Saturday 27 May 2017


I must admit that I've found it hard to write anything this week, especially since Muslim terrorists targeted girls and young women enjoying a pop concert in Manchester. 

Four of my friends at work (all female) were at the Manchester Arena in the days immediately before the attack, watching their beloved Take That. They and their families have, therefore, had quite a week themselves, wondering 'What if?'. What on earth could I add to that, especially as I had absolutely nothing new or helpful to say?

The apparently random targeting of an Ariana Grande concert was hard to make sense of, and nothing in the BBC copious coverage illuminated that for me. Only Douglas Murray in the Spectator explicitly and plainly pointed out what, in hindsight, seems absolutely, appallingly obvious: The Ariana Grande concert wasn't randomly targeted. It was specifically targeted. The reason? Because mostly girls and young women would be attending (with their parents), enjoying themselves and - as Salafists would see it - behaving and dressing 'immodestly'. 

Girls and young women were precisely the targets. Puritanical Muslim fanatics regard them as 'slags', 'hoes', 'whores' (as they themselves put it) and, thus, as devilish, decadent, un-Islamic and most definitely not 'innocent'.

Several of the perpetrators of past attacks in the UK have been very explicit about that being the reason why they chose their specific targets, such as a ladies' night in London for example. Their motivation is very openly religious (i.e. Islamic).

Douglas Murray's perspective hasn't crossed my radar on any of the BBC coverage I've seen. Have you encountered it anywhere on the BBC? Shouldn't it have been all over the BBC? Shouldn't it have been one of the BBC's main talking points? 

I must also admit that I've been very slow to blog about this. I certainly didn't want to blog about it the morning after the attack, or for quite some time after. It felt ghoulish to even think of scoring points (or appearing to score points) off the BBC in the wake of such an attack. The risk of seeming or, worse, actually being, an opportunistic/obsessive sleazebag who sees everything through the prism of 'BBC bias' (and can't wait to leap into print about it) was a risk not worth taking - not that I even remotely felt like doing it anyhow.

But the BBC's coverage has been seriously disturbing (as has much of the media's coverage as a whole). 

It's felt like a concerted attempt to squash anger and steer the public's reaction in a 'safe' direction. It's felt like they've been trying to divert us away from the main point. It's felt dishonest and deeply manipulative.

I contented myself with ranting to Sue about one episode of Today (Wednesday's edition). Here's what I ranted:
I was driving to work during the 7.10-7.20 segment and heard Matthew Price and his totally-on-message main 'vox pop'. Her message was: Let's love. Let's hold vigils. Let's not blame Muslims, or do anything decisive because that would be really, really bad.  
And then came Mishal Husain and her 'backlash' agenda (the 'backlash' explicitly stated as a fact) leading to an interview with a Muslim headteacher at a school where all the girls wear hijabs as part of their school uniform (!!!!) telling the tale of a 'backlash' story about a Muslim pupil of hers being shouted at by a passer-by.  
I felt a strong "Aaagghh!" come upon me and went into work in a bad mood. 
Listening to it more closely a couple of days later, to check my impression, Matthew Price was doing what he always does after every such attack: Love, candles, flowers, hugs. This time though he kept on saying, in passing, that some (nasty) people criticise such things, and say that we should actually do something. He himself, however, dismissed such criticisms at around 6.30 am and then got the vox pop woman to dismiss them again at around 7.10 am. He was covering himself.  
I forced myself to listen to all the attack-related bits of that morning's Today and got more and more depressed. Everyone was on message - being so, so, so 'nice'. Mishal & Sarah kept asking 'the important questions' about how bad Prevent is and whether the government has given the police enough resources, Andy Burnham & Co. kept saying 'It's nothing to do with Islam'. 'TFTD' was on how Jesus isn't like a gun but somehow is. Amber Rudd said something or other. Mrs Mumsnet said something or other too. Libya. Frank Gardner. Hazel Blears came the nearest to making a difficult point. Barely a mention of Muslims, other than as victims. No mention of Islam (except to say "INTDWI"). No one at all to articulate the point of view that we have - and many, many others have - the point of view Matthew Price was alluding to (and dismissing). Even Frank Furedi of Spiked (it's always Spiked on the BBC, isn't it?) didn't appear on Today that morning to put a small spanner in the BBC's works, despite being promised in the programmes' running order. He said on Twitter that he'd been "disconnected" - whatever that means.  
Yes, I'm sure Matthew Price was being very nice and thought that he was being very nice, and that everyone else was being very nice too. Let nothing divide us. Love conquers hate. Etc, etc.  


  1. I don't understand why our politicians have created the problem, and they surely have. When I was perhaps nine I was given a book that devoted a page or two to a 'general knowledge' topic;e.g. flowers, animals, mechanisms, government and the law even. A couple of drawings in the book told me that some Muslims lived in India and that some Muslim women wore veils. That bit of knowledge probably put me in the top 20% of the UK population in the UK.
    Now Islam, spoken or (mostly) unspoken is a subject of most days news programmes and it isn't good. Onw would have thought that government and the Foreign and Colonial Office would have been better informed that a nine-year old but we went ahead and imported the problem until what was alien and foreign is now embedded and part of 'British values'. Thanks a lot politicians.
    And so it continues. Not all matches are dangerous, most stay unlit in the box. Lets ignore the ones that burn, they aren't real matches! Real matches are white with red ends, burning matches are white with a black end! Let's bring in more matches! The real problem are those that suggest that burning matches are matches too or that real matches can become burning matches!
    Why are our politicians so determined to clamp down on the backlash that hasn't happened? Is it because they think they will be next?

    1. I agree, though I think your last point might also have a lot to do with groupthink and the fear of being accused of one specific '-ism' and one specific '-ophobia.

      The French used to accuse our politicians of allowing London to become 'Londonistan' because of the number of Islamic radicals they allowed in. They've allowed a lot more places than London to become '-istans' too.

      That Times report today saying that there are 23,000 jihadis in the UK (3,000 posing a threat, 20,000 posing a 'residual risk') should be an absolute news priority.

      The two most recent terrorists (the Westminster one and the Manchester one) were "in pool of 'former subjects of interest' and no longer subject to any surveillance".

      And that's before we even get to the numerous opinion polls of Muslim opinion over the past decade and more showing a frightening large minority of UK Muslims having a degree of sympathy with the intentions of Muslim terrorists. It is NOT a 'tiny minority', unfortunately.

  2. I mentioned the "false dichotomy" approach of the BBC on a previous thread. Basically they tell us we have a choice between sentimental indulgence and the politics of hate. Any sensible person knows this isn't the real choice. There is a third way at least...sane, rational analysis of what lies behind the terrorism followed by the making of sane and sensible policy decisions to counteract the threat. These may be tough and uncomfortable decisions not to the liking of the BBC or Guardian since they start with the recognition that the religion of Sharia is a particular problem. But they are a choice and they don't involve "hate" or "divisiveness" (unless asking everyone to live by the same rules is "divisive").

  3. I have found it pretty much impossible to watch or listen to much of the BBC's news coverage of the massacre. The only good thing to emerge is that the link between the atrocity and the religion of Islam is just so obvious in this case (via the dodgy Mosque) that even the BBC has had to adjust its coverage a bit in the face of this obvious reality. Even they, though remain 110% committed to PC multiculturalism, had to ensure they didn't alienate their audience entirely.

    1. I've found it very hard too. The man who raised the dodgy leaflet at the dodgy mosque on Question Time did very well, holding his ground both against a female attendee of that very mosque and David Dimbleby. At least the BBC has put the exchange on their news website:


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