Compare and contrast the BBC version with the Daily Mail version. What was it about the three accused – Mohammed Adulkadir Osman, and TWO unnamed 17-year-old friends – that made the BBC choose not to mention them?
(h/t to open thread commenters)
Is it merely the BBC policy to under report crimes involving Islamics, or is there a nod and wink coming from Downing Street?
Imagine if three British soldiers beat up a muslim,0there would be a BBC Panorama and weeks of BBC drivel labelling the entire British army as racist.
I’d like to see three british soldiers beat up BBC reporters.
At risk of throwing Cleo a precedent to knaw on, I wouldn’t.
Beyond getting the squaddies and the Army in a world of grief, it would hand those that seek to undermine all the good they stand for the precise excuse they need and have been trying to provoke.
But at least there is an opportunity to praise our forces for fighting for the principles that allow you to say this (at least in some places, for now) and me to respectfully take issue.
However there are some rather more keen on seeing your views somehow selectively ‘dealt with’, doubtless by a small group they feel they are qualified to be part of without election to the role.
I have to say I used to find it very informative when we were told who had liked our posts. Some people’s “likes” meant a lot more to me than others.
They really are afraid of something, but they do not fear the loss of of our trust and respect.
Tukki Abbas Shah and Umar Anwar, both 17, and Mohammed Adulkadir Osman, 19
I see they are all named now, in the same article….
A previous report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20197023) made great play on the fact that the tourists were ‘British’. When the beeb do this you can guarantee they are anything other than British (see gitmo prisoners, drug smugglers, death row inmates).
Surely the headline in the BBC should be “”British” tourists” accused of “murder””.
Surely the questions asked should be why was this Pakistani buying ‘fighting’ arms. Wouldn’t surprise me to find they are part of a cell or have extensive attendance at a madrasa or Mosque under observation.
From the NUJ guidelines on race reporting:
The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.
In other words – we totally approve of censorship where we deem it politically expedient.
In other words, a qualified censorship.
‘In other words, a qualified censorship. ‘
Hey, in support of propaganda, what’s not to like chez Aunty?
Fair’s fair, you know how the BBC likes to wait for hard evidence instead of rushing in with inflammatory claims of extremism:
surprise surprise Pakistanis boy older brother also serving 15 years for stabbing a guy to death, scum bags hope they all rot in jail.
Easy keyboard warrior the justice system is a joke and the newspapers only write what they feel to write. You are the only low life scumbag.
Whereas the BBC report everything without bias? Really?
“You are the only low life scumbag.”
Once again the ,alleged,thought crime of ‘racism’ is considered worse than the actual,physical crime of murder
“newspapers only write what they feel to write.”
No the press only report what their allowed to report by the ‘liberal inquisition’
This routine INBBC political and censoring deceit, operating under the guise of ‘impartiality,’ is aimed to smooth the Islamisation of British society.
So you’d prefer the BBC jumped to conclusions and printed speculative gossip?
You don’t know what went on; nor does the BBC. It’s for the courts to decide.
we know their names, have done for hours…
In fact ITV published the oldest “British tourist”‘s name over 9 (nine) hours ago…
‘Saudi tourist in Oxford’
Quite so JD from a Jurisprudence point of view, but we want to know now, about what is going on in the world now, not after a taxi full of QCs have earned their fees in two years time.
Irrespective of the facts on this case, I did wonder why we had 3,000 of our soldiers posted in Cypriot holiday resort, Aya Napa. We have not many more than that in Afghanistan. Is Cyprus under any imminent threat from anything other than sunstroke? What are our lads doing there other than getting drunk and fighting locals? We probably still have tens of thousands of our boys posted in Germany, that well known threat to European sovereignty.
The last I read of our boys in Cyprus was when three were convicted of the rape and murder of a Scandinavian tour guide.
Why exactly are we massively in Cyprus in a supposed era of austerity and cuts?
London we have 4 bases in Cyprus in two areas. ESBA and WSBA. There are no troops in Aya Napa. The nearest base is deckelia. Or as the crow flies Aya nick.
There are 10,000 british troops in afghan.
