I was intrigued by this item the BBC ran on Today this morning concerning what it alleges is the “raised tensions” between the Jewish and Muslim communities in France. As far as I am aware, the “raised tension” seems to manifest itself in only one direction, as the Molotov cocktails hurled at a synagogue north of Paris by “youths” demonstrates. I know that the French Interior Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, in a wonderful example of dhimmitude, has been suggesting that there has been anti-Jewish AND anti-Muslim violence in France but the thing is that there is no evidence anywhere of any violence by the French Jewish community against Fench Muslims. Thing is, there is plenty of evidence when it comes to Muslim attacks on Jews but a total absence of attacks on those Banlieue “youths” that so enjoy a good riot. It would do the BBC better to report facts, not engage in wishful thinking, and that includes those occasions when the facts do not suit their moral relativist narrative.
At this festive season, I am touched to read on the BBC that sales of Halal Turkeys are booming “as they enable Muslims in Yorkshire to join in the festive season.” Turkey – the true meaning of Christmas, right? Thank god (Allah) that the BBC have the resources to bring us this kind of insight, well worth the license-tax.
There is room for a whole thesis-worth of discussion in this on-the-face-of-it stark raving lunatic headline from the BBC in this article:
‘Some Imams ‘biased against women”
What I say is this just points out the need to work harder at increasing the number of female Imams. Oh. Wait a minute…
The BBC- not p.c. at all, oh no.
Hat tip to DumbJon.
THE MISSING WORD.
Part of my problem with the BBC is not just outrage at the totalitarian license tax, it is the profound moral malaise that the corporation exudes, funded at my (and your) expense. I guess this sickening moral relativism is manifest in this evening’s news that eighty people are murdered in Bombay, many more injured and held hostage, and the best the BBC can do is call them “Islamic radicals”. No, they are evil TERRORISTS, they have TERRORISED innocent people and brought about their deaths this day in the most barbaric fashion possible and the fact that the bloody BBC cannot bring itself to utter the T-word in connection to this event is appalling. How long before we hear the mantra that these terrorists are really victims?
I have to say that I was impressed to read that an Islamist Jihadist shows at least a little more integrity than the BBC insofar as alleged Glasgow Airport car-bomber Bilal Abdulla has at least admitted that he is a terrorist. (Mind you, he is a terrorist who claims, laughably, that he did not want to kill or injure anyone, so kinda missing the point of terrorism) You won’t find the BBC using the T-word unless through the most gritted teeth or else when describing the actions of the US or UK military.
I am sure you will have read about the brutal murder of Christian charity worker Gayle Williams by the Taliban near Kabul in Afghanistan. Her killers, those intrepid followers of the religion of peace, plainly state that they shot this defenceless lady because she was a Christian and that she was trying to convert people. The BBC was quick to declare that this was most likely NOT the case and that this was simply an “opportunistic” shooting. They managed to interview one of the bosses of the Christian charity concerned “Serving Afghanistan” who declared that Gayle Williams was not killed for her faith since, as he put it, they are not there to spread Christianity, merely to give aid to Afghanistanis.
OK, so where is the bias? Well, it lies in the fact that Islamists kill a Christian worker stating that her faith was reason enough for her to die and yet the BBC moves to instantly counter this with the idea floated by the charity spokesman that there was no such malice intended. Patently some of the NGO’s working in this region are hugely naive – to be kind about it– however surely the BBC could have provided space to someone who thinks this was the act of murderous Islamic scum. Or does no such person exist?
Been away all day so just catching up! Was interested to read that the BBC’s Kommissar General Mark Thompson has admitted that the broadcaster has to tackle Islam differently to Christianity and is reluctant to broadcast jokes about it. In other words, the BBC is dhimmified, prepared to set a different standard for Islam and back away from any critique of the ROP. Not really a surprise, and we have frequently discussed how this policy manifests itself day in day out. But perhaps the more salient point is that given Thompson’s admission of bias in favour of Islam, how can the BBC continue to allege it is impartial?
It’s not JUST our police who are institutionally racist, oh no. It’s also our prison officers and the Beeb has been running with the latest report from Anne Owers, our drippingly liberal Chief Inspector of Prisons. I caught the item on Today prior to 7am and the gist of it was that prison officers were in danger of contributing to the radicalisation of Muslim in-mates in Whitemoor high security prison. The problem is that these officers in Whitemoor tend to treat all of the Muslim inmates as if they are potential security risks whilst only some of them are Islamic terrorists. Now I have to say I think they should be commended for their caution but on the BBC they are condemned for it. You see the narrative is always the same; Muslims need more understanding and special treatment. If Muslims become terrorists, it is our fault. The BBC must just love Anne Owers – the gift that keeps giving – but I wonder what those ordinary prison officers trying to do a tough job reckon to her constant undermining of their professionalism – an undermining that the dhimmified BBC is very happy to broadcast without any contrarian opinion.
How brave of the BBC to broadcast this story concerning a request from a most senior judge to kill the owners of TV channels which broadcast immoral programmes. Relax though, it’s only Saudi Arabia’s most senior judge calling for the beheading of those at the top of broadcasting corporations producing filth. As the BBC correspondent notes “fighting militant Islam can be difficult.” I’d say. Then again the BBC is keen to portray Islam as the religion of peace so I guess the beheading of offensive broadcasters is just tough love?
