Andrew Neil…Mehdi Hasan’s Sock Puppet?


‘It will be vital to challenge apologists for terrorism.’     Prevent Programme


Margaret Hodge said this in 2010:

‘We need to have an honest conversation about what’s going on in our working class communities. The very mention of immigration causes controversy and the whole debate is often seen through the prism of racism.

‘The result is parties like the BNP tap into people’s frustrations and that’s why we’ve seen a rise in support for them.


The BBC refuses to talk fully and openly about race, religion or immigration….which is why you get the rise of the EDL…which the BBC then campaigns against….an organisation that in effect they helped create.



When Tommy Robinson was interviewed on the Today programme the Left had a moment of anguished horror….someone whose views they disagree with had been allowed onto the radio…the Left’s ‘house radio’ at that….the BBC.

Mehdi Hasan was so outraged he penned a quick note in the Huffington Post advising the BBC where they went wrong.

He even went so far as to formulate some questions that the BBC could have asked Tommy Robinson.


Someone at the BBC read his advice and decided to run with it. They decided to bring the unsuspecting Tommy Robinson back onto the airwaves and subject him to a vitriolic show trial, designed to attack him personally and assassinate his character and reputation.

Andrew Neil was given the task of skewering the upstart EDL ‘racist thug‘….the questions Neil asked coming almost word for word from the pen of Hasan with no pretence at an attempt to debate or engage in an intellectual argument…it was an out and out exercise in abuse and mud slinging to blacken Robinson’s name….and all done to appease the BBC‘s left wing censors and Islamist propagandists.


As Brian Sewell said about the BBC’s output:

We deserve better. It’s patronising rubbish.  The BBC clearly think it’s good to have programmes presented by people with no knowledge or experience.  There’s no debate, no critical discourse or differing viewpoints.


Of course that’s a bit of an exaggeration…there are ‘differing viewpoints’ on the BBC…you just have to make sure that your viewpoint is within the BBC’s acceptable bounds for discussion….should you have views that the BBC finds unacceptable you find yourself in the position of Tommy Robinson in the EDL getting rail roaded by Andrew Neil.


EDL motivation

What did Neil start off with?:

Neil tells us that: ‘The EDL is motivated by hostility to all Muslims.’

Really? Who said? Why not let Robinson speak for himself before you put words in his mouth? Is he hostile to Muslims or to Islam the ideology?

Tommy Robinson’s name

Neil, in a breath taking example of investigative journalism goes on to ‘reveal’ Robinson’s real name…or that of his long lost father, telling him…

‘We did find your birth certificate….you changed your name because it concealed for some time your BNP past….you were hiding your BNP membership.’


Extraordinary bit of detective work by the BBC…no?

But doesn’t everyone know that ‘Tommy Robinson’ is an alias by now?

Did Lennon adopt the name ‘Tommy Robinson’ to ‘hide his BNP past’…and did that ‘conceal it for some time’?

In August 2009 the EDL was set up…in June 2010 ‘Searchlight’ had an article which revealed Lennon’s real name and previous membership of the BNP:

Searchlight Magazine June 2010

by Nick Lowles and Simon Cressy | Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Searchlight can exclusively reveal that the leader of the English Defence League is a former British National Party member who has served 12 months’ imprisonment for assaulting an off-duty police officer.

Self-proclaimed EDL leader Tommy Robinson is really Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, from Bedford.


Robinson said he changed his name firstly to ‘Lennon’ because he had no contact with his birth father…and used the name ’Tommy Robinson’ for the EDL because of threats to his life….he had only been in the BNP for one year and left when he realised they were not what he had believed originally.

Andrew Neil ignored all the explanations and carried on insisting the name change was to hide his BNP past.


You’re a violent man

Neil then brought up a video where Robinson was heard to say if there is anymore violence by Muslims against British people they would ‘feel the full force of the EDL’

Neil insisted that this meant that the EDL was going to inflict violence upon Muslims.

Robinson insisted that he meant the full force of democratic law.

Neil refused to accept that saying:

‘Force’ is a threat of violence in any language…’they’ knew you were talking about violence.


Really?…that’ll be news to the UK Energy Minister:

Oil executives caught fixing the price of petrol will face the ‘full force’ of the law, Energy Secretary Ed Davey vowed today as calls grew for those responsible to be jailed.’


Neil goes on to make some slanderous allegations which had little basis in truth or evidence…..

I would suggest that you are not interested in democratic politics…it is just street thuggery. It’s the politics of the street you’re interested in which is the hallmark of extremism, Fascism and Communism throughout the ages.

