I actually appeared on the Nicky Campbell hosted “The Big Questions” a few months ago and have to say I found the host to be pleasant and fair minded in his dealing with me. However, I have received a stream of complaints from Biased BBC readers and others concerning yesterday’s edition of the programme. Did you see it? I watched it myself and was horrified at the lack of balance in the audience debating the big question “Have British Muslims gone far enough in condemning extremists.” Essentially, the debate was conducted between Muslims which is truly remarkable given that they make up less than 5% of UK population but more like 100% of the debating benches in this programme. There was NO voice there to posit the view that Islam may well be incompatible with modern western democracies and that British muslims need to accept UK laws and pledge loyalty to the British state. Instead there was a lot of the usual flannel about “British foreign policy” virtually forcing poor innocent muslim boys to go out and…chop up British soldiers on the streets of London. The balance in the programme was askew.
THE BIG QUESTIONS
Bookmark the permalink.
It was disgraceful and massively unbalanced. Just like Question Time is.
If it were to do with British foreign policy how do they explain the myriad attacks in countries with nothing to do attacking Muslim countries? I think in May alone there have been attacks in 25 different countries on 4 continents…hmmm. Of course many of those are sect on sect murders/attacks…British Foreign policy? Red herring.
Condemning extremists is no longer enough, they have to excise this cancer, actively expose it.
posted this yesyerday
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b021mpc2/
TBQ – the big questions – are muslims doing enough to prevent extremism? … so panto campbell asks a complete line up of … muslim ( 😀 ) spokesmen?
all playing hardman/softman, with each other?, all the usual suspects are there … contrived utter nonsense … no objective viewpoint at all,
note – this is not the first time the BBC has employed such shennigans on this show, they are following an islamic narrative seen in many so called “debates” about islam, remember Mr Wilders in the UK, these erm “players” like Ramadan or Mpac offering erm “debate”? –
why? … he literally tied them up, in a knot on the BBC 5live
“We will set it up” … i think set up being the operative words
anyway, it appears from this TBQs bunch that …
laughable obfuscation lessons, and every excuse available, that have nothing to do with the root problem …
are the answer?
off switch … 15mins i won t get back.
So listenig to Al Beeb and the Muslim community this soldier was killed because British soldiers are allegedly killing Muslims.
Now look at it this way. We are witnessing the greatest persecution of Christians in history today, at the hand of Muslims and in the name of Islam, so according to their warped reasoning we are perfectly entitled to go down the road today and start butchering Muslims.
And absolutely NO theological discussion of the Sura 9 that our Nigerian friends rather took as …well, I nearly said Gospel, but I`d be kneeling in Riyadhs chop-chop square if I did say this.
The Nigerians were only following Sura 9 to the letter-and no-one is able to enlighten us re the nuances…there aren`t any!
Clear as blood…Muhammad left them no option, but the appeasers rather look for wriggle room.
Sorry-these nutjobs,Choudury are the “good Muslims “remember-literally carrying out Muhammads edicts.
The “bad Muslims” appear on telly, get research funding and a chance to chew the halal fat with Reid, Blears and May.
And the “bad Muslims” often turn out to be the “good ones” waiting their turn…Fort Hood for example. Forgive then, our right to be prejudiced against a religion that still has orders to kill the rest of us…and get blessed by Allah if they do so.
This is not to trash the Muslims who want the same as us…but they`re more scared of their “better Muslim brothers” than we are-and they would like a bit of help. seeing as we`re supposed to be a sovereign state( as if the EU would want that?).
When one Muslim is able to tell us why Sura 9 is “out of context”, “irrelevant” then he`ll begin the Enlightenment-but most of them find it easier to stay in the 6th Century, whilst grooming gangs, druggie prisoners run riot ,and kebab shop owners have cleavers.
Oh-and don`t let a Tom Holland or someone like me do their work for them…only Muslims seem to have the right to discuss all this…the Koran turns out to be a portable no-go like Mecca is.
No, Campbell did bring up those quotes in an attempt to address the theological issue, but allowed that discussion to be immediately smokescreened by the imam who started quoting other bits instead, and was allowed to lay out his warm and fuzzy views. Theological debate swept under the rug, and Campbell was either too dense to realize it or simply didn’t care, having done his job by asking the question.
Never watch it. However I broke that rule and watched it for around two minutes yesterday, that’s all I could stomach.. I did comment to my partner on what I saw about the make up of the audience.
However today I’m enjoying what appears to be yet another repeat of bargain hunt. Yesterday I accidentally stumbled across the Monaco Grand Prix results way before the BBc screened the “Highlights”. It’s a grey Bank holiday & we were not planning on going out the TV looks rubbish . BBC 1 are following this with Wallace & Grommit & then Cool runnings. Back to putting my bus ticket collection in order then.
