Sunday 3 September 2017

Andrew Norfolk's next investigation?

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 shows that some parts of the BBC have abandoned any pretence of impartiality over the Tower Hamlets fostering controversy. 

This was the most one-sided piece of reporting I've heard for quite some time. 

It started from the premise that the Times's reporting left a lot to be desired and included a range of voices all saying the same thing. 

The messages from Kevin Bocquet's report were: that the Times's reporting was disappointing; that placing Christian children in the care of Muslim families raises no problems; that there are wonderful Muslim foster carers; and that the Times's reporting risks making adoption harder for Muslim children. 

There was no one to defend the Times's reporting and no attempt on the BBC presenter or reporter's part to provide a contrasting point of view. 

Maybe Andrew Norfolk should investigate biased reporting at the BBC next.


  1. That the BBC is undertaking an all-out drive to put a lid on this story was made clear during the Radio 2 Good Morning Sunday broadcast. Clare Balding was clearly reading from a script when she said that the story had been reported in a way that had been confusing, and that the Grandmother was a non-practising Muslim etc etc. No mention of the BBC's part in adding to the confusion of course.
    Her guest, a Sikh foster-caring and adoption expert tried to contribute during the piece that Clare was reading out, but she needed to finish the 'statement', so she carried on regardless. When he did speak, the Sikh expert told us of a non English Speaking Polish child who had been placed with a white Christian family - "so you see, that's just the same thing really, and there's nothing to worry about" - ( my words, his message).

    1. The BBC and Tower Hamlets Social Services Dept have the luxury of being able to hide behind anonymity by not discussing 'individual cases'. Disclosing too much detail would put the vulnerable child, and the Social Workers at risk. We can all agree with that, but how useful that proves if you wish to obfuscate. As the only named person in this whole business, unjustifiably Andrew Norfolk has become the villain of the piece.

  2. Elli Fant-Indaroom3 September 2017 at 11:34

    Here's a few other things for Norfolk to investigate:

    1. Why there have been no prosecutions of Sharia courts for making judgements on matters of UK law reserved to our legally established courts.

    2. Why there have been no successful prosecutions re FGM despite there being 150,000 girls who have been subjected to the practice and also how much the specialist FGM health units (14 I think it was at the last count) cost the NHS.

    3. What is taught in the parallel Muslim education system in this country (the unmonitored evening and weekend schools).

    4. How many children have disappeared to Islamic countries never to return.

    5. The true human and financial cost of cousin marriage in the UK.

    So much is now brushed under the carpet in the UK that the carpet resembles the Shropshire hills.

    1. on point 5 cousin marriage - what about the extra avoidable cost to the NHS and Education services?

  3. Read this, it's really sneaky.

    By paragraphs 3 and 4, the author is already tripping over his own floppy shoe arguments. The girl isn't Christian in para 3, though she wears a cross in para 4.

    By para 8 we're discussing the VERACITY of the claims. Are the claims VERACIOUS enough ?
    Did the foster mother VERACIOUSLY say that Christmas and Easter are stupid?


    Then we move on to why this subject is taboo. We're entering a world of questioning whether we are really "all the same, really", including this gem :

    "Like much public policy aimed at minority communities, cultural matching treats people not according to their particular needs but by virtue of the cultural or faith boxes into which they have been placed."

    Placed ?! Who placed who and where ? What are you talking about ? Who invented the Niqab ?
    Where is my Community Leader ?

    By para 14, the writer has become judge and jury and dismissed the case.

    Read para 18 a few times. It seems reasonable the first time. By the third read, you realise just how big the merry go round is. And it never stops.

  4. The BBC often presumes on other news media on the apparent basis that it is not itself a news medium.

    Wich is likely true, but not for the reasons they fondly imagine.

    Not least epitomised by the body of 'work' so far by the new 'media' editor, Amol Rajan, especially via 'views their own' Twitter.


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