Dhimmi BBC Apologises for Telling Truth

[Teddy Bear]

I'm sure everybody reading this will be aware of the incident yesterday where a soldier was viciously run over then hacked to death by 2 Islamic terrorists.

A senior Whitehall source speaking to Nick Robinson of the BBC told him that given they had attacked a soldier without provocation, and had shouted Allahu Akbar when committing this vile crime they appeared to be Muslims.

So when Robinson was giving his report back to the news desk he repeated that these men were of Muslim appearance.

Anybody have a problem with that?
Should anyone have a problem with that?

Yet 43 people found it offensive and complained to the BBC about using this reference. I don't know who they were, but I'm willing to bet they are probably most, if not all, Muslims.

Consider the crime that has just been carried out, and the reporter hasn't called them vile and vicious Muslims, which would also be true, just 'of Muslim appearance'. Who would think any complaint under the circumstances was justified? A wife and 2 year old son have just lost their husband and father, his parents their son, what type of sick mind is going to complain about referring to his attackers as of Muslim appearance when it's pretty certain THEY WERE?

We've recorded quite a few instances where complaints have been lodged to the BBC, far more justified and with far greater merit, than whatever sensibilities could possibly have found offence at this phrase, and the BBC have no problem stating their case, even twisting the truth to justify it and uphold their original stance.

But in this case, they immediately issue an apology. Not by letter, or as an update to a relevant article, but a whole webpage devoted to it.



Dhimmitude or subservience is one of the aims of Islam in their strategy of terror to rule the world. Ultimately dhimmis are forced to convert to Islam or murdered. We see it portrayed by the BBC, our government and public services, and the rest of the left wing mindset as the appeasement to Muslims even if it contradicts the values of our own society.

I posted a recording of an interview last week where an Imam from Oxford talking about why it had taken so long for our police and social services to act against the Muslim grooming gangs who had raped, tortured and sold out girls as young as 11. He stated quite clearly because we continue to pussyfoot around and are afraid to call a spade a spade.

Clearly the BBC hasn't learned any lessons.
I would recommend that our security services take note of those who complained and keep their eyes on them. No integrated being could take offence at what was said originally by the BBC.

All of us integrated beings should take offence at what the BBC has done since.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson's extraordinary apology after backlash against 'Muslim appearance' comment about Woolwich killers

• Nick Robinson used the phrase hours after soldier Lee Rigby was murdered
  
• He has now apologised after the BBC received dozens of complaints
  
• He said he used the phrase while directly quoting a Whitehall source
  

By James Rush

The BBC's political editor has apologised for directly quoting a Whitehall source who described the Woolwich killers as being 'of Muslim appearance'.

Nick Robinson said he was sorry for using the phrase, which 'was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence', during the BBC News at Six broadcast yesterday.

The corporation received dozens of complaints after he used the comment just hours after British soldier Lee Rigby, 25, was brutally murdered in the street.

Robinson today took to his BBC blog to apologise for using the phrase. He explains how he was informed by a senior Whitehall source just minutes before the BBC News at Six yesterday that the incident was being treated as a suspected terrorist incident.

He wrote: 'The police had, I was told, described the attackers as being "of Muslim appearance" and shouting "Allahu Akbar". On air I directly quoted a senior Whitehall source saying that the police had used that description.

'That phrase "of Muslim appearance" clearly offended some who demanded to know what it could possibly mean. Others were concerned that it was a racist generalisation.'

The BBC received a total of 43 complaints after Robinson used the phrase, The Guardian has reported.

Robinson's report was also picked up by other media organisations who reported it as evidence that the incident was a terror attack.

The dead soldier, who was wearing a Help for Heroes top, was hit by a Vauxhall Tigra on the pavement before two crazed men attacked him with knives.

Witnesses said the suspects 'hacked and chopped' at his body and were shouting 'Allah Akbar!' - an Islamic phrase meaning 'God is great' - and yelling 'this is what God would have wanted.'

One of the men was identified as Michael Adebolajo, 28, who ranted on camera with a clear south London accent saying 'you people will never be safe'.

The suspected killers were later shot by police and will be questioned by anti-terror officers once they have recovered.

Robinson wrote on his blog: 'The reports of eye witnesses and the video of the attacker demonstrated that the attack had been carried out by those claiming to be retaliating because "Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers".

'Despite this and the fact that I was directly quoting a source I'm sorry for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence. Many Muslims were quick to condemn the attack and to distance themselves and their religion from the brutal savagery seen on the streets of Woolwich.'

The comment yesterday sparked complaints from users on social networking and micro-blogging sites, including Hannah McGill, a film reviewer and panellist on BBC Four's Review Show, who wrote on Twitter: 'Whatever just happened, @bbcnews, it is entirely not OK for your correspondents to refer to anyone as "of Muslim appearance".'

'I'm sorry for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence': Nick Robinson's apology in full...

It was a barbaric attack carried out in broad daylight on the streets of London. A man hacked to death. The attackers had been shot by the police. An extraordinary and horrific story but not one, you might think, for the Political Editor of the BBC.

