In an ideal world bloggers and Journalists would aim for clarity, brevity and accuracy.
Anyone who deftly manages to include context or give adequate, succinct background to a complex topic in a bite-size blog post, whilst neither treating the reader as an ignoramus nor expecting too much of them deserves admiration.
I wanted to write about ‘That-News-Conference’, but there was so much background, (Caged prisoners, Amnesty International, Moazzam Begg, Gita Sahgal etc etc.) that I couldn’t decide whether to assume the reader was familiar with it, or to start at the beginning of a tedious resume of everything I’d read, from 2010 to the present day.
As luck would have it I saw this piece in the Daily Mail, so I don’t need to worry now.
Nauseating! An odious press conference, apologists for terror and the do-gooders who fund them
You get a good bit of history as well as the writer’s incredulous reaction to the ‘odious press conference’ that was “Broadcast live for 52 minutes on the BBC and 58 on Sky News”
I still want to add that I’m sure the BBC is growing more and more out of touch with normal people. Who at the BBC thought it was a good decision to give an unprecedented, undiluted, wall to wall chunk of exposure to those ludicrous clowns blaming our security forces for making the poor little ‘beautiful guy’ hack people’s heads off?
Apart from the BBC no-one thought it was a good move. it. Not the public. In fact several actual BBC people questioned it. Nobody - even those in the media, apart from whoever orchestrated the coverage seemed to think it was the right thing to do.
The atmosphere in Britain is quite strange these days. Menacing in many ways. The state broadcaster constantly pumps out stultifying political correctness and pro-Islam propaganda that is so seriously at odds with the mood of the public that all sorts of people are beginning to notice it. Not just people like me I must point out.
There was a Five Live phone-in thing. I’ve never listened to Five Live before; it was a first (and last) for me, however someone linked to it, saying that Nicky Campbell had been chatting with a professor who ‘got it right’, more or less. It turned out to be Anthony Glees.
He said that Mohammed Emwazi was radicalised before MI5 got their hands on him, not because of it, and the mysterious “radicalisation” was something to do with Westminster University, whose Islamic society hosts extremist preachers and Imams such as Haitham Haddad.
However, as soon as these facts had been established, and Nicky appeared satisfied that they had been, people began saying that beheading and suchlike is ‘nothing to do with (the real) Islam, it’s simple criminality, and moderate Muslims mustn’t be tarred with the same brush.
Cynicism and caution makes it hard to accept that Maajid Nawaz is 100% on my wave length. I mean he’s still a practicing Muslim, and I can’t be sure if he secretly harbours his coreligionists’ inherent antipathy to the Jew. That aside, his interview with Andrew Neil was quite convincing.
(Am I inherently anti-Islam, is he inherently anti-Jew, or both? Never mind for now.)
The BBC is busily indoctrinating us with an extreme version of political correctness, and in its own subversive way, radicalising the passive viewer. You mustn’t say this, you must think that, you must tolerate the intolerant; your prejudices and antisemitic tendencies must be disguised as something else. These days you mustn’t reveal your ‘bigotry’ by criticising Islam. I don’t think they can report you to the police or put you on a Bigotry control order (BPIM) but they can sure give you some pretty poisonous looks.
Even taking into account the BBC’s radical pro-Muslim position, Asim Qureshi and Cerie Bullivant were still hard to take seriously. How could anyone fall for that bullshit?
Their far-fetched allegations were infantile, irrelevant and plainly ludicrous. Qureshi’s saccharine plea that Emwazi was ‘beautiful’ and ‘softly spoken’ and the accusation that MI5 ‘harassed’ the poor chap into a beheading spree were as illogical as they were stark raving ridiculous.
Their entire, simpering clownish performance was unworthy of the reverential questioning that came from the floor, and if any self-flagellating liberals were dumb enough to believe Emwaz’s knife-skills are somehow our fault, and if the implausible answers they heard weren’t enough to arouse serious misgivings about their own gullibility that would be obvious to anyone sane, surely the twosome’s appearance alone should have been enough to crack a smile in the innermost subconscious of the most ernest of a BBC /PC worshipper.
Qureshi with his materialistic, western, capitalist’s trendy suit and specs, the upside-down effect of hirsute chin and shiny bald head, the unsightly prayer-bruise, (probably a badge of honour) and his wall-eyed, buck-toothed sidekick Bullivant with the pubic-hair fuzz on his chin and the dark shirt, allegedly worn at all times to camouflage the sparseness of the beard.