As many people in this country are frightened of you and the EDL as they are of the extremists.

Mehdi Hasan Says: ‘You’re quite a violent man, aren’t you?’

Andrew Neil parrots Hasan:

‘You are a violent man making violent threats.

Let’s add this up…you are a violent man with a violent record, you are a former member of the BNP, you and others threaten Muslims with violence, EDL demonstrations are menacing and intimidating.’


Help For Heroes doesn’t want anything to do with the EDL

Neil claimed that…

The fact is that ordinary people don’t want anything to do with you…the EDL is using the death of Lee Rugby to carry out attacks.’

Unfortunately research by the BBC’s own favourite academic, Matthew Goodwin, says that at least 40% of Tory voters and 33% of Labour voters agree with the EDL…not only that but 50% of people believe that there will be a war between white British people and Muslims.


Andrew Neil made another spurious, and wrong, point….that the charity ‘Help for Heroes’ didn’t want anything to do with them and nor did British soldiers..due to ‘disgust’ at their activities….Neil conveniently forgot this:

The charity said it does not accept donations from any political party…

“It’s the same for any political party, we don’t allow political fundraising. As a charity, we’re non-political.”


Not only that but many British soldiers agree with the EDL…and most intensely dislike and distrust the BBC.

A final point is that Neil  readily accused Robinson of violence and the EDL of various crimes and violent intentions but when Robinson mentions that two Muslims killed Lee Rigby Neil jumped in and said ‘you must say alleged’….really? 

So that was how Andrew Neil treated the EDL’s Tommy Robinson…essentially making up lies about him and his views based on Neil’s own prejudiced interpretation of the facts…ignoring whatever Robinson said….Robinson might as well have not been there…at least for Neil…to those watching a different picture might have emerged.


Contrast that with how Neil talks of G8 protestors and Owen Jones, ironically later in the same show.

Does Neil think that Occupy or the UAF or the G8 protestors are engaged in ‘street thuggery’ the ‘hallmark of extremism, Fascism and Communism’?  No.

Andrew Neil on the G8…’The authorities are bracing themselves for some aggro…protestors plan to make themselves heard…G8 has been accompanied by protest and violence for years.‘’

To Owen Jones he says…’You stand shoulder to shoulder with the protestors’.

Jones says he hopes to stimulate a national and global debate, holding leaders to account….there must be anger at how things are and hope for how things can be.

Neil asks where are the protestors?…it’s not like the good old days when he was a student he says…he wants to know why there aren’t more protestors…people have a right to be furious. 

So here we have Owen Jones…standing ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with violent, anti-establishment protestors and Andrew Neil gives him the red carpet treatment…and wants to know why there aren’t more like him out there on the barricades being ‘furious’.

Curious how the BBC panders to the violent, anarchists seeking to destroy Capitalism whilst the likes of Tommy Robinson are ‘tarred and feathered’ and run out of town.

It was the just same with the London riots, Occupy and the Student protests…all  violent…all excused by the BBC….which fully supported the student protests sending in Victoria Derbyshire to spend the days with them. 



Andrew Neil is happy to be Hasan’s dogsbody but what about Hasan himself? What questions might be asked of this slippery Islamist?

Hasan presents himself, at least in the non-Muslim press and TV, as a ‘progressive’ Muslim…and yet he also states that he is ‘devout’. Are the two statements compatible?

If you are devout you follow the Koran and the strictures of the religion….how can you be ‘progressive’? The Islamic religion is anything but progressive.

Hasan is not all that he seems, the public image  is not the real one, the real Hasan is just below the surface for those who look.

Hasan has a plan…that plan is to further the Islamic cause by ‘capturing’ the media…by flooding the media with positive images of Islam…whether true or not.

He urges his fellow Muslims not to be doctors and engineers but to be journalists and media poppets…in order to ‘ help influence the industry’s coverage of issues such as terrorism and integration.’
… “I see people like myself – who happen to be both a professional journalist and a practising Muslim – as a bridge between the Islamic community and the media, and by extension between Muslims and wider society,”
In other words he means to get Muslims into positions of power and influence to push a media assault that presents Islam in a way they want you to see it, but not as it really is.

Mehdi says:

I grow tired of having to also endure a barrage of lazy stereotypes, inflammatory headlines, disparaging generalisations and often inaccurate and baseless stories.’

I would suggest that Tommy Robinson must feel exactly the same way…only with more justification, after his treatment by the BBC. 


With all that in mind what sort of questions might you ask Hasan?