I read that three men have been arrested on suspicion of committing terror offences. Two of the men were held at Manchester Airport, while the third was detained in nearby Accrington. Do we know anything else at all about these men? Well, they are “Asian” apparently, living in an “Asian” area of Blackburn? Can you spot the missing word – the word the BBC does not want to use? That’s right – these men are MUSLIM.
There now, that’s better, isn’t it? I mean why does the BBC insist on using pointless euphemisms when the truth is plain to see? Could it be related to the ongoing denial that Britain, like so many other countries, has a major terrorist threat from a section of Muslims but that it is too dhimmified to say it? If these three men had have been fundamentalist Christians it would have been emblazoned across the BBC but because they actually are Muslims, it is hushed up and weasel words like Asian introduced to avoid the truth. It is an insult to the Asian community to use that term to describe three alleged Islamic terrorists and the BBC should be ashamed of itself for this fork-tongued approach to reporting news.
Well then, did you read the BBC’s report on the story concerning the owner of a hair salon being ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf? Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King’s Cross, central London. An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old’s claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination. During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal (with an onion in one hand?) that she was “devastated” that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist “due to my headscarf”. The £4000 was to salve her “hurt feelings.”
However the BBC IS disingenuous because the “interview” it repeatedly talks about in the 6th and 7th paragraph never happened. Noah was interviewed over the phone and turned down then not because of any headscarf (which Desrosiers was unaware of) but because she lives in Acton (North West London) and Desrosiers thought this too far from Kings Cross (North London). Subsequent to this, Noah pleaded to come in for a chat and to make her case. Desrosiers reluctantly agreed out of politeness and it’s this 15 minute chat which has wrongly been reported as an ‘interview’ when it was no such thing. Desrosiers again explained at this meeting that Noah lived too far away and then made her fatal error – she asked about the headscarf and BINGO. To repeat the BBC piece states: “The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.” Wrong. She was turned down, on the phone, before Desrosiers knew of any headscarf, because of where she lives. The BBC may delight at the news that a professional Muslim whinger gets more of our taxes in compensation for no good reason but that does not excuse them misrepresenting the facts of the matter.
Along with other eagle-eyed Biased BBC readers, I noted the BBC lead story at the moment which is entitled “Men planned explosions”. Mmm.. all sounds a bit vague, doesn’t it? I wonder why? Here’s a clue – the prosecutor said the men planned to inflict heavy casualties, “all in the name of Islam”.
You will recall that we discussed the story the other day of how an Anglican priest was viciously attacked by “asian youths” in Tower Hamlets in London. The BBC apologists that frequent this space immediately took issue with my suggestion that the “asian youths” were, in all likelihood, Muslims. They also cheered the BBC’s refusal to suggest that there may have been any Muslim involvement. But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”! Abdul Qayum, imam of the East London Mosque, also said: “Our congregation is united in condemnation. The imam described the attack as “cowardly and despicable.” Now naturally all condemnation of such brutality is welcome but isn’t it odd that whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to suggest that Muslims may have been the perpetrators of this violence, it provides a soap-box for Muslims to make clear that they oppose all such attacks. The thing is that this same East London Mosque hosted Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who refers to Jews as monkeys and pigs and in 2004 was denied entry into Canada. It also has Muhammad Abdul Bari, the guy who believes the UK should adopt Islamic arranged marriages, as chairman. Moderation incarnate.
I see that the BBC carry a report that the Liverpool teacher who was jailed in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, is preparing to start a new job at a school in China. Our loss, ahem, China’s gain? Gillian Gibbons was spared flogging but was sentenced to 15 days in custody after being convicted of insulting Islam. She was graciously pardoned after eight days by President Omar al-Bashir last December. Mrs Gibbons also said she had not ruled out working in a Muslim country again at some point. (Proving she never learns) The BBC report goes on to say that the divorced mother of two was freed after two British Muslim peers flew to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to champion her cause. Further, it states that her treatment caused international outrage, with British Muslim groups describing it as “excessive”. (Wonder what punishment they felt was “appropriate” for such a “crime”? )
The problem is that this report completely misleads as to precisely what Baroness Warsi and Lord Ahmed actually did when they met with the Islamic thugs who runs Sudan. It paints a picture of heroic British Muslim establishment figures, backed by well meaning “British Muslim groups” bravely securing the release of this foolish woman from Liverpool. Problem is, this is far removed from reality.
Let’s just remind ourselves that the publicity-craving Ahmed and Warsi grovelled to the Sudanese government, they apologised for so-called “misunderstandings” concerning the heinous crime of calling a Teddy bear “Mohammad,£ and their visit merely conveyed spurious credibility on the genocidal monsters that run Sudan. They also were curiously mute about the fact that this wicked regime has murdered hundreds of Christians, for example. One presumes murder is even worse than being up on a charge of offending Mighty Mo? But not a cheep from the intrepid pair on that. Nor did they go to into the fact that it was the same Shari’a law which 40% of British Muslims (plus the Archdhimmi of Canterbury) want to see introduced in the UK that created the circumstances that led to Gibbons being arrested in the first place! President Al-Bashir scored a propaganda coup through the lamentable actions of those such as Ahmed and Warsi and this BBC rewrite of history shall not pass.