principles.

[Here he gives a hidden clue as to what he wants…a Muslim caliphate…..]

The Muslim community has been passing through a phase of fourth Crusades. The battleground is the field of education, where the young generation will be educated properly with the Holly Quran in one hand and Sciences in other hand to serve the British society and the world at large. A true Muslim is a citizen of the world, which has become a small global village. We are going to prepare our youth to achieve that objective in the long run.

It is absurd to believe that Muslim schools, Imams and Masajid teach Muslim children anti-Semitic, homophobic and anti-western views.

Islam does not teach that Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys.

British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism.

Racism is deeply rooted in British society.

This is the true picture of British broken society and the Muslim community does not want to be integrated. The British government is again asking us, Muslims, to adopt the” British values” and to integrate fully into the British way of life. But many so called “British values” are not acceptable to us.

The Muslims don’t want to integrate or abide by western law.


[Despite saying this earlier…There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.…he claims that any parent not wanting to send their child to a Muslim school is racist:]

Schools in parts of England are becoming increasingly segregated. The study focused on 13 local authorities. Many of the schools and colleges are segregated and this was generally worsening over recent years. This is RACISM because British society is the home of institutional racism. A study by Bristol University reveals that a high level of racial segregation in Oldham schools and tension between communities resulted in recent riots in 2001. The solution is that those schools where Muslim children are majority may be designated as Muslim community schools.

In the late 80s and early 90s, when I floated the idea of Muslim community schools, I was declared a “school hijacker” by an editorial in the Newham Recorder newspaper. This clearly shows that the British media does not believe in choice and diversity in the field of education and has no respect for those who are different.

The time has come for the Muslim community – in the form of Islamic charities and trusts – to manage and run those state schools where Muslim pupils are in the majority.
Muslim schools are doing better because a majority of the teachers are Muslim. The pupils are not exposed to the pressures of racism, multiculturalism and bullying.

And the case for faith schools wasn’t helped when the London School of Islamics claimed that a 16 year old Muslim girl who had been murdered by her father in an ‘honour killing’ was the victim of British state education. The tragedy could have been avoided, it said, if the ‘poor girl’ had been educated ‘in a Muslim school by Muslim teachers’ (The Guardian 14 October 2003).



Here is a dire warning from respected and high profile Muslim doctor who is part of the campaign group Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child:



Protest/send letter to your MP/Send a letter to the school of your children Watch and find out and make sure that your children are not BRAINWASHED to accept homosexuality or to become homosexuals? Please put this worrying new news on your websites, mention it in Friday sermon, send it to all Muslim contacts…Thank you WS Dr A Majid Katme Muslim Coordinator to SPUC

What other views might he propagate?

A leading Islamic doctor is urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella because they contain substances making them unlawful for Muslims to take.
Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, says almost all vaccines contain un-Islamic “haram” derivatives of animal or human tissue, and that Muslim parents are better off letting childrens’ immune systems develop on their own.
Dr Katme, an NHS psychiatrist, said: “If you breastfeed your child for two years – as the Koran says – and you eat Koranic food like olives and black seed, and you do ablution each time you pray, then you will have a strong defence system.”

The Guardian has its doubts about him:

Is there a doctor in the mosque?
The dubious medical advice of Dr Majid Katme, a respected figure in the British Muslim community, is placing lives at risk.
Which is the greater menace: Hizb ut-Tahrir or the Islamic Medical Association of the UK?
“Single sex environment in clinics and in hospitals is the safest and best way forward … female medical staff with female patients and male medical staff with male patients.”
Dr Katme does, however, appear to approve of vaccination against lesbianism – “We must vaccinate our children against this curse” – but perhaps in that particular case it’s the lesser of two evils.
The real problem, though, it that Dr Katme is a respected figure in the British Muslim community. Mothers who wouldn’t dream of listening to Hizb ut-Tahrir will listen to him. Many may also prefer his word – as a “good Muslim” – to that of the Department of Health or the BMA.

Policy Exchange had its doubts about faith schools of all religions in 2010:

A new report from Policy Exchange recommends reforms to faith schools to prevent infiltration from extremists.
It concludes that Britain’s education system, including OfSted and the Department for Education, is currently not equipped to meet such challenges. The report says:
“Current due diligence checks are piecemeal, partial and lack in-depth expertise;
The Coalition Government’s policy of opening up the education system to new academies and free schools programmes could be exploited unless urgent measures are taken to counter extremist influence;
Britain lags behind other liberal European democracies in addressing these problems in schools.”