The bias was simply appalling.
Black is white, up is down, left is right, 2 + 2 = 5 in the Multicultural utopia.
Why should anyone be surprised at the BBC propaganda ?
Nicki Campbell has been very chirpy, bright eyed and bushy tailed, after last weeks beheading of the British soldier, yet when covering other news stories, like say, Stephen Lawrence or ‘waaycism in football’ for example, he goes into solemn, austere, serious, funeral mode.
Strange man that Campbell.
.
The appaling lack of balance must surely be against all it’s charters and rules and reg’s and affect any future franchise. It’s road to redemtion would be the same crowd plus Tommy Robinson. Now that would keep us quiet for a while.
Well, I was asking last week for Nicky Campbell to do something along these lines, so thanks for listening, BBC. Baby steps! Too bad Nicky incited religious conflict in his opening statement about the brutal murder being done “in God’s…or rather Allah’s name”. I wonder if he’ll get a single complaint over that.
The question itself is the wrong one, though. Obviously nobody has done enough to combat extremism. It’s a silly angle of approach, and seems to assume that there is already a major effort underway. The question ought to be: why haven’t they done more?
And I haven’t even watched past the opening statement yet. I’m not encouraged.
Salma Yaqoob from the Stop the War Coalition has spent here life since 9/11 arguing that foreign policy is the reason for extremism? Where was your Stop the War Coalition back when the Serbs were rounding up your co-religionists?
I was amused to see the MPAC guy call her out for claiming not to know what was in the minds of the butchers of Woolwich. I guess she relied too much on the BBC for her information.
Too many elephants walking around the room here, though. I’d rather see all these people debating with Mohammedans who believe this kind of violence is justified. That’s the real beginning to the whole “are they doing enough” debate. All this does is support the Tiny Minority™ Narrative, they’re all trying really hard, and it’s society’s fault they haven’t succeeded. I didn’t hear anyone saying they go around to the mosques where the extremist imams preach to demand their removal. Instead, the guy from YouGov claimed the polls show everything is fine, and attacked the tabloid papers, and the Ekklesia guy attacked UKIP and said that the BBC should give more time to Mohammedans preaching a message of love. The one guy speaking to the reality of importing third-world values with no integration and just what is really being taught in the madrassas and mosques around the country was laughed at and shouted down. Nicky tried to shut him up at one point by telling him that this opinions wasn’t going down well, as if that was a reason to be quiet.
I suppose this is a welcome first step from the BBC, but not really encouraging.
The bBBC profile for Kosovo doesn’t mention Muslims. Apparently the Serb ethnic cleansing in 1999 was against ‘Kosovar Albanians’. So anyone wanting to find the facts about British foreign policy supporting Muslims would have to look elsewhere than the bBBC.
Salma Yacoob?…isn`t she Respect now that George Galloway has jumped pirate ship off Somali waters?
Make way for the Muslim mushrooms!…I`d forgotten her!
Lauren Booth?…Yvonne Ridley?…any others?…or is a good washing day to scrub those bloody shrouds I wonder?
Ah, the benefits of Womens Lib, when such fragrant flowers of Muhammad turn out to be the logical progression.
Stand by your man!…or at least offer him your high heels for his stumps!
The BBC labeled her as representing Stop the War Coalition.
Ah…Lauren Booth and ‘Womens Lib’ – when delusion and reality collide…
http://www.actforcanada.ca/tony-blairs-sister-in-laws-daughter-banned-from-swimming-in-ritzy-hotel-pool-with-islamic-dress-in-egypt/
What kind of a Socialist is Lauren Booth if she takes her kids round 5 star hotels?
A Champagne Socialist of course.
If the BBC can send a car to convey Anjem Choudary to the BBC for a soft interview, as they did the other day, to allow him to attack us and our way of life, can they not invite one of the spokesmen from the EDF and convey him in the same manner and interview him in the same soft manner so he can say why he is attempting to defend our way of life?
Correction – I think it should have been EDL. But surely they deserve airtime too, don’t they, they shouldn’t be censored by the BBC if they value Choudary.
The EDL leader is regularly on the BBC and given enough time to discuss matters. I do however believe the likes of choudary should be nowhere near our tv screens.
“The EDL leader is regularly on the BBC and given enough time to discuss matters.”
Really? I have only seen him the once ,on
news night when he wrong footed Paxman
My view is that nicky Campbell himself is a decent enough journalist, the problem is the methods the BBC uses to select the audience. Having been on question time myself several times I can attest that, at best, they do the bare minimum to ensure any kind of balance and at worst they deliberately ensure over representation of certain groups.