I’m waiting to hear it was all a stunt by some clever impressionists.You don’t get clever impressionists these days though, do you?
Why give these parodies of nobodies any air time? If their ludicrousness isn’t enough to make them a laughing stock, there’s You Tube. Qureshi preaching hatred in 2006. Are the BBC aware of that? If not, they’re the only ones who aint; and if they are, shouldn’t they be putting these fools in context and treating them with the disdain they deserve?
Jihad is just ‘the right to defend oneself against the west’ claims this twit. He’s winging it here, when confronted on CNN. Watch this. He’s beginning to have doubts. He’s not completely sure anyone but the BBC is falling for it.
The whole escapade was nothing more than a publicity stunt for these clowns. I don’t think publicly identifying “Jihad John’ makes one jot of difference. So what if we know his name So what if we don’t. We know he’s a Muslim. Duh!
We know he was exposed to extreme Islamist preachers at one of this country’s many traitorous universities that are rife with antisemitism and hatred of the country that has gifted them the freedom to hate it.
The Daily Mail featured the fact that Mohammed E sustained a serious brain injury when aged about 11 - running into a metal post, and off school for six weeks. This would appear to be behind his psycopathic tendencies. Will the BBC focus on that at all? I doubt it, because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. I would publicise that fact because it shows that he was attracted to this religious cult with its emphasis on violence.ReplyDelete
PS Shouln't you be comparing "anti-Islam" with "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Muslim" with "anti-Jew" (or anti-semitism, to use the misnomer).
I am anti-Islam but strive not to be anti-Muslim - lots of Muslims don't believe in it, they just go through the motions, and lots of Muslims in this country have actually fled from Sharia rule. I would guess that something like 25% of Muslims in the UK have little or no commitment to the ideology of Islam.
Probably another 50% may be committed to it, but are actually quite ignorant of what is in the Hadith and the Koran and what is the basis and content of Sharia law. Which is why you get all those "These are not real Muslim" comments when there are atrocities that specifically follow to the letter Sharia law. They probably think Islam is the truth and that eventually the rest of the world will come round to it peacefully.
Then there are the remaining 25% who understand that the religion is about coercive domination of non-Muslims and implementation of Sharia law, though only a smallish minority may actively pursue Jihadi activity.
How about this for a bit of bias? An article on the BBC Website by Razia Iqbal about the "three schoolgirls" as the BBC loves to call them (like they were snatched from a playground or something):Delete
I noticed the following:
1. There is not the slightest whiff of condemnation of the girls. These girls, let us remember are above the age of criminal responsibility and in the internet age will be fully aware of the criminal acts of IS - we aren't back in the days when Stalin could pretent there was a "workers' paradise" in the Soviet Union and people could remain ignorant of the Gulags. All this disguised by references to "romance" which makes it sound like some sort of charming elopement narrative.
Would Iqbal have treated 16 year old Nazi sympathisers or Israeli anti-Arab terrorists with the same careful consideration?
2. He finesses the age of the girls. Although they are 16, 16 and 15 according to this report, the line about "When you are 15..." is clearly intended to make them all appear younger.
3. The possibility that the girls might have found that everything IS were doing and saying was reflected in the Koran and the history of Islam, and what they heard in the regular local Mosque, was not even considered in the article, but in my view this is the key factor in their decision to pledge their allegiance to IS.
4. There is no reference to the possible negative home influences in the girls' lives. Were these girls being lined up to marry much older men, maybe older cousins, from abroad as determined by the parents? It would be odd indeed with their cultural background that the families had not already identified potential husbands and possibly even already entered into Sharia-approved marriage contracts. Of course our craven media would never consider that aspect.
"Who at the BBC thought it was a good decision to give an unprecedented, undiluted, wall to wall chunk of exposure to those ludicrous clowns blaming our security forces for making the poor little ‘beautiful guy’ hack people’s heads off?"ReplyDelete
Maybe the BBC could run an internal poll to see who?
The % may be interesting, if they would likely run with a headline that suits rather than reflected the reality.
Your strong opinions need to be aired more often - Thanks Sue for putting it all so clearly . Problem is the people who are intelligent and should understand are not thinking this way at all because they get used to such talk again and again so it becomes familiar and they think the same way as the BBC.. They would not be able to get to grips with what you are saying. But we'll keep trying ! .ReplyDelete
I sense a new wave of "complaints from both sides" coming. Sometimes I think that's half the reason the BBC does things like this.ReplyDelete