HALF THE NEWS, ALL THE TIME?

Interesting catch of a little non-reporting from the BBC by Alan…

“BBC draws a veil over uncomfortable subject….

“A 7 hour stand off by armed police with army bomb disposal experts on hand to check a bag carried by a ‘veiled’ woman acting suspiciously. The Daily Mail reports this with photos of the woman and the reason for the standoff…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114485/Portrait-Britain-2012-Armed-police-train-guns-veiled-woman-fearing-bomb-bag.html
The BBC has no photos of the woman, they mention the bomb squad but don’t reveal why they were on scene. Another occassion when the BBC refuses to report the full facts just in case people get the wrong idea about Muslims…..not bad going for the BBC…twice in one day burying potentially bad news….remember the Imam who died in an arson attack on a Mosque in Belgium today…no?…it’s there….on the BBC website….just you might not notice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-17356864
It would be good if the BBC allowed the viewer to make up their own mind about what is happening without the BBC censorship filtering out the inconvenient facts.

SELECTIVE BLINDNESS?

A B-BBC reader draws our attention to this…

“A talk on sharia and human rights by NSS Council Member Anne Marie Waters’ atQueen Mary University of London was cancelled at the last moment because of anIslamist who made serious threats against everyone there.

… before it started, a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at thefront with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew whoeveryone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about theProphet, he would track them down.”

A search of BBC News site returned no hits for Anne Marie Waters. One canimagine what would have been reported had the aggressor been ‘Christian’ andthe victim Muslim?”

FORGOTTEN VOICES

Biased BBC’s Alan points out…


“The BBC has revealed that MI5 and MI6 have been ‘cleared’ over allegations of being involved in torture….in other words the allegations by the ‘victims’ are lies. But they make sure you understand that this is only because of lack of evidence…..and so the Security Services are probably guilty of something….if only they had the evidence…but any way something else might be found soon.

However evidence is not always held in such high esteem by the BBC, even if it points conclusively to guilt.

The BBC has over the years been keen to give terrorists and Islamic extremists a platform to voice their ideology and grievances. The BBC is prepared to give a high degree of credibility to their tales whilst not giving equal weight to the statements of the security services, the Army and police.

British soldiers, according to Victoria Derbyshire, are murderers when they accidentally kill civilians in military operations, security services are all implicated in torture and the police are racist and violent, the Justice system weighted against Muslims. Mozzam Begg, Binyam Mohammed, and now Shaker Aamer amongst many others, are given the explicit backing of the BBC regardless of whether or not there is a wealth of evidence that they were involved in extremism.

The BBC’s naive elevation of such people to ‘martyr’ status and spokesmen for the Muslim ‘community’ without questioning their allegations in the slightest is highly dangerous for society, destabilising and undermining the secular State whilst promoting Islam as an essentially harmless ‘Faith’ intent merely on spiritual endeavours.

It is a shame the BBC have forgotten those who are the real victims, those who died at the hands of people who follow the same ideology as Begg and Co.

In 2005, in London, on the 7th of July 52 people were killed and over 700 injured by devotees of Islam.

The BBC leapt to the defence of the bombers, asking ‘what could drive such young British Muslims’ to do such terrible things…..concluding of course it was their treatment by British Society and British foreign policy….Islam means ‘Peace’…except for a few forgotten voices…..

SANTA MAYBE….

Easing my way back into this post-Christmas blogging and I am sure you will have read about the horrific mass murder in Texas carried out by a “gunman who shot dead six relatives before killing himself at a family Christmas celebration in Texas was dressed as Santa Claus.” The curious thing is that the killer was also a devout Muslim and it looks like it was an honour killing with extras. Naturally the BBC choses not to update the story with this detail – after all it’s not relevant…right?

NOT ALL STORIES ARE EQUAL…

I received this email earlier today….
This story makes the BBC England page headline
But you can’t find this story on the BBC news pages;
unless you search the BBC news site using ‘muslim alcohol’ and you get this obscure page which has a link to the Scottish Sun and refers only to ‘girl gang…’
Pretty much convincing evidence of bias.
The BBC don’t even see fit to report the story. A mere link to another news article with no reference to the thugs as muslims.”

PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED? NOT AT THE BBC.

A B-BBC reader notes..

“BBC News of the firebombing of the French satirical magazine ommited photographs of the offending article even though Le Monde covered them on its front page. BBC’s HYS moderated out attempt to publish links to le Monde. Here is the BBC photo with appropriate black line over the newspaper picture and a few words indicating that the perpetrators were not the good muslims.”

On, and here is the image the BBC are too scared to print..
CharlieHebdoMuhammad.jpg

JOIN THE DOTS….

“Who is the BBC’s poster boy, the expert on Islamic radicalisation?

Frank Gardiner, BBC, uses Hanif Qadir to tell us how angry Muslim youth are about our foreign policy.

Who is Hanif Qadir? He is a Muslim youth worker, founder of the Active Change Foundation apparently ‘fighting extremism’ and part of the government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.
In 2002 Hanif went to Afghanistan along with his brother to fight for the Taliban and Al Qaeda…to ‘fight the Jihad’….to kill Western troops. He now claims he saw how disrespectful Al Qaeda were to human life and has mended his ways. In a video, ‘Muslim Resistance…Back from the brink’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/jan/19/muslim-resistance-back-from-brink-video
he happily confirms that Jihad is fundamental to his beliefs…as long as innocents are not killed….and ,er, none in Britain anyway.

He also tells us that the most vulnerable to radicalisation are those with ‘sympathy, compassion and pity along with anger against Western oppression.’….and as his brother tells us ‘they are right to be angry’ as Muslims are oppressed around the world by the West….so really they are quite good people, maybe the best, just mislead in how they go about standing up for their views.

Harry’s Place tells us more about who he associates with and why these anti-radicalisation groups (mostly run by so called ex-radicals) are not all they seem….anything involving Tariq Ramadan has to be suspect.
Note also that the BBC, and Eliza Manningham-Buller, still insist the Muslim Brotherhood are entirely benign and pro democracy….aren’t they?

‘They (MB) stand for the fusing of church and state, and the dominance of non-democratic religious law over man made law, the rejection of fundamental human rights standards, the entrenching of gender and religious inequality, the lack of freedom to change or abandon religious beliefs, except in one direction, and the death penalty for those who do. They are not a non-violent organisation. In Egypt, they do not engage in terrorism, but that is a tactical decision only. However, Hamas – which is the Muslim Brotherhood – directs terrorist attacks against civilians, without shame: a policy which is sanctioned religiously by the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious leader, Yusuf Al Qaradawi.’

http://hurryupharry.org/2008/06/06/campus-salam-the-institutionalising-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/
‘Campus Salam held its first event:

‘What is the place for Islamic Political thinking in the UK today?’
What is the place of Islamic political thinking? You decide! A free event where students interrogate the experts, who are Tariq Ramadan , Anas Altikriti, Barbara Zoller, Sheikh Bahmanpour, Osama Saeed & Hanif Qadir.

The Centre for Social Cohesion has it spot on: 

” Campus salam’s inaugural event was a debate featuring Tariq Ramadan (arguably Europe’s most prominent defender of the Muslims Brotherhood), Anas Altikriti (the former spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain), Barbara Zollner (an academic who believes the Muslim Brotherhood are now moderate), Osama Saeed (the Muslim Association of Britain’s Scottish spokesman). The two other panelists included Sheikh Bahmanpour, who teaches at the Hawza Ilmiyya, a Shia school in East London which reportedly teaches that unbelievers are “filth” and Hanif Qadir, a youth worker who tried to join the Taliban in 2002.

Oh dear, said my friend. Have we got it wrong? Campus Salam has, in fact, become a base from which those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood can spread their message. Neil D reported yesterday on the Government’s proposals to encourage the funding by Councils of ”community bodies which challenge extremist ideas”. My bet is that this will become a cash-cow for Muslim Brotherhood related groups, which will set up front organisations in order to recruit and extend their ideological influence. “
And you can be sure that neither Frank Gardiner or anyone else at the BBC will have anything to say about it.
Hat-tip to Alan.