However, the fact that the victim was wearing a 'Help for Heroes' T-shirt and was walking near an army barracks raised the possibility that it was something else as well - an act of terrorism with implications for the country as a whole. That was my instinct as soon as I heard about the story, but instinct is not enough. I started to try to establish whether the government was treating it that way.

With minutes to go before the BBC News at Six I was told by a senior Whitehall source that the incident was being treated as a suspected terrorist incident and being taken very seriously indeed. This information changed the news from a crime story to something of more significance. The police had, I was told, described the attackers as being 'of Muslim appearance' and shouting 'Allahu Akbar'. On air I directly quoted a senior Whitehall source saying that the police had used that description.

That phrase 'of Muslim appearance' clearly offended some who demanded to know what it could possibly mean. Others were concerned that it was a racist generalisation.

My report and the quotation were picked up by many other news organisations as evidence that this was a terror attack. The reports of eye witnesses and the video of the attacker demonstrated that the attack had been carried out by those claiming to be retaliating because 'Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers'.

Despite this and the fact that I was directly quoting a source I'm sorry for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence. Many Muslims were quick to condemn the attack and to distance themselves and their religion from the brutal savagery seen on the streets of Woolwich.

The overnight protests of the English Defence League and attacks on some mosques lead some to fear the consequences for community relations. This all makes people understandably sensitive about anything which could be used to justify hostility to people on the basis of their appearance or religion.

[Teddy Bear]

When a terror attack occurs on our shores, like the one this week against Lee Rigby in Woolwich, after the initial reporting by the BBC, it seems to occur to them that they had better appear useful to these fanatic scum otherwise they could be targeted themselves.

I showed back in 2005 how they allowed Omar Bakri Mohammed to spout his views without any attempt to show how he was lying to suit his case. Though he has since fled to Lebanon to avoid prosecution here, the Independent made sure they got his views on the recent murder.

So now the BBC invite a couple of radical Islamic clerics to justify this vile murder. It's what they would call 'balance'. Do you think for a moment that they challenged them from the perspective of our society?

That's not what the BBC does!

Stop giving air time to 'idiots and nutters', Warsi tells TV: Minister warns the BBC over fanatics following Woolwich murder

• Much coverage given to Anjem Choudary and other militant Islamists
  
• BBC footage released of one killer standing behind Choudary in 2007
  
• Corporation under fire for offering Choudary slot on BBC2's Newsnight

By Paul Revoir and James Chapman

TV stations should not give airtime to preachers of hate who are ‘idiots and nutters’, a leading minister said last night.

Baroness Warsi spoke out amid a growing furore at Westminster about the amount of coverage given to Anjem Choudary and other militant Islamists on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 News.

The BBC in particular – who have released footage of Michael Adebolajo standing behind Choudary at a 2007 demonstration – came under fire for offering the hate-filled radical a slot on last night’s Newsnight programme on BBC2.

The decision was branded ‘idiotic’, ‘irresponsible’ and ‘insensitive’.

Baroness Warsi said: ‘We all have a responsibility, including the media, not to give airtime to extremist voices – idiots and nutters who speak for no one but themselves.

‘The heartening thing in the midst of all this tragedy is that the British Muslim community has, with a unified, unreserved voice, condemned the killing and pledged support for our armed forces.

‘This is a real maturing of the community which has taken years of painstaking work and frank discussions behind closed doors.

'This time everyone has stepped up to the mark. Yet here broadcasters are undoing all this by giving a platform to one appalling man who represents nobody. I am really angry.’

Choudary, former head of banned Islamist organisation Al Muhajiroun, was behind the planned protest march in 2010 through Royal Wootton Bassett, the town where dead British soldiers were repatriated.

He has been accused of radicalising Adebolajo – the blood-soaked man who was filmed in the aftermath of the horrific attack berating the British government – in the mid-2000s.

Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said on Twitter: ‘Banned from France but welcome on Newsnight. A mistake of the BBC to invite Anjem Choudary onto the telly tonight.’

Sadiq Khan, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, also condemned the BBC’s decision, telling LBC radio that the radical was an ‘offensive and obnoxious media tart’ with no followers.

Choudary also appeared on the BBC’s rolling news channel and has been on ITV News.

Yesterday it also emerged that Choudary and another radical Islamist, who both knew one of the alleged Woolwich terrorists, had separately been given a platform to air their own militant views by Channel 4.

Both Abu Nusaybah and Choudary admitted they knew ‘Mujaahid’ – who has been identified as Adebolajo.

The pair were given their own slot on the broadcaster’s 4thought.tv, a two-minute opinion show that airs immediately after its nightly news bulletin.

The decision by the broadcaster to hand over its airwaves to both men had sparked anger from moderate Muslims.

Both men had been previously given slots on the channel in 2010 to talk about sharia law.

According to Channel 4’s website, Nusaybah told the programme that Britain would be a safer place if it adhered to sharia law. A BBC spokesman said it would not comment on guests for its programme.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: ‘4thought.tv includes contributions from a broad spectrum of religions and beliefs and of those Muslims featuring on the slot the vast majority would describe themselves as moderate.’

Humza Yusaf, the Scottish Government’s minister for external affairs, tweeted: ‘I really hope media are sensible and do not give the horrendous Anjem Choudary a minute of publicity to promote his vile hatred.’