Perhaps we could start with this one….What is the difference between you, your mindset, Mehdi Hasan, and that of the killers of Lee Rigby who make similar statements about Kafirs to those you did…all based on the Koran?

Adebalajo said, in his speech: “We are not scared of Kufar … my brothers remain in your ranks and do not be scared of these filthy Kufar. They are pigs … Allah says they are worse than cattle.”

The Koran says:

‘Believers, know that the pagans are unclean. Let them not approach the sacred Mosque after this year is ended.’ 9:27

“They are only like cattle – nay, they are even further astray from the Path – even worse than cattle.”  25:44

Mehdi Hasan, the Huffington Post and Guardian and New Statesman contributor was caught on video stating, “The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists… the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

And in that 2009 speech at the Al Khoei Islamic Centre he also quite openly states:

“The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God.”


Are non-Muslims ‘animals’ Mehdi…are they immoral?…you seemed to think so when you said this:

We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”


As a devout, practising Muslim Mehdi, can you tell us if Islam itself is extreme?:

The Prevent project defines extremism so:

Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”

There is evidence to indicate that support for terrorism is associated with rejection of a cohesive, integrated, multi-faith society and of parliamentary democracy. Work to deal with radicalisation will depend on developing a sense of belonging to this country and support for our core values.


What does Dr Kalim Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute in London think: ‘We are not a pacifist religion. We don’t turn the other cheek. We hit back.’ 


Mehdi you support the Islamist student body FOSIS and Tower Hamlet’s Islamist mayor, Lutfur Rahman, don’t you?:

You were very keen to have the BBC ask Tommy Robinson some searching questions…and yet you utterly failed to do the same for the Islamist mayor of Tower Hamlets:

Mr Hasan unfortunately declined to put to Lutfur any of the detailed evidence assembled by Channel 4, the Telegraph and this blog about his close links with people who very much don’t believe in a secular Britain, set out here. Nor was he rude enough to mention the filmed evidence of Lutfur’s vote-rigging in Tower Hamlets which we obtained. Instead he asked largely general questions and was content to accept Lutfur’s denials without further challenge.


What, Mehdi, do you think of the IFE, an Islamic extremist group, which believes in turning Britain into a sharia state under Islamic law?

‘Mehdi Hasan has form on defending the IFE – in a debate with me on Sky News last summer, he denied that they were an Islamist organisation.’


Do you support the UAF?:

Scores of young Asian men chased the group back to Harrow and Wealdstone station, leading to a stand-off with police who had formed a protective ring around the men who had been chased.

As hundreds of UAF supporters spilled out into Station Road, pandemonium broke out as protesters, some armed with sticks, rampaged up the road and began attacking riot police, throwing stick, rocks, glass bottles, and firecrackers.


What do you think of the UAF’s Vice chairman the Islamist extremist Azad Ali?


Isn’t it true that ‘Unfortunately, UAF’s counter-demonstrations often seem to cause as much, if not more, trouble than those by the EDL and BNP.’

Last weekend, Tony Brett, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Oxford and the city’s deputy lord mayor, found what he called a “disgraceful rabble” of people climbing on the city’s main war memorial — squashing, he said, the flowers that mourners had placed there, then trying to remove half of them altogether and “jeering” other visitors as they paid their respects.

That day, the memorial was supposed to be the scene of a wreath-laying by the far-Right, racist English Defence League. But none of the people laying flowers and being jeered bore any kind of EDL insignia and none of the wreaths had any kind of card or message from the group.

Neither Mr Brett, nor a local newspaper reporter on the scene, saw any sign of any EDL presence.

All the aggro, Mr Brett said — he called it the “hate” — came from the self-appointed opponents of bigotry, a group called Unite Against Fascism (UAF).


You claimed that Cameron doesn’t know the difference between Islam and Islamism so what is Islamism Mehdi…is it extremism…or is it the devout practise of Islam?


You support the Iranian nuclear programme….do you support the Iranian regime?


Is Islamic terrorism cultural or religious?:

Gentleman in audience – “The root cause of terrorism is bad teachings in religious schools.”

Mehdi – “Rubbish”

Mehdi – “Terrorism is not a cultural problem, terrorism is a political problem”.

Douglas – “And it’s a religious problem as well”

Mehdi – “In your view Douglas it’s a religious problem”.

Douglas – “I’m perfectly willing to talk about foreign policy as would David Cameron be, but you cannot pretend that there is no religious component to the terrorism because there is

Mehdi – “I thought you said it was cultural. Culture and religion is not the same thing”.

Dimbleby – “Mehdi, you’re saying there is no religious component?”

