Redefining "ordinary" for the 21st Century

“On the surface Naseebah Bibi did not appear to be an out-of-the-ordinary figure”, according to BBC correspondent Ruth Clegg.

We’ll let you be the judge of that :

Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Redefining "ordinary" for the 21st Century

  1. Craig says:

    What a hideous story! What a lot of Muslim loons we have in this country! And in my region!!
    Ruth Clegg is a typical Beeboid, doing a ‘balanced’ story, giving voice to the sympathy for Mrs Bibi among some Muslim women – sickos, every last one of them – and putting criticisms in quotation marks.
    Mildly-disapproving “shop owner Jamil” says, “It’s acceptable to treat women like this in other countries but not in our country, in England no, it’s not acceptable.”
    Ruth, being a B’oidy moral relatavist isn’t able to demur from this objectionable viewpoint.


  2. George R says:

    This ‘report’ from the BBC epitomises the BBC’s deep-seated dhimmitude.

    This ‘slaving’ Muslim woman Bibi is morally judged by BBC’s Ms. Clegg by only referring to Muslim opinions.

    It seems that now that Blackburn is a town of 25% Muslims, and rising, the only opinion to be considered there by the BBC is that of Muslims.

    The BBC does not engage in discussing the morality of Islam, in this or any other case involving Muslims and their social behaviour.

    The former indigenous people of Blackburn are merely ghosts to the BBC, whose opinions are avoided.


  3. John Horne Tooke says:

    George R that is a very good point.


  4. pounce_uk says:

    George R wrote…
    This ‘slaving’ Muslim woman Bibi is morally judged by BBC’s Ms. Clegg by only referring to Muslim opinions.”

    I’ve just read that report and for the life in me cannot see how the bBC can promote that odious woman as a victim.

    What the bBC fails to report is that many young girls brought over from pakistan are treated like slaves. There are many examples to be found in the media here are three :

    Instead of exposing this vile practice, the bBC goes out of tis way in which to make this odious old f-ing Hag a victim.


  5. From the BBC ‘report’:

    Some muslim women have said she was exploited by her three daughter-in-laws (sic) who came to the UK because they thought “money grew off trees”.

    They are in fact correct. A tree somewhere in Finland worth £1000 will be sent to a paper mill for processing and the paper is sent to the UK where it is converted by HMG into £billions. Slightly OT but true nonetheless.


  6. George R says:

    ‘Times’ Comment, Matthew Parris(28 May):

    “Please uncover your face. It’s our custom”


    “Why are women’s faces concealed in East London but not in Damascus? Matthew Parris
    “Funny to return from Lebanon, Syria and Turkey – where women go unveiled – and return to Britain, the land of the full hijab. I see more women with their faces covered in Tower Hamlets than I did in Damascus.
    “Would it be wrong to try to convey to communities in Britain who adopt the full hijab that, though it is a woman’s legal right to dress as she chooses, she should recognise that she’s in a country where many people will find a masked face disturbing, and that (without meaning to) she is acting in a culturally inappropriate manner, which may offend? Do the masked women I see in the street in Whitechapel actually know this? I cannot say, because I’ve never spoken to them: or, rather, when I do, they look away and walk away.

    “This too, in Britain, is rude. Do they know? Shouldn’t they?” (Matthew Parris.)


  7. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    Funny the men don’t believe they should wear blinkers? Since apparently the “covering up” women is to preserve the womans modesty,it seems as logical that that the men should stop leering at our uncovered women. No more or less inappropriate than dressing women as pillar boxes.


  8. Grant says:

    In the twisted little minds of the Beeboids, this is normal.


  9. Philip says:

    It is not the heinous acts of the nutter Bibi that are extraordinary here – shes merely being Pious™.

    It is the social engineering at work in this BBC article, the objective of which is to attempt to normalise Sharia law and lunatic, evil and completely alien Islamic customs in this country – that is tuly shocking.


  10. RS says:

    The level of anti-islamic hate on here would prob be akin to the anti-semitism the nazi’s attempted to stoke up in 1930’s germany. You people don’t see that your the other side of a sickening coin.


  11. Paraphrasing Ringo Starr, I hate anyone who hates me. Do fools or traitors (it’s one or the other) such as RS understand the level of hatred directed by muslims against non-muslims? Do such fools/traitors know that this hatred is ordained by their god, their scripture, their prophet? If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, then RS is a fool: if ‘yes’, then a traitor. The same goes for the BBC.


  12. RS says:

    Wow Allan your a like a David Duke only you reserve your hate for Islam instead of Judaism. Thanks for gloriously proving my point.


  13. Hugh Oxford says:

    How do they know it’s Naseebah Bibi ?


  14. Grimer says:

    [email protected]:

    I understand that bank notes are actually made of cotton. That is why they don’t break up in a washing machine.


  15. RS The Anti-Semitic Paedophile Worshipper says:

    Please delete my previous two posts.


  16. Wow RS, when you get back to school next week, ask the remedial English teacher to give you some help with your grammar and punctuation. With your dreadful English and your inability to make reasoned argument, you gloriously prove the point made here so often about the poor state of Britain’s education. You are the product.


  17. RS says:

    What a reasoned and lucid argument Allan, i am humbled truly. I really shouldn’t expect much more considering it was prob you who put the ‘really funny’ post up @ 10:50 AM.


  18. Not a sheep says:

    Don’t feed the troll.


  19. Millie Tant says:

    I thought money grew ON trees.

    Anyway, I read that article twice, trying to find out what the sentence was. All it says is that she was found guilty. Naturally, the next thing you want to know is what the punishment was. It doesn’t tell you that, even though it quotes someone referring to the sentence near the end of the article. What sentence? It wasn’t mentioned previously.