Lastly while not an excuse those troops were in an out of bounds area.
I stand corrected, thank you. I was in Aya Napa and there were plenty of our boys on the beach in swimming trunks but that was a few years back.
Irrespective of the exact town, there are still 3,000 troops “in Cyprus”? Why? Just a question.
London Calling: Britain stills feels it needs a Mediterranean base. Given the Arab Spring that may not be an unreasonable position. The Russians still maintain a base in Syria for the same reason. In both cases it may be a refusal to admit that they are not the imperial power they were in Russia’s case the Cold War and Britain’s, the Second World War.
There is an interesting similarity between Russia and Britain. Despite the British bases in Cyprus it did nothing when Turkey invaded. Russia is doing nothing in Syria’s civil war, either.
INBBC jumped to conclusions, and censored in Islam’s favour.
Jim dandy a few things,
1] the border with Turkish occupied Cyprus is a stones throw away.
2] what were Muslims doing in an area know for drugs,alcohol and women.
3] 16 flick knives?
4) how many 17 year olds go on holiday to Cyprus the first week of nov.
5) the bBc has no problem informing the world when a British serviceman is in the spotlight.
‘So you’d prefer the BBC jumped to conclusions and printed speculative gossip?
Not on its current basis that depends on their hostility to or empathy with alleged protagonists or their causes, no.
Which is the point of this site… which you appear to live on in a daily fog of denial.
No you halfwit – I’d ,we’d (if I may be so bold) , prefer they reported the facts. If the assailants were muslims then this needs reporting, if only to warn other likely to be attacked that muslims are lying in wait.
But then I suppose you have never been drinking, Hand Shandy, in a Northern town where gangs of mulsims regualry wait on lone ‘drunks’ to have a cultural exchange with?
It is the failure of people like you to address such issues which gives the BNP/EDL their power. You are responsible for that Shandy – just think on that for a while.
Another truly pathetic drive-by posting by Dandy.
Your reap what you sow.
The BBC should remember that.
Can anyone confirm that Denis MacShane dreamt up the NUJ’s misinformation policy on immigrant crime?
This from another blog:
Not many people know that MacShame was the one who created the NUJ Guidelines on Race Reporting in the 1970s, when he was president of the NUJ.
It should also be borne in mind that MacShame was sacked by the BBC for gross dishonesty when, while working as a reporter on a radio show, he rang in to the show, pretending to be an ordinary member of the public, to attack a Conservative minister. So MacShame had a track record of dishonesty long before he became a Labour MP. Labour knew about his dishonest background and were obviously comfortable with it, otherwise they wouldn’t allowed him to represent the party.”
” dishonest background ”
There you have it, utterly, perfectly, qualified for the job in hand.
As well as the bBBC’s usual ‘read between the lines’ approach to ethnic violence, is there any significance in the bBBC’s phrase ‘UK tourists’ rather than ‘British tourists’ as used by the Daily Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, etc?
Normally the bBBC is very keen to emphasise that Pakistani and Somali criminals are really British.
What about the muslims in afganistan that were going to be killed by this soldier. A big hoo ha is made when a soldier is killed, they were in a place which was out of bound to them due to your so called soldiers rapeing and commiting a murder. They started the fight but because he has died people want to judje and label the 3 young boys. What about the millions of people being killed in other countries or do they not matter because they are not british!.
MYA, the “millions” killed in other countries (as you put it), and by this I take it you mean Muslim countries are, in case you haven’t noticed it or are just too thick to realize it, murdered at least 99.99% of the time by other Muslims. I see from the dribble you write here that you’re nothing more than a member of the Islamist living-dead with a severe victimhood complex as is the wont of your ilk. You tiresome prat.
Boy, Cleo, Dez, Dee, TaketheMickey Jim & Titch are going to have a conference call on that one.
Like? Ignore? Take a stand? Make a sweeping generalisation of some who come to this site to… ‘defend’ the BBC? Be seen in support if you don’t. There’s a whole week in a Welsh retreat right there.
Advocacy of murder as a precautionary measure on possible actions taken in other countries in combat is a tricky one.