[thehighlandrebel]

'Humza Yusaf, the Scottish Government’s minister for external affairs, tweeted: ‘I really hope media are sensible and do not give the horrendous Anjem Choudary a minute of publicity to promote his vile hatred.’

Incredible stuff from a fanatical anti semite who supports those who call for the genocide of the Jewish people and those who call for Israel to be wiped off the map.
An avid supporter of Islamic terrorist organisations he is the one who called for Scotland to be turned into a caliphate.

But he's no worse than the others who are coming out of the woodwork just now to express their synthetic sympathy and who when this dies down go back to ignoring the extremism which is festering in their communities.

[Teddy Bear]

Sounds like Taqiyya at work.

[Teddy Bear]

Just seen this MAJOR NEWS article posted as the third most prominent on the BBC Home webpage.

Woolwich murder sparks anti-Muslim backlash

There has been a huge increase in anti-Muslim incidents since the murder of a British soldier in Woolwich, an inter-faith charity has said.

Faith Matters, which runs a helpline, said they had received 162 calls since Wednesday's attack, up from a daily average of six.

A number of people have been charged after allegedly offensive comments were made on social media websites.

Drummer Lee Rigby was killed near Woolwich Barracks on Wednesday.

Shortly after his killing, 28-year-old Michael Adebolajo was filmed by a passer-by saying he had carried out the attack because British soldiers killed Muslims every day.

Mr Adebolajo and a second suspect, Michael Adebowale, 22, were arrested at the scene and remain in hospital after they were shot by police. Both men were known to the security services, sources told the BBC.

'Significant online activity'
Fiyaz Mughal, director of Faith Matters, said the nature of the incidents ranged from attacks against mosques, graffiti, the pulling off of Muslim women's headscarves and more general name calling and abuse.

He told BBC Radio Five Live: "What's really concerning is the spread of these incidents. They're coming in from right across the country.

"Secondly, some of them are quite aggressive very focused, very aggressive attacks.

"And thirdly, there also seems to be significant online activity... suggesting co-ordination of incidents and attacks against institutions or places where Muslims congregate."

Since the attack, a number of people have been charged by police after allegedly offensive messages were posted on social media websites.

These include a 22-year-old man from Lincoln, a 28-year-old man from London, a 23-year-old woman from Southsea, and a 19-year-old man from Woking.

Three men - two from Gateshead and one from Stockton - have been arrested by Northumbria Police on suspicion of posting racist tweets.

Poor innocent Muslims, what they have to endure

Listening to the last 15 minutes of Any Answers today, which I notice was handed by Jonathan Dimbleby, the usual presenter, to Anita Anand, they had a Muslim woman who first denounced the actions of the scum that had murdered Lee Rigby, and saying they had nothing to do with true Islam.

Fine - so far.

Then when she was asked why did she think they did what they did, she replied along the lines that the 'UK should examine its foreign policy of murdering hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan', and providing arms to many dubious regimes.

So presumably she would be considered a moderate Muslim. They denounce the murderers, but still believe they might be justified.
No further questions from the BBC.

I don't see the problem going away any time soon until a far more stringent examination of the mindsets operating here is undergone.

Backlash? If the problem isn't properly addressed, it will only get worse.

[thehighlandrebel]

I started listening to that garbage on the radio Teddy and had to switch it off. It's people like that who are turning people against Muslims. We are sick to death of their perpetual whinging.

According to her reasoning we are perfectly entitled to go around butchering Muslims at will because of their instigating the greatest persecution of Christians in history which is going on at the moment.

As for Al beeb, well saying that pulling women's headscarves is on the same level of seriousness as butchering and beheading an innocent person is only what we can expect from them.

[Teddy Bear]

We know we're in trouble when it takes a Muslim to state those things that should be coming from from our government and information services.

This statement is from The Guardian of all places (hat-tip Melanie Phillips)

Usama Hasan has written:

‘British society, including its Muslim communities, needs to move beyond the routine condemnation of terrorist attacks and plots – there have been dozens since 9/11. We need instead to address the extreme Islamist ideology that al-Qaida and its sympathisers promote to incite attacks against soldiers and civilians worldwide in both war-torn and peaceful countries. Muslim leaders need to take ownership of the specifically religious aspects of the problem, that is to say the twisted theology that easily brainwashes vulnerable people, some of whom are intelligent university students and graduates.’

[Teddy Bear]

It appears that since our dhimmi BBC got into trouble for reporting that the murderer of Lee Rigby 'was of Muslim appearance', they are keen not to get into trouble again.

An incident today in Paris, France had a soldier there stabbed on the streets.Fortunately, though he lost a lot of blood, it is felt he will survive okay.

An excerpt from the Telegraph tells us

French soldier stabbed in Paris
A French soldier patrolling a business area of western Paris was stabbed in the neck on Saturday by a man who quickly fled the scene and was still being sought, a police source said.

By Harriet Alexander, and Peter Allen

The attack was being treated as a "terrorist incident", said a source at the Paris prosecutors office.

"The anti-terrorist branch of the prosecutors office is dealing with the matter," the source added.