Although PE mentions the Coalition’s academies if you have read through the information about Labour you will see that their academy schools were thought to be just as vulnerable to infiltration by extremists.

Boko Haram In Birmingham?


“Al-Islam will prevail over all other ways of life. Look at how [the] Muslim population is increasing in the UK.”  Deputy Head of Carlton Bolling school in Bradford, Akhmed Hussain


The BBC is playing a very dangerous game as it clambers, once again, into bed with Islamists and promotes their ideology.

There was, and continues to be, a plot to Islamise schools, not just in Birmingham but across Britain.  We have an attitude that is growing that Western education is wrong for Muslims…’Boko Haram’….just where will that lead in years to come?

The BBC is not just downplaying the significance of this and its consequences but is actively supporting and promoting the Islamist agenda.


Theresa May wrote a letter to Michael Gove which the BBC quotes from:

In a letter, Mrs May said: “The allegations relating to schools in Birmingham raise serious questions about the quality of school governance and oversight arrangements.”

She added: “Is it true that Birmingham City Council was warned about these allegations in 2008? Is it true that the Department for Education was warned in 2010? If so, why did nobody act?”


What they miss out is a rather crucial statement in the letter:

‘How did it come to pass, for example, that one of the governors at Park View was the chairman of the education committee of the Muslim Council of Britain?” she wrote.’


Who was that governor?  Tahir Alam, who is at the centre of the Trojan Horse plot allegations….and the man who produced the MCB’s 2007 document detailing how they would like schools, not just in Birmingham, but across the UK, to ‘Islamise’ their education.

From the Telegraph:
Guide to school Islamisation, by ‘ringleader’ of Trojan Horse plot
School governor who is alleged ringleader of the Trojan Horse plot in Birmingham wrote 72-page document on manipulating teachers and curriculum

This is a document that provides proof positive of Alam’s intentions….and yet not only does the BBC not refer to Alam and his connections to the MCB here but it also refuses to mention in any article the fact that this damning document even exists and that he produced it….with so many BBC reporters examining this story but none mentioning the 2007 document in connection to it,  it can only be a directive from above that has told them not to link to it…why?

Why would the BBC hide evidence of Alam’s Islamist ideology?

Here the BBC’s Chris Cooke gives a clue.…deciding there is no Trojan Horse ‘conspiracy’ and that the letter is a fake..with no evidence that it is…but plenty of evidence to back up the possibility it is real:

‘The focus is not on a “conspiracy”. The “Trojan Horse” letter is now widely assumed to be a forgery, and appears to have been written to alarm people.’


The Telegraph takes a more balanced approach and reveals evidence of a plot:

Whether or not the letter is genuine, much of what it describes is certainly real.

Investigations by The Telegraph, separate to and in parallel with the “Trojan Horse” letter, reveal that there is indeed an organised group of Muslim teachers, education consultants, school governors and activists dedicated to furthering what one of them describes as an “Islamising agenda” in Birmingham’s schools. 

Here for instance is a message from one of that group:

The activists claim credit for the appointment of a new Muslim head teacher at a secular state secondary in Birmingham, where she will start in September. It was a “hard battle” but the “dynamics have finally changed”, says one member of the group, who identifies himself as a school governor. “A true achievement. At last!” exults one member of the group.

“She is a very astute lady. She knows her game,” he writes. “Please don’t pressurise her to start the Islamising agenda first. That will be a lot easier when she is respected as leader. She has to establish herself with minimum controversy for the first six months, and lead the people to believe in her before they believe in her policies.”


A pretty  good indication that there is a ‘plot’.