In this case, I think the BBC was nearly correct in having almost all Mohammedans in the debate and no anti-Islam voices. I was asking for something similar last week, and they almost came through, but screwed it up.
Unfortunately, the BBC got it wrong and this ended up being a spectacle of various non-extremist Mohammedans arguing with each other about who is at fault for their community not doing enough to combat the jihadi mentality, and some were even saying they were doing plenty and it’s society’s fault (an idea endorsed by the white, Christian YouGov and Ekklesia guests).
A couple of good points were made, and areas of discussion opened, but Campbell failed to follow up properly, and failed to maintain a coherent debate. So many opportunities missed, so many points lost.
In the end, though, the makeup of the panel involved in the discussion was not the way to do it. Like I said last week, they should have Choudary and his comrades debating against these so-called Moderate Mohammedans. Let’s see these folks who claim they’re fighting against the jihadi mentality, like Yaqoob and that beardless imam in the nice suit and the MPAC guy, debate the theology and philosophy and integration and political issues. That’s the debate that needs to be had in public, that’s what people need to see happening, not this spectacle of thoroughly modern Mohammedans condemning violence like wet politicians on Question Time do after some unfortunate incident.
I don’t think yet another debate between Tommy Robinson and Anzar Mohammed, or Melanie Phillips against Mehdi Hasan is of any use to anyone.
David Vance,
“I watched it myself and was horrified at the lack of balance in the audience debating the big question ‘Have British Muslims gone far enough in condemning extremists.’ ”
Except there was balance in the debate. Some speakers thought Muslims were doing enough; some thought they weren’t.
“Essentially, the debate was conducted between Muslims which is truly remarkable given that they make up less than 5% of UK population but more like 100% of the debating benches in this programme.”
I see, so what you are horrified by, isn’t a “lack of balance” in the debate, but just too many Muslims.
Where you equally horrified by too many Christians in this episode of “The Big Questions”?
No?
How strange.
Should Modern Values Change Christianity? (17th March 2013)
“There was NO voice there to posit the view that Islam may well be incompatible with modern western democracies…”
Well that wasn’t actually subject under debate was it? But an interesting opinion for you to express after stating that;
“…rants about Islam and other bogeymen serve no purpose other than to provide fodder for our critics…”
Gosh. It’s almost like you’re talking out of two sides of you mouth at the same time.
How strange.
I will say from the outset that I haven’t watched this programme yet. But reading a few of the comments above and reading the question the programme poses, I can say what I would expect if it’s genuine.
Big Question – Have British Muslims done enough to counter extremism?
Somehow I find this question as disingenuous as ‘how long is a piece of string’. What on earth is it supposed to mean?
If I were genuinely trying to answer such a question I would first have to define what ‘enough’ was.
1. Is it merely mouthing trite pc statements to appease the public?
2. Is it actively reporting all knowledge of who might be seeking to engage in anti-British activities?
3. Is it engaging in social attempts to go to the more radical meetings and attempt debate to deter potential radicals Islamists?
Perhaps if I posit this question instead to gain a better perspective on this point.
What if we were asked whether B-BBC contributors were doing enough to counter BBC bias, what would we say?
We spend time and energy every day monitoring output to a greater or lesser extent and post to various websites or articles in an attempt to raise awareness.
Question is – is it enough?
Has it stopped the BBC from being biased? – NO.
So clearly it is not enough.
Which brings us to the real question.
Can we do enough to stop the BBC from being biased?
In any near future, and within legal constraints – no.
I think we would most agree that seeing our society will degenerate further as a result of the BBC’s continued agenda, the closer we get to the shit hitting the fan, with the result that the public becomes increasingly conscious of its poorly thought out propaganda, eventually things will be brought to bear. It carries the seeds of its own destruction.
What we do in the meantime is provide a public record of our perceptions proving its bias in all the areas we monitor.
Coming back to the question the BBC posed, and the apparent panel that was supposed to answer it, sounds like the same as if the BBC posed the question as to whether they were doing enough to combat bias within their organisation, and only had BBC staff on the panel to answer it.
I think we all know what the outcome would be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
I waited for Nikki to say he was going to do a programme about jihad and extremeism in, say, Methodism, Babtism and other Christian churches. Oh, while he’s at it he could do the same about Budhism, Hiduism, Shinto, etc. Wern’t they all angry.
Didn’t see the programme DV, but good to see you giving NC credit for your appearance.
As per always, I’m utterly mystified why NC is such a hate figure here.