Mehdi “I’m saying there is a religious component; I’m saying there’s not a CULTURAL component”.



Do you support Ken Livingstone despite his comments about Jews and his support for Qaradawi?


Mehdi, what do you think of these statements?

‘Mr Blair, the former prime minister, used a column in the Mail on Sunday to call on the Government to “be honest” and admit that there is a widespread problem with the religion.

In a major intervention following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, Mr Blair said “the seeds of future fanaticism and terror” were being sown and that children in the UK and abroad must be educated about the place of religion in society.’

[This] is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.’


A significant section of young Muslims have already rejected the cultural values and norms of the society in which they live. It is their rejection of European societies that motivates people to search for alternatives.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we need is not rhetoric about the forces of radicalisation, but a more scrupulous attention to what constitutes a way of life worth defending.



I don’t suppose the BBC will ever get round to asking Hasan those questions or the leaders of the UAF any similarly rigorous questions to those that they asked Tommy Robinson.


I guess some things are best left unsaid for the BBC.




Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Andrew Neil…Mehdi Hasan’s Sock Puppet?

  1. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

    @afneil was tweeting about ‘ EDL types ‘ yesterday and casting doubt on whether the MCB guy accused of genocide was actually the same person.
    However, he wont answer a tweet asking questions about it.
    I suspect he’s a bit like Paxman, who famously said: ” I ask the questions, I don’t answer them.”


    • Ian Hills says:

      And who gives Paxman the questions….?


    • David Brims says:

      The BBC loves ‘dieversity’ but not of diversity of thought.


      • Aerfen says:

        The only ‘diversity’ they love in fact is racial/ethnic.


        • Wild says:

          It is a two stage process. First destroy all existing loyalties, independence, and freedom of thought, then replace with a dirigiste State run by themselves.

          It is nihilistic and totalitarian, and English culture [because it reveres liberty] is the biggest obstacle to it – which is why it is so hated.

          It is why the BBC have “comedy” programmes which celebrate Margaret Thatcher’s death, but expressing any scepticism about the sainthood of the anti-white Communist Nelson Mandela is verboten.

          The BBC are keen to appease Islamism for the same reason they were keen to appease Stalin and Hitler, because, whether they are capable of comprehending it or not (not all BBC journalists are as thick as Jeremy Paxman or Roger Harrabin) they are at root Fascists who are not only racist, they crave an authoritarian State, for which they are only too happy (for a fee – they think they are worth it you understand) to provide its propaganda.

          The BBC are the scum of the Earth.


          • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

            Well, @afneil is now tweeting it’s time for himself and Andy Choudrey to do a rerun of their previous interview in 2010.
            We shall see how incisive his questioning will be.

            Dman, that link is supposed to be the twitter url


            • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

              Try that!


              • David Preiser (USA) says:

                If the interview wasn’t done after a series of incidents, it doesn’t really hold the same weight as going after Robinson in the current situation. Was the Choudary interview right after a beheading or three, or just after a protest or poppy-burning party? Definitely time for a rematch.


            • John Anderson says:

              Now THAT was the objective questioning that we expect from Andrew Neil


              • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                It needs to be done in contemporary circumstances, and with reference to recent events.


  2. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

    And it’s only a matter of time Alan, before some troll or other pops up and grumbles about another Islam post, and then go on to ask what it has to do with the bbc.


    • Alan says:

      Yes no doubt.

      They will ignore the obvious paradox that the BBC attacks the EDL but leaves the UAF alone…the UAF being far more violent.

      They will also ignore the obvious ‘set up’ where Mehdi Hasan can object to an interview and the BBC rushes out another one to appease him….basing their interview on his questions.

      The BBC also happily ignores Hasan’s own background and ideology…perhaps just as controversial as Tommy Robinson’s.

      Still…no BBC bias there in any of those three points clearly.


      • Fred Bloggs says:

        At the last london BNP march. The police move the venue, the BNP complied. At the demonstration 0 BNP arrested, 59 UAF arrested. Looks like the bBC should be castigating the violent UAF.


      • David Lamb says:

        ‘They will ignore the obvious paradox that the BBC attacks the EDL but leaves the UAF alone…the UAF being far more violent.’ I agree, and there is evidence on the internet which demonstrates this.
        But the unanswered question is why Prime Minister Cameron still has his name associated with the UAF? And is the UAF in any way funded by taxpayers?


  3. Dazed & Confused says:

    This is superb as a role model for alerting people to what is happening across Western Europe and how the left and their instruments of deceit, including the BBC,are in denial because of their own vested Interests…I’m passing it around to people that I know that aren’t interested in Politics….The only problem with that, is that it’s fifty minutes long, and I do wonder whether their attention span will go the distance..


