Wednesday 7 January 2015

Drawing a veil

What a day! I was riveted by the BBC’s reporting. 

Why oh why did the BBC turn to Mohammed Shafiq, and allow him to all but justify, by stealth, the motivation, if not the method, of the attack by bringing in ‘anger about Israel and the Palestinians’. And the odious Tariq Ramadan - an Oxford professor, don’t you know - who spoke about the backlash and said this was “nothing to do with Islam”  (because violence is unIslamic or some such utter tripe).

I saw Martin Rowson who was so angry at the slaughter of his fellow cartoonists that he had the nerve to say some unequivocally condemnatory things about the r.o.p., but the twist in the tail is that his cartoonist’s ire has been mostly levelled at Jews. (Or should that be sting in the tail - I prefer twist somehow)
Oddly enough, several people commenting over at Harry’s Place who had seen his interview on the BBC confused Rowson with Steve Bell. Hardly surprising; they’re evil twins as far as Jews and Israel are concerned. Cheap’n’lazy antisemitism and quite badly drawn I think.

For much of the afternoon Phillipa Thomas was the anchor. At one point she got quite animated about ‘not jumping to conclusions’ and ‘not the real Islam.’ 

We have also seen analysis by Frank Gardner and repeated interviews with the lady terror-attack expert who was in awe of the professionalism, expertise and marksmanship displayed by the gunmen. They must be professionals, she opined, flatteringly.

The BBC has not shown the most disturbing footage - that of the cold-blooded shooting of the injured policeman who was pleading for his life. It did not, however, shy away from reporting the fact that the attackers were heard to say they had avenged the profit Mohammed, Allahu Akbar and all that idiotic claptrap that these not-the-real-Islamists are prone to chant. 

I know we’re in for an avalanche of warnings about the backlash, which I suppose will be a diversion from electioneering. 


  1. Steve Bell was truly pathetic on Newsnight. He's a great pen and ink man, but he is no defender of free speech (because he isn't - he wants to stop people he disagrees with being free to speak e.g. racists, religious nuts and national socialists).

    1. He was absolutely terrible, barely able to string a sentence together, pussyfooting around the difficult issues. It was only when he got onto 'safe ground' - saying satire should offend those in power, that we're a mix-and-match people, that we're all part-Muslim now - that he seemed able to speak coherently.

  2. The BBC tolerates the incitement of hatred as part of someone's right to freedom of speech. . It actually promoted the terrorists right to express ideas to cause mayhem See and also promoted an MP's ideas that justified outright murder of innocent people as a means of solving grievances See

  3. I would ask, what is the aim of Islamist, And the answer is : To force the entire population of our earth to be Muslims ...

    How should we respond to the Islamist terror in the west... every time there's an major terror attack against the west, the entire west, ie Europe, USA, Australia, ...
    We take away a privilege from the Muslims.

    I would suggest in Europe, that the privilege, to pray during a working day, should be taken away... Since no other culture has that privilege, and after that,
    if there is another major attack, close all muslims schools down, in the west ...
    Their children should integrate with all other cultures at our western schools... Just an idea to start with ... If the terror continues, The final end game would be to shut down every Mosque in the west for ten years. If any terror during that ten years, then add another ten years ...It may be rough justice, but there's no alternative ... you see, in the end there must be consequences for their culture...

    Pat condell.…

  4. We certainly need an Anti-Sharia Act which will close down the Sharia Court system in all matters except those of a personal religious nature and which will prevent the abusive brainwashing of children.

  5. I watched the BBC News at Six and ITV's 6.30 News.

    ITV gave the greater sense of the horror of the massacre. It showed the terror of those fleeing over the nearby rooftops from nearby buildings. It didn't skirt around the brutality of the killing of the police officer who begged for his life, unlike the BBC's equivalent report which played the worst aspects of that murder down. The ITV reporter, Emma Murphy, even noted the "religious" inspiration behind the attack.

    The BBC gave us Martin Rowson of the 'Guardian', Mohammed Shafiq and an 'expert', Raffaello Pantucci from RUSI, who recently dismissed the threat from Muslim 'lone wolves' in an article called 'Stand firm, the lone-wolf strike is a sign of reduced terror'.

    ITV, in contrast, used Robin Simcox of the Henry Jackson Society as it's expert. He pointed out that Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunities offender when it came to religion and that only one religion, Islam, reacts to mockery with extreme violence.

  6. David Dimbleby has let the cat out of the bag. He read out BBC editorial guidelines that no image of the "Prophet" Mohammed are allowed to be shown on BBC programmes.

    Contrary to what Vince Cable was claiming - that there is no such thing as "Islamisation" - this is precisely an example of Islamisation.

    Dan Read


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.