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.


Well what do you know? The BBC reports that a priest has been attacked in the grounds of his church, in what police described as a “faith-hate crime. Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was injured by two..ahem… Asian youths at the church, in Tower Hamlets, east London. Canon Ainsworth said a third youth watched as he suffered cuts, bruises and black eyes in the assault at the church of St George-in-the-East. The “youths” also jeered at the priest for being a churchman in the attack on Wednesday night, the Met Police said.

“Two Asian youths”? Oh, I see, that must be the same kind of “youths” who ran riot in the Banlieues of Paris. I think this is a patronising media euphemism for…. Muslims. When we see the media censoring itself we know something is very rotten in the State, broadcaster.

When I posted this story over on my own site. A Tangled Web, the point was made that the BBC are merely reporting what the Police said. That’s a fair point but surely it is up to the BBC to confront the reality that a Christian minister was attacked by two Muslim ouths and report it as such, no matter what precious sensibilities it offends?

UPDATE: Just a little more detail on this vicious attack, none of which is sourced from the BBC.

The Reverend Alan Green, Area Dean for Tower Hamlets, said it was the latest in a series of “faith hate” crimes in the borough. He said: “It was a nasty cowardly attack. There were several groups in the churchyard and two from one group attacked him and the other group came and helped him back to the house. “He was kicked and punched in the head as he lay on the ground, I believe that what was shouted was ‘you f***ing priest before they attacked him.

And then…Mr Allan Ramanoop, a member of the Parochial Church Council, said often parishioners were too scared to challenge the gangs. The Asian church member, who lives nearby, said: “I’ve been physically threatened and verbally abused on the steps of the church.
“On one occasion, youths shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here’.

“Should be a Mosque” …right, I think we have now now ruled out the Zoroastrians… so which group might this leave?


We have already covered the story concerning how MP Sadiq Khan was “bugged” when he went to visit a senior Islamist terrorist suspect in prison. So you will know that the media, including the BBC, pathetically misrepresented what actually happened. It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged, and rightly so in my view. But the BBC peddles the line that it was poor Mr Khan who was under surveillance, even when the facts are to the contrary. One presumes that if even Ronald McDonald had dropped in for chinwag with Babar then he too would have had his conversation recorded. So, even after all of this, now come the BBC headline alleging that Khan was bugged twice, even though he hasn’t been bugged once! This headline is very misleading as the article itself makes it very clear that it was Ahmad who the security forces were monitoring. Is this just sloppy writing by whoever wrote the headline, or else is it a desire to use this headline to convey an impression, with the detail contradicting it buried deeper in the article?