  4. Dazed & Confused says:

    On Andrew Neil…Is there a BBC journalist that hasn’t yet interviewed, and then attempted to destroy Tommy Robinson?…

    I don’t mind Neil going to Town on Robinson….All I ask for is a level playing field, when interviewing other “figures of note”…But let’s be honest here, where the BBC are concerned….That’s never going to happen..


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      You should be equally, if not more concerned that Neil was bothering with Robinson at all, and not talking to Douglas Murray or Charles Moore or Rod Liddle or several other more respectable figures who have expressed similar concerns.

      Having said that, I’m going to be naughty for a moment and suggest that, while it’s pretty obvious that Neil’s little hit job was done to appease Hasan’s crowd (which is pathetic enough – I thought the BBC didn’t cave in to pressure groups like this? And hey, can I suggest some questions for certain BBC guests too?), it’s actually less than what Hasan had hoped for. What I mean is that the original segment with Robinson was on Today – flagship news programme, sets the news agenda for the nation, etc. – while the makeup segment was relegated to a Sunday morning show with a fraction of the audience.

      This doesn’t excuse what happened, I’m just saying there’s maybe a silver lining. Sort of. Or maybe the Beeboids just couldn’t wait until today to skewer Robinson, and so went with the next best thing.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Maybe, err…..Eddie Mair is preparing a ” nasty piece of work” approach?


  5. Alan says:

    Andrew Neil has been getting death threats:

    Writing on Twitter after the broadcast, Mr Neil said: “After EDL interview I’ve had death threats, been called a Muslim (whatever), an IRA sympathiser and of course a c***. All in a day’s work.”


    • Stewart says:

      But who from? Its not clear from the article that the death threats are from people supporting Robinson or opposing the BBC’s decision to allow him air time .It would be interesting to see the actual content of these death threats.

      Perhaps Robison could give him some advice on how to deal with them


  6. George R says:

    Of course, the following is relevant, and fits with the global alliance of political ‘liberal-left’ and Islamic interests:

    “George Soros donates $1 Mil to Huffington Post” (2010).

    (Note how BBC-NUJ generally criticises Murdoch but not Soros.)


  7. Gunn says:

    The funniest thing about the O’Neil interview was that Robinson wiped the floor with him, and this was obvious to anyone not thoroughly seeped in the multi-culti liberal miasma that pollutes the BBC.

    O’Neil simply ignored Robinson’s statements about the death threats against him and his family, but the difference in the way that the police responded to social media messages that were anti-muslim following Woolwich vs. actual, concrete, death threats against named individuals (Robinson and his family) was stark. This came out when O’Neil was rabidly pursuing the name change ‘issue’ which Robinson answered directly and factually, without any of the evasion one normally sees when typical politicans face uncomfortable questions.

    An even more direct hit was scored on the matter of dragging up the ‘fact’ that a couple of EDL members were racist. Robinson noted that the EDL doesn’t have members, but when O’Neil ignored this, he was hit with a nice piece of judo from Robinson, who noted that whilst terrorists like the woolwich murderers are reported at great length to be atypical of the average muslim, journalists like O’Neil love to stereotype the entire EDL organisation based on a whatever few bad apples they can unearth.

    Perhaps the most startling aspect of the whole interview was the way that Robinson kept his composure throughout; he seemed (understandably!) angry at more than one point in the interview, but he stayed focused and addressed O’Neil’s points as calmly and logically as possible. One wonders how Mehdi Hasan would have responded to such provocative treatment in an interview; I suspect, based on his usual volatility, that he would have lost it had he faced an equivalent ordeal.

    Whilst the beeboids are chalking this up as a victory for them and theirs, the truth is that that interview was devastating to their narrative; Robinson comes across as a voice of sanity in this debate, and that fact is not lost on those who watch such interviews with at least some degree of openness to the validity of the core debate.


    • Frederick says:

      His name is Neil not O’Neil. He is a scottish protestant.


      • Gunn says:

        You’re right – I got his name wrong, for some reason I thought it was Andrew O’Neil.


  8. Gunn says:

    RE: the link in Alan’s comment above to the article about death threats received by O’Neil; if you go to the original source, i.e. the Express website:

    and read the comments, you soon discover that most people see the interview for exactly what it was. Its an almost unanimous condemnation of the one-sided character attack that was O’Neil’s interview, and its good to see that most of the commenters are fed up with the BBC’s attempt to manufacture the narrative on this subject.