Maybe some young Pakistani girls could be prevailed upon to offer input on who starts what?
3 young boys? sorry that should read 3 young Muslims go to a area full of drinking and debauchery carrying knives why what were they there for? the troops are not Muslims and were out for a night! yes out of bounds but only you use that as a defence for murder !oh and by your standard the rape and murder of young English girls by Muslims totally condemns all Muslims as you use one case to condemn all British troops ?
My we are popular on here with the shouty thicko children this week !
MYA – That is deliberately inflammatory and akin to excusing the murder of a young Muslim in case he becomes s suicide bomber. Whatever your personal thoughts on the ongoing conflict, his was not a theatre of war.
Cleo – I have with no hesitation added myself to the likes garnered.
This rather highlights the less satisfactory of the free speech/censorship balance, and further the basic logistics of postings in general, where some will go beyond debate and try and rig perceptions as well using understandably embraced but easily abused additional features to the interactive (anti)social media experience.
And I am unsure there’s a solution as it afflicts vast, well-resourced sites such as the BBC’s HYS and open blogs, as much as on little free BBBC.
Certainly, despite the pre or post modding that I accept the BBC needs to have (if not too trustworthy in implementing) they can also find themselves subject to false flags of single to multiple agent levels.
And with media whose ratings numbers are important, one can wonder who is really seeding what and why.
A bonkers post can be set up to garner a noble reply, or simply to generate reaction…. or a ‘you lot’ dismissal.
Hence the value of getting into the more grotesque ones can be a tricky call as one might be inadvertently serving the motivations of hidden string pullers. Even with dis/likes, especially of the anon numerical variety.
The BBC system is one of the worst, having both, making it useless in all ways. A hundred could like and be reduced to a cosy zero by a hundred in counter. Or an entire intranet (of say 20,000 persons) could be mobilised to skew a ‘representation’ that the unscrupulous may decide ‘represents’ the entire UK public and base a headline feature on. Or ignore or pass off as a split as the BBC did with the Grain 100:1 10:10 trashing.
You have nailed colours to mast, and are to be applauded.
Where, then are the others who frequent this site and are not averse to the odd generality in tarring with brushes… not to those who choose to compound poorly articulated viewpoints with support, but who simply steer clear?
It creates a poor precedent to be making such equivalences and demanding compliance with silence taken as complicity (that does not excuse actual crimes, so the Savile observer corps are still on the hook) by default.
It also makes this site more about being seen to be policing PC policies than actually addressing BBC failures in service delivery.
Which, as I recall, was your eventual stated aim.
Stick to the issues and leave the flouncing… in or , out… or yo-yoing… to those whose actual motivations remain less than positive to the cause of sensible media accountability in favour of bizarre drive-by spoiling attempts that backfire near 100% of the time.
I have to say, the competence shown on some occasions by some of rwb’s ‘regulars’ has made me wonder if they are not creations of those who feel the need to make the BBC look worse than they are (along with a few from the counter section).
If so I wish they (all) wouldn’t; it really isn’t necessary. Or helpful in the long run.
And, in a different case in Birmingham:
-more INBBC censorship of Islamic jihad.
Compare and contrast-
1.) ‘Birmingham Mail’
“Alum Rock man charged with terrorism offences over possession of magazines.”
“Mohammed Benares charged with terrorism offences after police seize several issues of ‘Inspire Magazine’ and ‘39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad’”
2.) INBBC (‘Birmingham and Black Country’ pages)
“Alum Rock man charged with terrorism offences”
So that nobody can accuse them of favouritism, the BBC has extended its protection to Birmingham’s Hindu community as well (who don’t really need it, being more or less a law-abiding lot). When I heard on the Beeb news (5th Nov) that, in Birmingham, four men had been charged with counterfeiting, yesterday, I’m afraid my bad habit of googling the case to find out what they weren’t telling me, struck in. They all had non-Muslim names from the Indian subcontinent. As it is £1.2 million in fake notes is not considered significant enough to report on their website.
Daily Mail report–
“North-South row”. MY FOOT!
North-South Waziristan, maybe?