FIVE LIVE BIAS

This is a guest post by Andrew McCann from A Tangled Web..
“There was an interesting discussion on Radio Five Live this morning.  It followed an interview with the leader of the English Defence League (EDL), Tommy Johnson.  That interview came against the background of a statement from a member of the West Midlands counter-terrorism unit – John Larkin – effectively blaming the EDL for the rise in Islamic extremism here.  Personally, I wasn’t aware that the EDL was responsible for 9/11, 7/7 or the protests against our brave soldiers on Homecoming Parades.  I would also like to ask Mr Larkin where the EDL equivalent exists in Australia?  The fact that it doesn’t, and yet you still have incidents like this, proves Larkin’s comments are little more than dhimmified nonsense!!  As was to be expected, the tone of the broadcast was the ‘poor wee Muslims’, punctuated briefly by the inclusion of the UK’s most inarticulate speakers who were supportive of the EDL.  You see folks, not only does the Left-wing media censor much of the criticism about Islam, it also carefully chooses who its allows to speak out against the‘Religion of Peace’.  By permitting the inarticulate but accurate opinions of people like ‘Tommy in Plymouth’ , the BBC can claim to be honouring free speech, whilst simultaneously propagandising the narrative that only unsophisticated members of the public hold anti-Islamic sentiment.  When faced with those of us who can hold our own on the air, yet fall outside that particular narrative, they don’t want to know.
I decided to give the show a call.  For those who are unfamiliar with the procedure for ringing a talk show, your call is first answered by an intermediary who decides whether your comments are relayed to the programme editor for inclusion.  At Five Live there are a number of intermediate ‘researchers’ who carefully vet each and every caller.  Most of them are very pleasant on the phone.  However, one particular guy, who shall hereafter be referred to as ‘Pompous Git’ because of his uncanny vocal resemblance to Brian Sewell sucking a mint imperial, has this uncanny knack of NEVER forwarding my opinions to the Editor.  I knew as soon as he answered the phone this morning that I wouldn’t get on the air.  Still, it was worth a try.  So below is a transcript of the conversation I had with him, coupled with a written version of what I would have said on the radio.  The fact that I had decided to make this the theme of my ATW contribution for today shows my determination not to be silenced by the likes of the metropolitan Leftist elite at the BBC, the controllers at Squarespace, or anyone else when it comes to my opinion on the disastrous impact Islam is having on my country.
‘Good morning.  This is Five Live.  Can I take your name and where you are calling from, please?’
Yes, it’s Andrew calling from Halifax.’
‘What you you like to say, Andrew?’
‘I’d like to say that I cannot fathom how so many of your callers think that Islam is not the principal problem in this equation.  After all, almost every single news story concerning integration into society, protests, religious-inspired violence, women’s rights, public dress code and a parallel law system involves Islam.  If it is a ‘religion of peace’, how come so many incidents here and around the world create a contrary impression?’
‘So it’s purely Islam that’s to blame then?  You don’t think anybody else is at fault?’
‘Not really, no….. (there then comes a derisory cackle at the other end of the line)….You don’t have Christians fighting Hindus, or Jews fighting Buddhists, or Sikhs fighting Jainists.  When you look at the world’s current conflicts and realise that just about every one of them involves Islam in some way, you’ve got to ask yourself who’s really at fault.  And I don’t think it is your job to laugh at my opinion just because it is probably different to yours.’
‘My job is to ask you questions’.
Indeed, but not to laugh at my answers.’
‘Well, Andrew, I’ll put your comments through and if we want to put you on air, we’ll call you back.’
‘I shan’t hold my breath’.
‘That’s the Editor’s call, not mine.’
‘Mmm.’ 
Had I been allowed to make my call on air, written below is what I would have said.  For I repeat, no pompous git at the BBC or anywhere else is going to stop me from opining about Islam:
‘Good morning, Nicky.  I’d like to start by saying how refreshing it was to hear Mr Johnson’s candour in this age of political correctness and censorship of anti-Islamic opinion.  I think that he is entirely right to blame both the Koran and the slavish devotion many Muslims have to every tenet of their creed for the rise in social unrest and Islamic extremism here.  I’m not sure what planet Mr Larkin is living on, but it’s not the same one I, and the vast majority of people in this country, inhabit.  Where was the EDL when the twin towers came down?  Where was the EDL on the Tube at Aldgate station?  Where was the EDL when treacherous fanatics were abusing our boys on parade in Luton last year?  The EDL is a direct response to the failure of the Establishment to deal with one Muslim demand after another; a response to the failure of the Establishment to tackle one manifestation of Islamic extremism after another.  Whether people at the BBC or in government like it or not, the EDL will continue to grow until such time as those demands and manifestations are halted.’
If I’m barred from expressing my view on the BBC, there’s always the power of the Internet to make amends.  That’s something no pompous git or dhimmified radio editor can take away!

