Is the BBC allowing itself to the manipulated by Muslim radicals?

(h/t David Preiser) 

For those who haven't already read it, Andrew Gilligan's latest 'scoop' at the Telegraph makes for a dramatic read:

An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today. 

Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent. 

Investigations by the Telegraph reveal that several widely reported recent stories about Prevent are false or exaggerated – and many of the supposedly “ordinary Muslim” victims are in fact activists in the campaign, known as Prevent Watch. 

 According to Mr Gilligan, these "false and exaggerated" stories include:

• the one about the Muslim schoolboy from London who was “interrogated like a criminal” for using the phrase “ecoterrorism” in class
• the one about the east London council of Waltham Forest having mistakenly released the first names of some primary school pupils thought at risk of radicalisation
• the one about the Muslim boy from Accrington, Lancashire, whose family was supposedly visited by police under Prevent after he wrote at school that he lived in a “terrorist house,” a misspelling of terraced house

Assuming that Andrew Gilligan hasn't 'sexed' any of this up, this is quite something, isn't it, with apparent shades of  the 'Trojan horse' affair?

From the point of view of this blog, what's especially striking however is the BBC's role in all of this.

The BBC was the launch pad for the second and third of those stories; and indeed, from AG's account, the third story (the "terrorist house") was actually begun by the BBC before Prevent Watch took it up (something that's puzzling me about AG's report). 

Andrew Gilligan's focus is more on Prevent Watch and CAGE, so he might not be pursuing the BBC's role in this much further, but it does raise questions in my mind as to why the BBC ran with these stories and apparently accepted them hook, line and sinker...

...because, Googling it up and then reading the BBC's initial report on the Waltham Forest story straight after reading Mr Gilligan's take on it is quite eye-opening. 

Here's AG's take on it:

In November, the BBC reported that the east London council of Waltham Forest had mistakenly released the first names of some primary school pupils thought at risk of radicalisation. 

The release came as the result of a parent’s Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence about Prevent. The parent concerned, Haras Ahmed, described Prevent as “a disaster from start to finish”, and said he was “appalled [that] children’s data, such sensitive data, are released.” 

However, a council spokesman said that the names had been blocked out in the release sent to Mr Ahmed but that the information sent had been “manipulated by a third party to reveal the blocked-out names.” 

In the coverage, Mr Ahmed presented himself as merely an ordinary parent. However, he is also an activist in Prevent Watch. An online search would have revealed that he was listed to speak at a meeting with the group only four days after the story aired.

And here's the original BBC's report, seemingly simply parroting the "parent's" concerns...

....and containing in its first paragraph the immortal words "the BBC has learned...", which many of us have long suspected simply means 'some interest group has handed us a press release!':

'Radicalisation risk' pupils in Waltham Forest named

By Alex Bushill

BBC London News

30 November 2015 

The names of seven primary school pupils feared to be at risk of radicalisation have been inadvertently revealed, the BBC has learned. 

Pupil's first names were mistakenly revealed by Greenleaf Primary School in east London after correspondence with Waltham Forest Council was released in response to a Freedom of Information request by a parent. 

It came after classes at the school took part in a social cohesion survey. The council said it had "taken legal steps" to recall the information. 

The students named were involved in a programme known as Brit - Building Resilience through Integration and Trust. 

Targeted at nine to 11-year-olds, it involved lesson plans and workbooks about identity and belonging. 

'God's purpose?' 

Pupils were asked if they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements. 

They included:

• It is better to be a dead hero than live impassively
• If a student was making fun of my race or religion I would try to make them stop even if it meant hurting them
• God has a purpose for me

Some parents complained they had not been consulted and others said it was racist and unfairly targeted Muslim children. 

Haras Ahmed submitted the FoI request referring to one class at the school, asking if certain children had been targeted. 

Image caption

Parent Haras Ahmed said the situation was a "disaster" 

The response to him from the school and council included the line: "Our project will combine a universal teaching module with a range of tools designed to ensure early intervention for any children who are felt to be vulnerable to radicalisation." 

Mr Ahmed said: "It's been a disaster from start to finish. 

"Firstly we're told it's a social cohesion policy and then after various questioning they accept it's a de-radicalisation process and then to release the names of the children in such a insensitive way. 

"Any parent in any school - whether they are of a Muslim faith or non-Muslim or no faith - would be appalled by their children's data, such sensitive data, are released to a member of the public." 

Waltham Forest Council said: "The school has informed the families affected of the action that the council is taking on its behalf, and that the council has launched a full investigation."

If what Andrew Gilligan says is correct, then the BBC is allowing itself to be manipulated by a highly manipulative Muslim pressure group - something that 'the world's most trusted news organisation' should never allow to happen, never mind keep allowing to happen.

That report on the Waltham Forest story should, at the very least, have contained some caveats. It contained none. Instead, it said "the BBC has learned" and, thereby, gave it the full stamp of the BBC's authority.

Why wouldn't anyone who read it assume it was true, if the BBC was sounding so confident that it was true?

Hopefully, Andrew Gilligan will train his sight on his old employer after all. How exactly did this come about?