Coming just four days after the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in London, the stabbing was immediately seen as a possible copycat attack.
The 25-year-old, patrolling as part of France's Vigipirate anti-terrorist surveillance plan, was injured in the stabbing around 6pm but would survive, the source said. He was reported to be from France's Fourth Cavalry regiment, based in Gap in the southern Alps.

Colonel Thierry Burkhard, military spokesman, said: "He has been wounded but his life is not in danger."

He was attacked in the Parisian business district of La Defense, inside the train station.

French daily Le Parisien cited police sources as saying the suspected attacker was a bearded man of North African origin about 30 years old, and was wearing an Arab-style garment under his jacket.

He ran away following the attack and has not yet been detained.

Hmmm somebody of Muslim appearance

Which is why the BBC article makes no mention of this, which is how you know it probably is.

French soldier in uniform stabbed near Paris

The soldier was attacked in the station at La Defense

French authorities are investigating whether the stabbing of a soldier in a Paris suburb was a copycat attack in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, killed in London this week.

"They tried to kill the soldier because he was a soldier," said French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

The soldier was on patrol in the area of La Defense when he was stabbed in the neck by an unknown man who escaped.

His injuries are not life-threatening and he is in a stable condition.

Earlier, French President Francois Hollande had said all possibilities were being explored but there was no evidence yet of any link to the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in the Woolwich area of London on Wednesday.

But Mr Le Drian said the soldier had been targeted, and said he was determined to lead "an implacable fight against terrorism".

State of alert
The 23-year-old French soldier was patrolling in uniform with two colleagues in the suburban railway station at La Defense late on Saturday afternoon.

He was attacked from behind by a man wielding a knife or a box-cutter.

The assailant, whose identity is unknown, ran away into a crowded shopping area before the two other soldiers were able to react.

A senior police officer said the soldier had lost a considerable amount of blood but would survive, and is now being treated in a nearby military hospital.

France is on high alert following a threat from the North African wing of al Qaeda, related to the country's involvement in Mali.

The higher state of alert is one of the reasons why these soldiers are on patrol in central Paris, says the BBC's Christian Fraser, in the French capital.

Shortly after the murder of Drummer Rigby, a man was filmed nearby saying he had carried out the attack because British soldiers killed Muslims every day.

Two men have been arrested and remain in hospital after they were shot by police.

Both men were known to the security services, sources told the BBC.

[thehighlandrebel]

They normally add that the attack was probably in retaliation of the French military occupation in Chad or Mali.

[Teddy Bear]

Yeah , they did here too - France is on high alert following a threat from the North African wing of al Qaeda, related to the country's involvement in Mali.

When they eventually catch the guy he'll probably claim that he did it because of the anti-Muslim backlash going on in this country. You know the BBC would love to run with that one.

[thehighlandrebel]

Sorry, missed that bit in your post.

'Shortly after the murder of Drummer Rigby, a man was filmed nearby saying he had carried out the attack because British soldiers killed Muslims every day'

They just cannot stop repeating this over and over again. I wonder what that poor soldiers family thinks about it.

[Teddy Bear]

Hopefully they have enough intelligence to see the lack of logic behind it, unlike the left wing mindset.
These attackers live in the same lands that give far more Muslims around the world the means to a way of life that they would have no chance to achieve in the lands they speak of, especially in the regimes that were controlling there before.
Not to mention that Muslims were murdering far more other Muslims than our troops are, and still are.
Whether these murderers realise how illogical their claim is or not I don't know. It appears like they don't think too deeply about anything, and that's just how their 'imams' want them.

[Teddy Bear]

One of our soldiers is gruesomely murdered on the street by two Islamic terrorists. Among the people responsible for indoctrinating them to commit this deed is Anjem Choudary, who along with Omar Bakri Mohammed, founded the al-Muhajiroun Islamist organisation, which has now been banned in Britain under the Terrorism Act.

Michael Abebolajo spotted at an Anjem Choudary rally

I have already shown how the BBC enabled Omar Bakri to spout his lies unchallenged for at least as long ago as 2000, until he fled to Lebanon to escape prosecution.

So what is the purpose for the BBC to invite Choudary onto Newsnight to excuse the murderers of Lee Rigby? Does the British public really need to hear this vile scum spouting his views which incite many Muslim men to become jihadists?

I would have thought it would make far more sense to have experts in the field, who are aware of the radical Islamist ideology and how they seek to achieve their ends. That's really what the British public need to be aware of.

But then the BBC wouldn't be appeasing these fanatics, and doing their best not to be targeted themselves. So long as it's somebody else - what do they care?

Thousands in Britain may be on the path to 'violent extremism', Home Secretary warns, as she slams the BBC for giving airtime to 'disgusting' hate preacher Anjem Choudary

• Theresa May says 500 police investigating murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich
  
• She maintains 'all the indications' are execution was a lone wolf attack
  
• Reveals 2,000 potential radicals spoken to by Government in past year
  
• Home Secretary launches bid to force through 'essential' snooper's charter
  
• Slams BBC for inviting Choudary onto Newsnight to give 'disgusting' views

By Martin Robinson

Thousands of people living in Britain could be 'on the path' to becoming violent radicals and terrorists, the Home Secretary said today.

