Wednesday 19 June 2019

Words have consequences

After the expose of the foul antisemitic comments made by “words have consequences’” Imam from Bristol Abdullah Patel, I hope the politicians who rushed to present their pro-Islam credentials are thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 

The Evening Standard apparently supports this Imam:

Boris Johnson was forced to apologise for comparing veiled Muslim women to “letterboxes” as he was challenged by an Imam during a Tory leadership TV debate. 
Abdullah Patel, from Bristol, asked if the candidates thought words had consequences, a question immediately directed to the front runner in the contest Mr Johnson. 
Speaking on the BBC debate programme, the Imam asked the candidates: “I see first-hand the everyday impact of Islamophobic rhetoric on my community. Do the candidates agree that words have consequences?”


Imam Patel tweeted his disappointment with their "deluded" responses after the show.
As part of a longer thread, he tweeted: "What I got as a response was nothing short of disappointing and deluded:

"@BorisJohnson forgot my name, spoke about his G grandfather and about Iran.
"Gove used the opportunity to have a dig at @jeremycorbyn..."

Only Michael Gove redeemed himself slightly with his counter-attack on the Labour Party’s rampant antisemitism, but the BBC's selection of this particular individual to pose his hypocritical question shone a dazzling spotlight on the BBC’s prejudices and pro-Islam bias.   

Emily Maitlis’s constant interventions and interruptions put the finishing touches on one of the worst examples of BBC TV I’ve ever seen.


  1. Maitlis was just awful, constantly talking over people so you couldn’t hear the replies. Not one of the candidates had the courage to defend free speech. “Words have consequences” is not merely a convenient platitude, but an extremely sinister phrase.

  2. I thought that the BBC were once again being mischievous by having the Imam from Bristol on. It was clearly a set up to to fluster Boris.
    And you just knew that Emily Maitlis was going to constantly interrupt, as indeed she did.

    But what I don't get with the little boy, whoops, I mean Rory Stuart is, why has no interviewer confronted him on that well documented pledge he made when he was Prisons Minister, when he said I will not quit this job until I have sorted out the problems with our Prisons. And then in April of this year he is suddenly pulled out as Prisons Minister and drafted in as Secretary of State for I.Development.
    So much for his big high profile promise to fix the Prisons.
    I noticed that just to be different from the other candidates he removed his tie. I can't say that I'm enjoying the momentum that he seems to be picking up. maybe it'll all go pear shaped for him later today.

    I'd actually be quite happy if Gove did well. But I had to laugh when he said the other day that Corbyn fears him the most.


  3. It looks as if Imam Abdullah has now deleted his Twitter feed. People took screengrabs though:

    As Guido noted though, "Check his timeline for the usual Zionists behaving like Nazis, Gaza is Auschwitz, Palestinians suffering Holocaust. See for yourself. Supporter of Cage etc. "The Jews got justice". Perfect BBC material for Conservative Party leadership debate."

    The whole thing is extraordinary. The 'words have consequences' imam chosen by the BBC to highlight Boris's 'Islamophobia' turns out to be guilty of casual anti-Semitism at the very best. Did the BBC do no pre-vetting of this man? Did they not care?

    This thread by Dr Paul Stott is relevant:

    1. This series of tweets about Abdullah Patel, 'star' of the #BBCOurNextPM show is a timely reminder of the dangers in accepting the concept of 'Islamophobia'.

    2. Rather than just agreeing to the Islamists demands, the Tory Leadership candidates could have replied attacks on individual Muslims are wrong, healthy critique of Islam and other beliefs, good.

    3. For now, I recommend Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid, Rory Stewart and Jeremy_Hunt look through Abdullah from Bristol's timeline, and realise they have been had.

    4. Abdullah from Bristol wants to censor how we discuss the second biggest religion in the world (and the central belief in many of our cities) with his own timeline full of Islamists, anti-Semitism and support for pro-terrorists groups like Cage. #WordsHaveConsequences anyone?

    5. If the APPG Brit Muslims definition of 'Islamophobia' is accepted, threads like this, or the Guido Fawkes one, will become rare, if not impossible. Enjoy freedom of speech whilst you have it.

    1. Yes this is the perfect vignette demonstrating all that is rotten in the state of the UK and just how wrong our direction of travel is:

      1. Our state funded BBC uses the debate as an opportunity to set up an attack on Boris Johnson simply because they hate his politics and his popularity with the public. They think Christmas/Eid has come when they get a visible Muslim to ask the doubt hoping Boris ends up saying something about his hat...

      2. We subsequently find out Abdullah is a full time dealer in anti-Semitic tropes and helps run a failing Islamic Faith School. He also supports CAGE who oppose the nationa's anti-terrorism programme, Prevent and whose spokesman famously spoke lovingly of Jihadi John as a "beautiful" individual.

