Thursday 25 April 2019


Though still significantly higher than the number of victims of the Christchurch attacks (not that the BBC points that out), the Sri Lanka attack death toll has - thankfully - been "revised down" (as the BBC puts it).

In light of recent criticisms of the BBC I searched the article to see if the piece used the words 'Christian' or 'Christians' or 'Catholic' or 'Catholics' to describe the principal targets/victims of the attack. 

No such words appeared.


  1. Yes I just posted about this on one of your other threads.

    More concerning is this new article where the BBC seem to be analysing why the death toll figure was wrongly quoted. That just doesn’t seem appropriate.

    Within the artice are two sub stories on:
    What is the situation with the Muslim minority?
    A community in fear

    So the main story seems to have become about Muslim concerns.
    That just doesn’t seem appropriate either.

    1. Thanks for highlighting that, Arne. It's a very telling piece of BBC reporting. The BBC's agenda oozes through it like a fraught person's faeces trough an anus.

      The 'A community in fear' bit is something I really can't quite wrap my head around though.

      Its focus is on the fears of what the BBC calls a "sect" - namely the Ahmadis. And the Ahmadis are about as harmless a Muslim "sect" as you could possibly imagine.

      And if the perpetrators of the Sri Lanka atrocities had them in their sights, they'd be slaughtered or enslaved en masse.

      And it would be horrific if they were attacked as the result of terrorist atrocities carried out by Sunni Muslims.

      Why does this BBC report tag on a section about them? (Help please).

    2. ...P.S. I've no idea why I used the word "tag" in that last paragraph.

    3. That article It has now been promoted to top story on the BBC website tonight (as of 10pm).

    4. Tag? Were you thinking of dag, Craig, as in the most perfected language on Earth i.e. Australian (aka "Strine"?).

    5. I don't think it uses the word 'churches' either. The most it can bring itself to mention is places of worship.
      Also refers fears of attacks on Ahmadi. Attacks by whom? We are not told. Are we meant to assume retaliatory attacks for the bombing? Are they trying to avoid saying where attacks on them usually come from?

  2. Clive Myrie speaking from Sri Lanka on the main 10pm news tonight said,

    “The bombers, terrorists some might say”......

    They are terrorists surely, not ‘some might say’ they are. Why are the BBC so reluctant to call them out for what they are?

    Is it just me that finds that reluctance offensive and distasteful and out of step with the British public?

    1. Yes, Clive's words on BBC One's 'News at Ten' tonight were: "There is a real sense here for the people of Sri Lanka that the bombers, the terrorists in the minds of some, should not be seen to be winning."

      "In the minds of some"???!!!

    2. Don't be so down on Clive...try this:

      "The Luftwaffe, some might say agents of Nazism"

      It works doesn't it?

      Let the Myrie roam free! :)

    3. Sky News referred to them as militants.


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