  9. George R says:

    A reprise-

    “‘We don’t want EDL with our Cornflakes.’
    “Those calling for the EDL leader to be ‘no platformed’ from BBC radio hold the listening public in contempt.”

    By Patrick Hayes.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      What about Rod Liddle or Charles Moore or Douglas Murray? Why put all one’s eggs in Robinson’s basket like this?


  10. stuart says:

    owen jones who earns £150.000 a year working at the independant is a oxbrigde educated middle class puny cowardly little oik who never goes on the front line at the edl demos but supports violent attacks by these other far left middle class bone idle student trustafarian far left uaf fash on working class edl supporters whether men women or children from the safety his nice middle class all white leafy surburb in stockport.i am sick of these white middle class leafy surburb living middle class lefties dictating how us working class people should behave and think,they think they cant control us,not anymore,what they hate is working class people having a voice,the last time i looked, the edl are a working class movement that the likes of owen jones and other far left idiots cannot control,hence thats why they play the racist and fascist card tho smear them,it wont work owen jones and co because everybody can see through all you left wing propaganda,get on the front line owen jones and co if your so brave and spurt off all your hatred and bile instead of hiding in bcc studios and behind your computer down at independant and guardian headquarters spouting off all your anti working class hate filled crap.


  11. Dazed & Confused says:
    • Demon says:

      If an attempt is made on Lennon’s or a member of his family’s lives then Neill and his producers should be arrested and charged with aiding and abetting attempted murder.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Paul Weston is a very articulate, intelligent man, but to state that Andrew Neil was deliberately trying to aid and abett a Jihad killing of Tommy Robinson is beyond absurd.

      The EDL is a racist organisation, regardless of what one may think of the threat posed to the western world by Jihad, Tommy Robinson deserves to be exposed for the far right football thug that he is.

      It’s tragice the way top people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller delude themselves about Robinson and discredit themselves and the most noble of causes they so courageously fight for.


      • Demon says:

        I have my doubts about Robinson as well, although he seems to conduct himself much better than the Beeboids like Andrew Neill do. I have always quite liked Neill but this performance by him was scandalous and completely unacceptable. If you hate the EDL so much you should be furious with Neill for making himself look like the extremist and Lennon the moderate.

        But you must agree that to publicise the details, so brazenly, of Lennon’s real name is tantamount to letting the thugs and would-be murderers how to find him, i.e. aiding and abetting attempted murder, if an attempt is made in the future.


        • Demon says:

          know how to find


          • hippiepooter says:

            Hi, as (of all people) Scez rightly pointed out, the informtion about Robinson’s real name has been out there for some while. Viz Neil reading out his birth date, I can’t see what the need for that was and is worth a raised eyebrow. What public interest was served in putting Robinson’s d.o.b into the public domain? Just seemed tacky.

            Apart from that though, fair does, if they did the same to extremists on the left and Islamic far right that is, of whom there are infinitley more eating away at British democracy and many employed by the BBC.

            Neil emphatically is not one of them, but clearly in lockstep with BBC Gramscian groupthink in focussing on the EDL to the exclusion of the far more dangerous threat posed by the left-Jihadist alliance.


      • Colin says:

        So why does the nice, middle class man appear on the same platform as the oik who can’t even speak correctly?

        In fact why do these working class types insist on interfering in matters that don’t concern them? They should leave the important stuff to Oxbridge people who can speak well, avoid getting arrested, and have served the whole population so well in the past.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Making this a class issue isn’t going to advance the debate. Usually the BBC will leap at class war stuff, but not in this case.


          • Ed Rankin says:

            The “class issue” already seems to pervade attitudes towards the EDL.

            Didn’t know that Paul Weston and Tommy Robinson had appeared on the same platform (I checked). Interesting, that.


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              Attitudes towards the EDL have a class war element, sure. But restricting the concerns about Islamist extremism to the working class won’t accomplish anything. Sneer at my suggestions of having more articulate spokesmen like Andrew Gilligan and Douglas Murray if you like, but it’s hard to see how tying this to class is going to help.


              • Ed Rankin says:

                I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it should be restricted to the working class. But the assumption that people with the wrong accent, or even the wrong past, have nothing to say, is very unattractive in my opinion.

                I’m not a bleeding heart for working class miscreants, but I think Colin’s jibe at Oxbridge people having kept their noses clean is a valid one.


                • David Preiser (USA) says:

                  I’m not saying people with the “wrong accent” or a troubled past have nothing to say. I’m saying there are better people to say it, and relying exclusively on this one character with some obviously unsavory associates will not bring the issue to wider appeal. And that’s not just the BBC’s fault. Reverse class snobbery isn’t going to convince me, either.