Theresa May gave the warning as she confirmed a fresh crackdown on extremist groups who could be a threat to national security.

The senior Tory also used an interview on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show to criticise the Corporation for interviewing radical cleric Anjem Choudary.

He was given star billing on a discussion panel with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark, as he insisted he was not a ‘hate preacher’ or Islamic extremist.

Refusing to condemn the killers of Lee Rigby, the British drummer crushed by a vehicle and then hacked to death with machetes, Choudary even suggested that ‘one man killed in a street’ was hardly proper vengeance for those killed by ‘Britain and the U.S.’ in wars overseas.

Mrs May said: 'I think Anjem Choudary has disgusting views and I think it is right that we look at how those views are being presented and I think there were many people who did indeed say "What is the BBC doing interviewing Anjem Choudary?"

After his appearance two days ago, the BBC was branded 'idiotic' and 'insensitive'.

Around 500 police and security officers are working on the 'horrific murder' of soldier Lee Rigby, Mrs May also revealed.

But despite more arrests linked to the killing overnight, she said 'all the indications' pointed to a lone wolf style incident rather than a wider planned operation.

Asked if she believed there were thousands at risk of radicalisation in the UK, she replied 'potentially'.

'We have people at different points on what could be the path to violent extremism,' she said.

She added that the Government 'Prevent' scheme designed to reduce radicalism in Britain had spoken to 2,000 people at risk in the past year, particularly in prison.

Mrs May also suggested a lower limit for imposing banning orders on extremist groups could be introduced.

She told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: 'We do need to look at the powers, we do need to look at the laws.

'We do need to look, for example, at the question of whether perhaps we need to have banning orders to ban organisations that don't meet the threshold for proscription.'

Tighter rules could also be imposed on internet service providers, the Home Secretary suggested.
She added: 'One of the issues we need to look at is whether we have got the right processes, the right rules in place in relation to what is being beamed into people's homes.'

Mrs May defended the 'excellent' work of the security and intelligence agencies in the face of claims mistakes were made in the handling of the two suspects, identified as Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, who were known MI5.

A childhood friend of Adebolajo has also claimed that the suspect was approached by MI5 six months ago and asked if he would work for the security service.

Mrs May refused to be drawn on the details of the case but said said the security services worked in a 'variety of ways. They will approach individuals from time to time,' she said.

Detectives have made three further arrests in connection with the brutal killing. Two men, aged 24 and 28, were detained at an address in south-east London yesterday, while a 21-year-old man was arrested in the street in Charlton Lane, Greenwich, all on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder.

Police from the Counter Terrorism Command, supported by specialist firearms officers, used Tasers to detain two of them, the 21 and 28-year-old. They did not need hospital treatment.

Mrs May also insisted the failed 'snooper's charter' would be revived as she appeared to be gearing up for a fight with Liberal Democrats.

Earlier this month Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg blocked the Home Secretary's plans for a communications bill that would have given police and security services access to records of individuals' internet use.

Labour former Home Secretary Alan Johnson said today he was 'absolutely passionately' a supporter of reforms and suggested it was a resigning issue for Theresa May if she could not get the changes into law by 2015.

Asked whether she would quit over the matter, Mrs May told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: 'I have made my view very clear. We are now working through across the government what action we can take but I'm clear, the law enforcement agencies, the intelligence agencies need access to communications data and that is essential to them doing their job.'

The Home Secretary said there was a reference to the plans in the Queen's Speech.

She added: 'I have always been clear that access to communications data is essential for law enforcement agencies and the intelligence agencies.

'There is a reducing capability in relation to access to communications data.'

[Teddy Bear]

Quentin Letts makes some excellent points on the subject/

I hate censorship but the BBC's wrong to pander to our enemies
By QUENTIN LETTS

Back in the bloodiest days of Northern Irish terrorism, Margaret Thatcher called it ‘the oxygen of publicity’ – a vivid phrase for a knotty dilemma.
To what extent should the media report extreme views? The BBC is accused of giving undue prominence to Muslim demagogue Anjem Choudary, the cleric who stands accused of having inspired Woolwich murder suspect Michael Adebolajo.

Another associate of Adebolajo, one Abu Nusaybah, was arrested at BBC studios just after giving an interview about how the blood-soaked suspect was once courted by our security services.

Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday signalled her unease at liberal broadcasters’ readiness (some might say precipitous desire) to make media stars out of these unalluring men. Does she have a point?
Chauffeurs were dispatched to convey Choudary to BBC and Channel 4 studios, as though he were some sort of celebrity. He was accorded the full courtesies of a member of London’s ‘punditocracy’.

Had the make-up girls combed that beard? Sure looked like it. He was given the powdered, soft-backlit treatment normally extended to politicians and representatives of respectable views. So what did he make of the Woolwich butchery?

Choudary conceded to feeling ‘shock’. But he certainly would not condemn it.

Here was a so-called man of religion, dressed in the clerical garb of one of the world’s great faiths.

Yet he would not criticise two machete-wielding motorists who mowed down a pedestrian and then tried to sever the defenceless soul’s head from his neck.

Ye gods. And now over to Liam for the weather.