    That’s what I hate about the BBC: it witters on and on, giving us a pageful of stupidity, bias, illiteracy, drivel and opinion from this one and that one but doesn’t tell you the basic facts that you would want to know.

    Equally, if you are going to be given opinion, you would want to know the opinions of people from the majority in Blackburn as much as those of Muslims.


  20. JohnA says:


    Funny you should mention David Duke. He was one of the few people I saw who had approved the book on the claimed insidious influence of the Jewish lobby in the US you have been defending strongly on another thread.


  21. RS says:

    Few people? Lots of people recommend the book, some of them even Jewish. But I suppose if Duke were to tell you 2 plus 2 = 4 you would think otherwise. If you are put off reading something for yourself based upon the personalities of other people who have read it, you really should not engage in any kind of debate whatsoever !
    Nevrmind the fact you seem blissfully unaware of the authors opinion of Duke. BTW its the ‘Israel lobby’ one wonders why you people insist on referring to it as a jewish lobby? (actually its pretty obvious why, and particularly pathetic and childish)


  22. Robert S. McNamara says:

    She (apparently) looks perfectly ordinary. For one of the many Religion of Peace enclaves in Britain, where non-RoPers are wise to stay away from unless they want to be peacefully murdered or otherwise brutalised.


  23. Craig says:


    I am not too keen on anyone who condones such acts of inhumanity – and there are, as the BBC article shows (despite itself) plenty of Muslim loons in Blackburn who are prepared to defend the indefensible.
    To compare such points to Nazi anti-Semitism is a bit OTT, wouldn’t you say?


  24. deegee says:

    I thought this was an extraordinary article for the BBC. A crime is committed and the Muslim element is played up rather than hidden so deeply in the text that you could be undecided about the religion and country of origin of anyone.

    How did this slip past the subeditors?

    To be fair the Clegg article should be read together with ‘Slavery’ mother-in-law is jailed
    surprisingly illustrated with a photograph of Naseebah Bibi without the niqab. The word ‘Muslim’ is not mentioned and one must read 14 paragraphs down to read the word ‘Pakistan’. Except for the photograph which may have been entered by the sub-editor/layout accidentally, this article is standard BBC hide the Muslim.


  25. deegee says:

    An alternative reason for the niqab-less photo is that having made an editorial decision to hide the ethnic/religious aspects the editors chose the least identifiably Muslim photo they could find to further obscure them.

    Clegg’s article is in this context extraordinary and probably will soon disappear into the limbo of stories that the BBC ran but wants to disassociate itself from.


  26. North Northwester says:

    “She was found guilty of falsely imprisoning Nagina Akhtar between 1993 and 2006, Tazeem Akhtar from 2001 to 2003 and Nisbah Akhtar between 2005 and 2007.”…

    …”Musharrat Zia is the director of Practical Solutions, an organisation which works to challenge stereotypes and negative myths about different cultures.
    She said: “I am saddened by it, living in an age where equality and justice is there for everybody.
    “This practice is quite outmoded, its outdated. “


    It’s not so bloody mythical if it’s actually happening, is it, you stupid BBC dhimmi tart?


    Slavery was abolished in 1833 you stupid bint!
    How bloody ‘outmoded’ can you get?


  27. North Northwester says:

    Interestingly, this website article is classified under England/Lancashire.

    It can’t possibly be national news, can it?

    National ‘news’ has the human interest stories of the little girl poisoned by her food and the name for beer mat collectors and

    Harry goes to Harlem on US visit

    Lottery results: Are you a winner?

    Further swine flu cases confirmed

    Drugs worth £10m seized from flat

    Wedding rescue for surfing couple

    Tributes to balloon crash victim

    Aberdeen murder victim is named

    So it’s not like human tragedy on on the family scale isn’t important enough to make the national cut, and

    England links has:
    Dying man wins bet he would live

    Police ‘failed’ custody death man

    But slavery in England in the Twenty-First Century?

    Big yawn in the scale of things in BBC world.


  28. JohnA says:

    North Northwester


    A miniscule proportion of the UK population will go delving in the Lancashire page for news. This story obviously ranks ahead of several of the other stories you cited – but the BBC chooses to hide it away.


  29. Cameron says:

    its incredible how the bbc introduce balance into this scum article…i mean did they try and give a perspective/angle to perhaps wolfgang priflopil for instance?

    or the other chap who dungeoned his own child and raped them?


    wonder why.


  30. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I thought that was a photo of The Elephant Man until I read Laban’s post.

    Why is it that when people come here scolding about how some commenters’ anti-Islam remarks are exactly like the Nazis’ statements against Jews, they never get around to discussing the issues which prompt the remarks they don’t like? They always stop at, “You’re as bad as the Nazis.”

    German newspapers in 1939 didn’t have stories of Jewish slavers in Dresden, or of Jewish men beheading or burning or throwing acid on their women, or forcing German hospital and office workers to refrain from eating bread at work during Passover, or trying to ban pig signs on butcher shops in Dortmund, or plotting to blow up the Brandenburg Gate, or anything of the sort. The demonization was engineered in an entirely different fashion. There’s a massive, overwhelming difference between what prompts the anti-Muslim remarks here and the way deadly anti-Semitism was spread in Nazi Germany.

    Some of the anti-Muslim comments here are over the top, and regrettable, sure. But to compare them – and the emotions behind them – to Nazi-era anti-Jew remarks is wildly inaccurate. I suspect the BBC believes itself to be a similar righteous bulwark against racist British people who (in the minds of Beeboids) hate Muslims for reasons other than the way they kill their womenfolk or for wanting to force everyone to respect Muslim sensibilities before their own.