      3. The BBC appear not to be able to undertake even the most basic research into their guests - revealing just how lazy and incompetent they are (yet again).

      4. The Conservative Party candidates and MSM generally show they have no interest in Free Speech and are prepared to be suckered into Sharia compliance by the Islamophobia scam.

      5. The Conservative Party candidates and MSM demonstrated that now obligatory "cultural cringe" towards the Imam. There is a kind of extreme anxiety about offending visible Muslims or anyone clearly a Muslim. But the truth is that if you are going to oppose Sharia you will, most definitely, offend Muslims. Even if you do it in the most objective and neutral terms as Tom Holland or Lord Pearson did, or do, you will still cause offence and as a consequence be vilified.The only alternative is to comply with, or ultimately submit to, Sharia.

      Commentators even stupidly made much of Boris forgetting Abdullah's though we should be able to recall instantly relatively unfamiliar names from 200 countries around the world.

    2. This is getting worse.

      Firstly Nicky Campbell has tweeted this:

      "I would like to apologise. We had the Imam from the BBC Tory leadership debate on our programme this morning. His social media comments have been extremely disturbing. We should have checked. We didn’t. I’m sorry."

      What do the hundreds of BBC researchers do all day - just undertake "opposition research" on Boris Johnson? Probably.

      Yep, and Abdullah has some charming thoughts on women and what they should do to avoid assault by men(basically, follow Sharia and segregate themselves off):

    3. Snap! See new post. (I spotted the Nicky Campbell Tweet via one of the Times comments.) It’s remarkable.

      Before the imam deleted his entire Twitter feed there was a short video of a group of children from his school chanting something about eternal subservience to Allah. The uniform was black, with hijab, and the little girls were barely more than infants. I find it shocking to think he’s the headmaster of a British school.

      And he’s moralising about so-called Islamophobia when Jewish schools need protection, mainly due to Islamic-fuelled antisemitism.

    4. Indeed! One further thought. Some Madrassas do advertise online but one thing you will never find is a detailed curriculum about what the children study. You sometimes get vague references to "Islamic history" or "Islamic values" and that's about it. The government abandoned plans to regulate the schools but the fact they were considering doing so shows that government is concerned about what they teach.

      If "words have consequences" I think we need to know exactly what words are being spoken to impressionable young children in these informal schools (that often take up 15 hours a week of the children's time) and what the consequences are.

      He's an Imam and so it is reasonable to suppose he is passing on his prejudiced and discriminatory views to children.

  4. BBC responding robustly to criticism...

    But then they did respond robustly on the Brand joke to begin with...

    1. Well that's the headline but reading into it they say:

      Quote: A BBC spokesperson said: "Had we been aware of the views he expressed there he would not have been selected."

      Mr Patel has also been suspended from his job as deputy head teacher of a girls' school in Gloucester. End Quote.

      The BBC defend their incompetence on the basis that "one person" (that's got to be the Imam, I presume) deleted their twitter account while they were being researched and they reactivated it afterwards. But the fact the Imam was a leading light in a failing Islamic Faith School should have rung alarm bells.

      This is an absolute scandal.

      Abolish the licence fee - axe the tax.

    2. This report has been through eight edits now.

      Intriguingly, one sentence in versions 1 & 2 - "The BBC said it had carried out background research into all of the social media accounts of the guests" - was swiftly dropped.

      I'm assuming that was after such an assertion became indefensible.

    3. Interesting Craig! I expect someone - several people - will be putting in complaints about this.

      BBC's shifting justification will be important.

      I've seen tonight an allegation that the BBC (pro-Sharia) went to the MCB (pro-Sharia) to ask for a suggested person to deliver a question on national TV. If this is true, this is a scandal. Did they go to the equivalent Hindu, Sikh, Evangelical Christian, Bahai and National Secular Society bodies? If not, why not? Why are their beliefs less important than the 40% Muslim questioners?

  5. I was wondering throughout the question and answers what sort of Imam he was. You'd think the BBC would have wondered enough to find out. Clearly they used him to set up Johnson for embarrassment and accusations of racism. Being put on the back foot in this way, there is little he can do or say other than apologise. There is no scope for discussion, or examining different aspects or points of view on the topic of Muslim women and dress. On which there is plenty to discuss.

    The response of Stewart to the Imam was particularly sycophantic but again there wasn't scope for anything much more than polite welcome. Being nice, uncritical and unquestioning is what they felt was required of them. Otherwise they'd be at risk of appearing and /or being accused of being phobic, racist etc. And Javid of course, who had joined the Bus Driver Dads' Party of two the day before, seized his chance and leapt in with his agenda. Well played, son.

  6. I just think every time one of these appalling examples of bias comes along, faith in the licence fee is being chipped away. I used to believe in the licence fee. I thought the BBC was reformable. I no longer think that. We have to abolish the licence fee and completely dismantle the BBC as a (malign) force in our public life.


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