Defenders of the BBC will say it is important that we know such violent sympathies bubble under society’s facade. Society has, in its darkest pockets, men and women who believe in all sorts of Satanic misdeeds.
But liberals, rightly, would never contemplate giving them a platform on prime-time network television.

If they bubble under society’s facade, let them stay there. Don’t turn them into gurus for the masses.

As a journalist who dislikes politicians meddling in the media, I would normally be tempted to side with the BBC.

Indeed, I find it more difficult to feel disquiet about Channel 4, whose news reporting has long been testing and rigorous, even if it often dresses to the Left. It is harder to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt. This is a Corporation which for years has promoted political correctness at the expense of journalistic truth.

This is a Corporation whose news editors have been bullied into silencing criticism of working-class views about multiculturalism and immigration.
You agreed with Enoch? Your voice went unheard. The middle-class snoots of the BBC hierarchy would not hear of such intolerance.
You support the death penalty, English nationalism, a flat tax rate, an end to the welfare system? No airtime for you.

Would Anjem Choudary have been given such a comfortable ride on primetime telly if he had been attacking wind farms; if he had been calling for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union; if he had been questioning the MMR vaccine?

This conditioning of BBC editors as to what is and what is not ‘acceptable’ – a conditioning which earlier this month prevented them telling us the Pakistani background of most of the Oxford sex ring – explains how Choudary sauntered into a BBC studio to abuse our country.

Free speech is not the same as naïvely giving houseroom to enemies of the state.

When journalism tries too hard to be politically correct it becomes opaque, dishonest and, in this instance, culpably unpatriotic. The timing was wrong. The tone was wrong.

The decision to ‘go’ with studio guest Choudary was that of a management which is even more remote from its viewers than our much-criticised politicians are from their voters

When the country’s most powerful media organisation (by far) is so out of touch, is it any wonder democracy is in such ill health?

No journalist wants to return to the days of Mrs Thatcher’s attempt to prevent Sinn Fein leaders ever being heard on air (the BBC, rightly, got round that authoritarian ban by employing actors to voice the words of Gerry Adams and Co).

But the comparison to Irish republicanism is instructive. Sinn Fein was and is a political party. Not so Anjem Choudary.

This row weakens the BBC. Politicians are pouncing. Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan said that Choudary was an ‘offensive and obnoxious media tart’.

The Tories’ Lady Warsi deplored the promotion of extremist ‘idiots and nutters’.

Sucking up to the Centre Left and its grubby electoral scheme of multiculturalism was once seen by the BBC’s ruling Left-wing clique as a good career move.

It has backfired terribly, not just on them and on our country, but most terribly on the family of Drummer Rigby.

[Teddy Bear]

Back in 1998, in an article headlined
UK scorned as 'soft' on extremists

The BBC tell us:

The comments of fellow al-Muhajiroun organiser, Anjem Choudray, are just as likely to enrage Britain's political moderates.

"One day the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street," said Mr Choudray.

Exactly the sort of person to interview and give a soft ride on Newsnight following the murder of one of our soldiers, and everything else we're gone through in this country due to similar mindsets.

BBC - SCUM = SUCCUMB


This article in the Commentator focusses on a similar theme

This week's utterly disturbing Leftists
Much of the reaction on British Left has been to search for apologies to make and excuses to give. It's a devastating and destructive philosophy

Alexander Wickham, UK Political Editor

There is one phrase that has stood out for me over the last few days. One jarring, horrible sentence that betrays the warped mindset of many on the Left when it comes to Islamic extremism: “What happened on Wednesday was terrible, but...”

We have heard it, and its variations, from almost all of the usual suspects since the Woolwich terror attack. Ken Livingstone gave a long condemnation of the terrorists on Friday, only to try to blame Tony Blair and the Iraq War for what happened.

Glenn Greenwald, very careful to thrust the words “horrific act of violence” into the first line of his utterly disturbing piece for the Guardian, compares the killing of a British soldier in London by terrorists to the killing of terrorists in the Middle East by western forces as like for like.

I had lunch with another Guardian journalist who believed this was just another murder on the mean streets of our capital; that the murder of a Muslim by racist white Britons is equally newsworthy.

Owen Jones, meanwhile, seems determined to draw attention away from Woolwich, away from Islamists, and towards the English Defence League (EDL). He would have us believe they were the real, dangerous evil here.

I find it incredibly sad that these four leading voices of the left - no doubt all intelligent men - would discard all semblance of rationality, particularly at such a sensitive time.

Livingstone ignores the fact that Al-Muhajiroun, the extremist group linked to Michael Adebolajo, and its offshoots have been peddling its evil long before Iraq and many other Western interventions in the Muslim world and has recently been shown to be connected to 18 per cent of convicted Islamic terrorists between 1998 and 2010. To attribute blame to Western foreign policy is as intellectually vacuous as it is offensive.

Greenwald’s equating of British soldiers to Islamist terrorists is even more repugnant. Of course the Left - and the Right for that matter - have legitimate criticisms over foreign policy, but to become so blinded by self-loathing that he blurs the distinction between good and evil, for me, makes Greenwald an apologist for terror.