  12. Dazed & Confused says:

    How the BBC set up Tommy Robinson on their “Free speech” (sic) programme.


  13. Dez. says:

    “The BBC refuses to talk fully and openly about race, religion or immigration”
    A patently false statement; seeing as you yourself link to a BBC “Question Time” debate with Douglas Murray about:- race, religion and immigration.
    FAIL #1
    “When Tommy Robinson was interviewed on the Today programme the Left had a moment of anguished horror….someone whose views they disagree with had been allowed onto the radio…”
    Allowed? He wasn’t “allowed“; he was invited (i.e.: “Would you like to be interviewed on the Today Programme?”)
    “They decided to bring the unsuspecting Tommy Robinson back…”
    Bring back? He wasn’t “brought back“; he was invited (i.e.: “Would you like to be interviewed on the Sunday Politics Programme?”).
    FAIL #2
    “Someone at the BBC read [Mehdi Hasan’s] advice and decided to run with it… the questions Neil asked coming almost word for word from the pen of Hasan…”
    Classic “Post Hoc Fallacy”.
    The gaping holes in the EDL argument along with Tommy Robinson’s own personal history of violence and deceit are well known and blatantly obvious. You think no one knew till Mehdi Hasan wrote an article about it? Duh.
    FAIL #3
    The rest of your post is just another one of your barely coherent rants about everything you hate: “G8 Protestors”, “Owen Jones”, “Occupy”, “Students”, “Victoria Derbyshire”, “UAF”, “IFE”, “Asians”, oh… and; “Ken Livingstone” (LOL!).


    • The Beebinator says:

      Dez, you fail (again, as always)

      when Al Beeb talk about race, religion or immigration, its always about how great it is, how better off we are because of it, and if you disagree with it, youre racist

      allah akbar


      • RCE says:

        Yup, that one is straight from the Audience Services handbook’s chapter on wilful misinterpretation.


    • RCE says:

      Good enough for you to spend time analysing and responding to though.


    • Paul Weston says:

      Dez, are you suggesting that the Andrew Neill interview with Tommy Robinson was impartial, unbiased and honest? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Dez: “The gaping holes in the EDL argument.”

      Fail: Half the country agrees with what the EDL says inspite of the EDL, not because of it.

      “along with Tommy Robinson’s own personal history of violence and deceit are well known and blatantly obvious. You think no one knew till Mehdi Hasan wrote an article about it? Duh.”

      Fair point, but it nonetheless fails to distract from the fact the way the BBC covers the EDL they act as enablers for the far-left/Jihadist alliance. Rather like you.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Dez, I’ll agree with you about Fail #1 (although it clearly begs the question of why Murray isn’t all over the BBC instead of Robinson), but you’re wrong on the rest. “Allowed” versus “invited and all that is just word games. There’s nothing in it. When the BBC invites a hated figure on, it’s perfectly reasonable to say they’re allowing him into the studio, especially when we know they don’t like him or really want him to have the oxygen of publicity.

      As for Hasan’s questions, I think you’re misinterpreting the complaint. The BBC was clearly reacting to the angry letter he sent them. It’s not that those questions about his background were unknown to the BBC (after all, he’s not a certain Junior Senator from Illinois, so they’ve looked into it): it’s that they did the exact character assassination Hasan publicly demanded they do within four days. Hasan isn’t just any old crank, either, is he? He’s one of them, one of the nomenklatura, and his voice, right or wrong, carries weight with them. Not entirely unlike the voices I keep telling people they should want on air instead of Robinson. Neil has had Hasan do segments for and sit on the couch on This Week. I don’t know why they chose the Sunday Politics for this, though. Seems an odd choice, but whatever.

      In any case, there’s no way his missive didn’t cause the BBC to react in this particular way, or at least provide a catalyst for action. If you think he didn’t let the BBC know about his HuffPo piece, you’re fooling yourself. I don’t believe they simply bowed down to him and did his bidding, of course. I think the Beeboids are highly sympathetic to Hasan’s position anyway, and many of them probably are pissed off that nobody had done the hit job on Robinson yet. So Hasan’s list of questions, piled on top of what must be a bunch of complaints they got about it already, touched a nerve, and the BBC reacted. No conspiracy needed, no orders from anyone. They all think the same way, so it happened quite naturally.


