Monkey Brains19 May 2019 at 01:19
Horrific Fake News reporting from the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48323573
Read that and weep after you look at the videos showing exactly who initiated the violence - this is just one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnHzF70Now
And note the BBC won't even admit to the existence of a group called the "Muslim Defence League". Just remember that when you hear the 1000th reference to TR being the founder of the EDL. Fake News BBC won't even admit to there being an MDL.
And remember - if Baroness Warsi gets her way you will go to prison if you criticise the "Muslimness" on display in the video...intimidatory shouting of "Allahu Akbar" on the streets of a once peaceful Britain. As the video guy says "No one disses our religion"...that's pretty much what the Warsi Definition means.
...had me checking that very BBC report.
Compare it to even The Guardian and The Independent's reporting of the same story and you'll see the BBC failing to report vital but uncomfortable elements of the story that even the left-leaning papers evidently felt obliged to report - most obviously the heavy involvement of the group called the "Muslim Defence League", who the BBC didn't even mention.
If even the Guardian and the Independent can report their name and their involvement why can't the BBC?
And the Guardian and the Independent are also honest enough to make it fairly clear that the anti-Tommy Robinson crowd were at least as bad, if not worse, on the violence front. The BBC article, in very stark contrast, clouds that in so much linguistic mystery that its readers might easily assume that the violence came mainly from TR's side.
Indeed, the BBC article as a whole is worth using in a secondary school/university English language course to show how language can be deployed to appear neutral while being very far from neutral.
And here's the thing: Despite being fairer, both the Guardian and the Independent pieces are unashamedly biased against TR. As neither paper is required to be impartial, that's fine. But the BBC, which is required to be impartial, is even more loaded against TR - despite following forms of language that cover their bias in a thin veneer of 'impartiality'. And that's not fine.