My Guardian journalist lunch partner inspired gasps around the table with his own comparison of the attack to “any other murder”. How he fails to grasp that the unprecedented killing of a British soldier by an Islamist terrorist in London is of greater news value than a “normal” murder perhaps explains why he works for the newspaper he does.

As for Owen Jones, there is something utterly odd in obsessing with the EDL in the way he has. English nationalism is a weak ideology with few supporters that is powerless on the world stage, and pretty impotent even at home. Islamic extremism is arguably the greatest evil faced by the free world. The EDL is nothing; why even give them the time of day?

There is a sickness in the hard Left. Their unerring, almost sociopathic desire to direct the blame for terrible events onto our own country, our own ideology, our own people, is beneath contempt. Sometimes it is enough to just say “this was awful, this was evil, we will not waver”.

By attacking our own, the Left is doing exactly what the terrorists wanted all along. As a result, they have become the useless idiots who encourage the status quo.

Alex Wickham is The Commentator's UK Political Editor and a reporter at the Guido Fawkes website. He tweets at @wikiguido

[Teddy Bear]

Well in a week where we've had Islamic machete or knife attacks in Woolwich, Full Sutton prison in East Yorkshire, in ParisFrance, , it seems as if the BBC doesn't consider it news any more.

Yesterday, the Lancashire Telegraph reported a Machete attack horror at Accrington barber's shop,

The two victims had been inside the shop in Ormerod Street when four masked men carrying machetes and knives forced their way inside. Detectives investigating the incident said the gang attacked the pair before forcing them into the street. The thugs also attacked a parked car during the incident at midnight on Saturday.

The victims both suffered deep wounds and had to be taken to hospital by paramedics.

Then very political correctly they tell us Police said they were looking for a gang of Asian men in connection with the attack.

We've come to realise when any media source talks of 'Asian men' they usually mean Pakistani Muslims rather than Japanese Yakuza, but heaven forbid they would say of Muslim appearance.

The BBC however decided this kind of incident is becoming so commonplace it's no longer news - so they declined reporting anything about it.

World class

[Teddy Bear]

True to form, whenever we have an Islamic terrorist attack in this country, the BBC focus on the real victims - the Muslim community.
It's also one of the times that we do get the word Muslim used in an article.

The latest offering from them following the Woolwich attack tells us

'Sense of endemic fear' in Muslim communities

25 May 2013
Both the English Defence League and the BNP are organising protests in the wake of the Woolwich attacks. There has already been a significant backlash against Muslims since Wednesday with many more incidents than usual reported.

Fiyaz Mughal, a director of the Tell Mama project which records Islamophobic crimes and incidents, told the Today programme that the number of cases has risen from between four and six per day to 162 incidents in the past 48 hours. He said that there has been a "sense of endemic fear" that has gripped Muslim communities since the Woolwich attack, which is "deeply problematic".

Dr Matthew Goodwin is Nottingham University's expert on far right groups at Nottingham University. He told the Today programme that far right groups are "unquestionably" using this event as an excuse for anti-Muslim acts, saying that "the aim has been to encourage low level conflict and tension within communities".

First broadcast on the Today programme on Saturday 25 May.

Another article just a few days before on the 23rd also told us about this Rise in anti-Muslim attacks after Woolwich soldier killing

Now the BBC accept these figures without question, and without really identifying what the organisation collating these figures classify as an attack. It is perfectly natural following another Islamic attack that sentiments against Islam will be high, not to mention the recent Muslim paedophile grooming gangs being in people's consciousness. It certainly won't endear the general public towards Muslims, yet most of the public know the majority of Muslims are innocent themselves, and don't deserve harassment.

But looking at the BBC reports there would appear to have been 162 incidents of anti-Muslim attacks in the previous 48 hours.

Andrew Gilligan at the Telegraph looks a bit deeper into the credentials of this organisation compiling these figures, and just what precisely is classified as an attack. It's certainly nothing the BBC would ever do when the given narrative fits their desired agenda.

I wonder if the BBC will classify Andrew Gilligan's article, showing these figures are completely out of proportion, as another anti-Muslim attack.

The truth about the 'wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder

Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives £214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder, he has been understandably busy.

By Andrew Gilligan

There has, said Mr Mughal, been “a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims … an unprecedented number of incidents”, including “a rise in street harassment of Muslims – unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives”.

He added: “Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.

"The scale of the backlash is astounding … there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities.”

The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”.

Talk of a “massive anti-Muslim backlash” has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama – of, to date, 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” since the Woolwich murder – which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting.

Mr Mughal is in no doubt what lies behind it all. As he told a newspaper: “I do not see an end to this cycle of violence. There is an underlying Islamophobia in our society and the horrendous events in Woolwich have brought this to the fore.”

And as he put it on Today, “the [Government’s] Prevent [anti-extremism] agenda, the extremist agenda, have not been good for building confidence – the sense of fear just alienates and isolates communities.”

Yet the unending “cycle of violence” against Muslims, the unprecedented “wave of attacks” against them from strangers in the street, the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” – all turn out to be yet more things we thought we knew about Woolwich that are not really supported by the evidence.

Tell Mama confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that about 120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online. They were offensive postings on Twitter or Facebook, or comments on blogs: nasty and undesirable, certainly, but some way from violence or physical harm and often, indeed, legal. Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain.