NOT A RELIGIOUS BONE IN HER BODY

The brutal murder by Islamic thugs in Afghanistan of humanitarian workers will have disgusted all civilised people. The UK media has naturally focused on Dr Karen Woo who was tragically included amongst those executed by the Taliban. The Taliban alleged these workers had been slaughtered for the unspeakable crime of spreading Christianity. The BBC seem intent to register the fact that Dr Woo was not a Christian and, as they broadcast earlier this morning “did not have a religious bone in her body.” It would not matter if Dr Woo, or any of her colleagues, had been dedicated evangelists 24/7, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for murdering these fine people and it would have been nice to see the BBC focus on the dark ages savagery that motivates the Taliban to carry out such an atrocity. Some may say it has a name – Islam. You can be sure the BBC side-steps that particular angle and instead plays up the secular card when in truth all that does is distract from the evil of the perpetrators of this violence. Dr Woo and her colleagues died because these savages hate Christianity. Why does the BBC avoid pursuing from whence such hatred comes?

"ASIAN" MEN

The BBC ran this item this morning concerning the sexual exploitation of a 14 year old girl by what is consistently referred to as a group of “men”. Towards the end of the item, Sarah Montague brought up the point that some people might point to the fact that these men were “Asian”. Martin Narey from Barnardos was on hand to dismiss the idea that one could draw any conclusions from this, perish the thought. Well, the men were of Asian origin – however not of the Hindu or Sikh faiths. Nope, this was a Muslim gang preying on this young white girl but the BBC is so frightened to state the facts that it obfuscates to save blushes. This is not the first case of this type and the BBC fails in its duty to make us away of the broader issue. Then again, it is so dhimmified that this comes as little surprise.

IGNORE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM..

Shocking loss of life in Uganda as football fans watching the World Cup final last night were blown to smithereens in terrorist attacks. But in THIS BBC report, reporter Will Ross is determined to cast doubt on the overwhelming likelihood that Islamic terrorists were behind it. The modus operandi fits the Al Queda template, as does the inhumanity of it But through the Islamic-friendly prism of the BBC, why it could be anyone who was responsible.

STONE THE CROWS….

Despite telling us how “beautiful” Islam can be, sometimes even the BBC has to deal with the reality of the pathology of “peace”.  Covering the story of the Iranian woman sentenced to be stoned to death but now, allegedly, reprieved by those kindly Mullahs. the BBC makes the following observation…

Under Iran’s strict interpretation of Islamic law, sex before marriage is punishable by 100 lashes, but married offenders are sentenced to death by stoning. The stones used must be large enough to cause the condemned pain, but not sufficient to kill immediately.

Maybe next time the BBC has one of its legion of Islamic apologists on the networks, someone could gently enquire how it is the “stricter” and therefore more authentic one interprets Islam, the more savage it becomes? Can you imagine any BBC presenter pursuing such a line?