    • Ian Hills says:

      “Tommy Robinson’s own personal history of violence and deceit”…I take it that Dez is referring to Robinson defending himself against far left thugs, or the time he walloped a demonstrator for giving a nazi salute…..or perhaps his year’s membership of the BNP, which he didn’t renew when he realised that despite Griffin’s propaganda they were still neo-nazis.

      Doesn’t really stack up against the violent language and behaviour of the left (and of their child-raping allies), unless you’re one of the self-hating white cranks on this blog.


  14. George R says:

    Yes, Alan, is it possible to change Beeboid bias on race, religion and immigration?

    This is part of the problem:-



    Beeboids sees this as a massive problem among white people, against black people; but the problem of racism among black and non-white people, against white people, is censored.
    Until recently (and maybe still) to criticise mass immigration was to risk being called racist by Beeboids.



    Beeboids are largely pro-Islam and anti-Christian in their propaganda output, not only in their U.K ‘reporting’, but globally. Islamic persecution of Christians, and other non-Muslims, is censored.

    Beeboids try to avoid broadcasting a non-Muslim criticising Islam as a religion, but they frequently broadcast criticism of Christianity by non-Christians.



    Beeboids are largely in favour of previous Labour Government’s mass immigration, open-door ‘policy,’ and are reluctant to allow discussion of limits to numbers of immigration into the UK.
    It is only relatively recently that the ‘Today; programme stopped treating Sir Andrew Green of ‘MigrationWatch’ as a hostile witness.


  15. George R says:

    I suppose it’s both reasonable and understandable for the English Defence League to have a demonstration in Birimimgham on 20 July.

    But the BBC-NUJ, which is politically opposed to the EDL, would disagree, and will support the politically parasitic UAF instead, again as part of NUJ policy.

    A key reason why the EDL is going to Birmingham is because of the (thwarted) Islamic jihad attack on the EDL, for which 6 Muslims, residents of Birmingham, were recently convicted.

    “Islamic extremists who plotted to kill EDL members at rally are jailed for up to 19 years each as judge blames ‘freely available material’ for their radicalisation” (11 June, 2013).

    It is not known whether any Muslims will join the EDL demonstration out of sympathy to the EDL, and in opposition to the actions of Islamic jihadists in Birmingham.

    “Why We are Coming to Birmingham”


  16. hippiepooter says:

    A tragic bit of apologia for the EDL here.

    I thought Andrew Neil did a perfectly legitimate job, but, as you make the point, the same sorts of jobs can be done with the likes of Mehdi Hussain, and we know why that won’t be done. The BBC isn’t defending democracy when it does hit jobs on groups like the EDL, it’s deflecting attention from the activities of the subversive left and their Jihadist allies.

    One point, of course AN slipped in the word “alleged” over the Woolwich murder. It’s subject to legal proceedings.


    • Wild says:

      “The BBC isn’t defending democracy when it does hit jobs on groups like the EDL, it’s deflecting attention from the activities of the subversive left and their Jihadist allies.”

      Spot on.


  17. George R says:

    Two alternative reports on Mueen-Uddin, re-Bangladesh crimes.


    ‘Harry’s Place’:

    “What Happened In Bangladesh”


    “Mueen-Uddin stands accused of involvement in genocide in Bangladesh, and was allegedly a member of Jamaat-e-Islami’s Al Badr militia which abducted and murdered prominent Bangladeshi intellectuals during the War of Liberation.

    “He then came to Britain, where he established the Islamic Foundation Europe, and established his clique of genocidaires at the East London Mosque: which according to a pamphlet published by the Department of Communities and Local Government explains, the East London Mosque is ‘the key institution for the Bangladeshi wing of [Jamaat-e-Islami] in the UK’.

    “The East London Mosque and its associated London Muslim Centre is now one of Britain’s most important bases for hate preachers who target Jews and Gays, supporters of Hamas, and admirers of the Al Qaeda preacher Anwar Al Awlaki. ”


    BBC Asian Network:-

    “War crimes-accused Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin ‘will clear name'”


  18. George R says:

    INBBC employs many people, Muslims and non-Muslims, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, so why doesn’t it report this?:-

    “Member of banned jihad group gives Qur’an lessons online to Muslim children in UK and North America”


  19. George R says:

    Presumably BBC-NUJ is not concerned with this, and won’t report it:

    “Swedish intelligence concerned about Syrian jihadists”

    BBC-NUJ may be very concerned about the following, on 29 June, and may have to propagandise against it, in line with NUJ policy:-

    “Walk of Honour”


  20. George R says:

    Will BBC-NUJ report this?:-

    “Man’s threat to ‘slice’ WPC like Lee Rigby”