The BBC also doesn’t tell us that Alam has an extremist history:
According to the Sunday Times, the man at the centre of the so-called Trojan Horse plot to Islamicise secular schools in Birmingham had been the leader of a fundamentalist group which had aspired to turn Britain into an Islamic state…

‘Tahir Alam, chairman of governors at Park View School, has been embroiled in the controversy surrounding the alleged takeover of state schools by Islamic fundamentalists. He was previously the leader of HIKAM, an organisation which believed in imposing Islamic law and promoting gender segregation…
HIKAM, which was also known by its Arabic name of Harakat Islah Shabaab Al Muslim (Movement to Reform Muslim Youth), was taken over during the late 1980s by Alam until it shut down around 1995.
A prominent Islamic scholar who had been involved in the group and who requested anonymity, told The Sunday Times that HIKAM also believed that minority Islamic sects such as the Shi’ites could not be regarded as true Muslims.
The source, who joined the group in the mid-1980s when it was first established, said: “It embraced a literalist, puritanical version of Islam and … was very sectarian in its approach.
“They were very strict on the segregation and … believed that everything has to be Islamised.”
The scholar added: “The group stood for establishing an Islamic state and Islamic rule and bringing about the caliphate [Islamic state]…”


Whys does the BBC hide so much information about Alam and his Islamist tendencies?

The BBC is seeking to hide Islamist links to these schools and downplay the likelihood that the ‘Torjan Horse’ plot is real….just as they ignored, then claimed the ‘Muslim Patrols’ might have been provocative ‘false flag’ operations.

But not only that…they seek to suggest that any such ‘Islamistation’, if it is happening, is in fact welcome:

‘Trojan Horse’ storm breaking over Birmingham’s schools

‘The so-called Trojan Horse document…..This was a letter, now widely assumed to be a forgery, claiming to detail a plot by Muslim conservatives to Islamicise secular state schools.’

BBC line….the letter is a forgery….talk of a plot is nonsense.


‘The Ofsted results also support the notion that this is really about a clique of governors.
The leaders of four of the schools expected to go into special measures are good friends, who speak a lot via WhatsApp, the mobile messaging app.’

BBC line….it’s just a small group of people…so nothing to really worry about…however read on and that is contradicted….the parents all love their Islamised schools apparently.


‘The idea that there is no wider conspiracy has support: people working in counter-extremism in Birmingham also do not think there is an acute broader problem in the city.’

BBC line….No wider conspiracy?  Again trying to limit this to a small group of fanatics..again…disproved by the BBC itself as above….’an Islamicised comprehensive school might seem like a neat option.


‘So this chapter of the story may be closing’.

BBC line…nothing to see here…no conspiracy, no radical Muslims, no threat to secular schools and society as a whole from a rampant Islam.

However…..the BBC goes on to promote the Islamisation of schools:


‘But there is a big structural issue worth considering: why do so many of the parents support the schools so much?

The English school system’s most important regulator is the attention of parents. Why, in this case, do they disagree with the authorities?

Witch-hunt fear

Partly, it is because some of these schools have been getting strong results. Partly, it is because there is fear of a witch-hunt – and the discourse around this reminds Muslims that they are not treated like people of other faiths.

Discussion of social conservatism among Jews or Catholics does not lead to talk of terrorism.
But it is also surely because Muslim parents do not have access to the same kind of state-funded faith education as parents of other creeds.

At the last school census, however, there were only eight officially designated Muslim state secondaries.    There are more than 300 Catholic secondaries.

No choice

So, for parents who want an education that reflects their own religion, an Islamicised comprehensive school might seem like a neat option.
With a growing Muslim population, this is an issue that will not go away.
Ofsted has no choice but to try to resecularise these schools. But one idea in the ether is that we should open more Muslim faith schools.
That would require a bold secretary of state, willing to defend the growth of faith schooling. It would also mean that schools would probably be more segregated by background.

Once you accept that certain schools are Islamic schools, you can then think about constructing a governing body with proper representation and management processes to prevent the problems in Birmingham.

Remember that parents are the first line of defence for the school system. And, at the moment, lots of them do not think lines in the sand drawn in Whitehall about the role of religion in our schools are worth defending.’


The BBC is promoting the Islamisation of schooling in Britain….a more dangerous and divisive notion would be hard to imagine.

Gove has been arguing for a broader definition of extremism, one that you  must expect would include faith schools and documents such as the MCB’s 2007 Islamist charter.

Unfortunately apparently he lost that argument and May’s narrower definition won the day…as well as a softer approach to tackling the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot.

The BBC tells us that:

“I  [Nick Robinson] understand that Michael Gove and Theresa May clashed at a recent meeting of what’s called the Extremism Task Force – a committee of cabinet ministers set up by David Cameron.

“They argued about how to define extremism. Mr Gove has long argued that Whitehall is too soft on extremism; that it only confronts people once they’ve turned to violence; that you should ‘drain the swamp’ and not wait for ‘the crocodiles to reach the boat’.

“At the meeting he argued for a broader definition. Mrs May, for a narrower one. She won.”

They also argued about how to handle the Trojan Horse allegations. He argued for an aggressive approach. She for a softer one. Again, I’m told, she won.


However we are also told:

But a Home Office source was blunt, telling the BBC: “The Department for Education is responsible for schools, the Home Office is not.”

“They have got a problem and they are trying to make it someone else’s problem,” the source added.


That doesn’t tally up does it?  Robinson reports that May won the argument about the approach to tackling the Trojan Horse plot….and yet the BBC also reports that the Home Office has no responsibility for that…but makes no comment on that contradiction.

And yet the BBC claim May is furious for Gove criticising her when it is his responsibility….

Home Secretary Theresa May has accused Education Secretary Michael Gove of failing to deal with an alleged Islamist plot to take over schools.’

Does that accusation stand up when the BBC also reports that May is the one who has decided hwo to tackle extremism in schools?

It looks like the BBC is more than happy to spin this story and make the most of it whilst it can.


For weeks the BBC has been trying to persuade us that the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot is much ado about nothing…the letter is a fake, the allegations without foundation….Muslims are  once again the subject of an Islamophobic witch hunt.

Yesterday that all changed…suddenly the plot is very real, Gove has been derelict in his duty in ignoring the peril, a peril he was informed about in 2010….and May and Gove have had stand up rows about this….according to ‘a Home Office Source’ who briefed against Gove….the Home Office source who happens to be Mays special advisor and who is in a relationship with them an Gove criticised….the Spad who was apparently nearly sacked on the spot for releasing the letter….the Telegraph says:   ‘It was this remarkable bit of escalation that detonated in Downing Street. It was so bad that consideration was given to sacking Ms Cunningham on the spot.’

The BBC’s Nick Robinson apparently mentioned the link on Today but dismissed it as of any importance…‘So there is a personal element, but let me stress: that’s not the key to this story.’…..clearly he was wrong.



The BBC is happy to Islamise schools it would seem…however that might just be the root of the problems…that acceptance of a slow creep of Islam into secular Britain forcing non-Muslims to adapt to Islam rather than Muslims to adapt to British culture and laws is a major problem..

Muslim faith schools lead only to segregation and possible extremism….the BBC’s Chris Cook admitted that in many schools where the majority of pupils are Muslim up to 90% only speak English as a second language…how can that be when they are mostly born here?

Norway’s capital to get first Muslim only school, to teach Arabic and Muslim values

“We spend a lot of money on inclusion in Norway, and now we are apparently going to be spending it on segregation.” the Labour chairman of Norway’s parliamentary education committee, Trond Giske, was quoted in the above mentioned report as saying.


In this video Cook claims the problem isn’t Islam but ‘extreme conservatism’…..of course that is Islamic conservatism….something Cook dismisses as irrelevant….’extreme conservatism can be problematic on its own’.


But is it just a small group of fanatics that want to Islamise the world as the BBC like to suggest?

I have met Muslim lawyers and academics who have turned to Taliban-style beliefs. These men propagate Wahhabism –  the joyless and backward Saudi belief system followed by
Al Qaeda and espoused by hate preachers such as omar Bakri and his successor
Anjem Choudary.

The rapid spread of rigid, diehard Islam is deeply worrying. Yet
those in power, focused on terrorist cells, seem oblivious to this other peril.
For many of us Muslims, this creeping Talibanisation of childhood is

I could never have imagined, nine years on, that the Taliban
would be claiming to have ‘won the war’ in Afghanistan. Or, much worse, that our
politicians and Muslim ‘leaders’ here would allow their twisted ideology to
spread across Britain. Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools,
playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms
and universities. And if we are to have any hope of combating them, we need to
stop this attitude of appeasement and understand why so many Muslims are
attracted to the most punishing forms of belief, suppressing women and children.

Why are we fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and indulging Taliban values here?

Even if it offends liberal principles, the powerful must find a way of stopping Islamicists from  promulgating their distorted creed.  If they don’t, the future is bleak for Muslims and the country.