Tell Mama has no written definition of what it classes as an anti-Muslim incident, but has in the past adopted a wide definition. Last November, the cross-bench Asian peer, Baroness Flather, told a newspaper it was “pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes.

They are all on benefits and all vote Labour”. Tell Mama added this admittedly crass and untrue remark to its database as an “anti-Muslim incident,” though it said it had deleted it following an explanation from Lady Flather.

Although the service says its caseworkers “carefully handle each report as it comes in, to determine whether it can be verified and justified as an anti-Muslim incident”, Mr Mughal admitted that a further 35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified.
He justified publishing the figure, however, saying he expected that all but a handful of incidents would be verified.
Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted.
Six people had things thrown at them, said Mr Mughal, and most of the other 11 cases were attempts to pull off the hijab or other items of Islamic dress.

Without in any way denying the distress and harm caused by such attacks, they do stand at the lower levels of seriousness.

Seventeen is still likely, of course, to underestimate the total number of attacks. The Metropolitan Police, the only major force in Britain which breaks down “offences with an Islamophobic flag”, said there were 13 allegations of common or racially aggravated assault of Muslims reported to it in London in the week after the killing.

About 40 per cent of Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims live in the capital, so the national figure could be around 32 cases, or about one Muslim in every 100,000.

Offences of common and racially aggravated assault are typically used where there has been no injury, such as hijab snatching, or minor injury not drawing blood or requiring medical treatment, such as the throwing incidents reported by Tell Mama. The Met said there were no cases reported to it where any more serious injury resulted.

Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby’s death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment.

Tell Mama’s Twitter feed reported one such incident, of a Muslim woman “knocked unconscious” in Bolton, but the local police said they had no knowledge of this and did not believe it happened.
It is unlikely, though not impossible, that any case of serious injury could have escaped the notice of the media or police.

Perhaps the most serious manifestation of anti-Muslim feeling after the killing was a number of attacks on mosques. These are believed to total 11, though here again evidence for a “wave of violence” is lacking.
With only two exceptions, a mosque in Grimsby into which firebombs were thrown and another one in Essex where a man entered with a knife, all the incidents were relatively minor, such as window-breaking or graffiti.
According to the Charity Commission, there are between 1,100 and 1,500 mosques in the UK, so the number attacked is less than 1 per cent.

Two other sets of figures are available. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), forces nationally reported 71 anti-Muslim hate crimes or “incidents of note” to the National Community Tensions Team in the week after the murder of Drummer Rigby.

“That would cover everything they feel has a link to Woolwich, though an incident of note would not necessarily be a crime,” said a spokesman.
The second set of figures is from True Vision, an online hate-crime reporting tool operated by Acpo. There were 136 reports of anti-Muslim activity – internet or physical – received via this website in the week after Woolwich, overwhelmingly in the first few days, though Acpo said that not all were crimes and some reports were duplicates.

As for the claim that there is “no end” to the cycle of anti-Muslim activity, it has substantially ended already. According to police, there was a sharp spike in reported incidents in the day or so after the killing, but they have already subsided to pre-Woolwich levels. Acpo said that by last Wednesday, a week after the murder, the number of incidents reported to True Vision had fallen back to four a day.

The claim that the spike and numbers were “unprecedented” is wrong, too. After the 7/7 attacks in London – admittedly more serious than the killing of Drummer Rigby – there was a far bigger and more prolonged rise in faith-hate crimes. According to the Met, 269 were recorded in London alone in the three weeks after the 2005 attacks, compared with 40 for the same period the year before.

What the data broadly show, in short, is that Drummer Rigby’s killers have failed. The breakdown in community relations has not come. There has been a rise in incidents, but it appears to be very short-term, overwhelmingly non-violent and even then almost entirely at the lower end of the scale.

Yet this is not a message the Islamophobia industry wants heard, now or ever. Two months before the Woolwich killing, Tell Mama was already claiming that anti-Muslim incidents were “rising”, on the basis of reports made to its service. But at that point it had only been going for a year, so it had no previous figures to compare.

In 2010 a report for the Islamist Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”, said there was already what it called a wave of “terrorism” against British Muslims, with an “alarming rise” in hatred of Islam.

What evidence there is simply does not support the claims. There is anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, and it is disgraceful. But nearly all the evidence shows it is diminishing. In 2009 there were 368 anti-Muslim crimes in London; in 2012, there were 337. In the first 11 weeks of 2013, there were 64 crimes, equating at that point to 303 across the year, though the Woolwich attack will drive that up.

Hate crime in London’s main Muslim area, Tower Hamlets, has dropped by almost half since 2003 (though it rose slightly this year). Outside London, faith-hate crimes reported to the main forces with big Muslim populations – West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire – have fallen, too.
Broader political developments suggest a country increasingly at ease with Muslims. In 2009 the main anti-Islamic party, the BNP, had 55 councillors. Now it has two. The number of Muslim MPs doubled at the last election, some elected for entirely non-Muslim seats such as Bromsgrove, Gillingham, or Stratford-upon-Avon with no backlash whatever.
Continental campaigns to ban minarets and the niqab have gained absolutely no political traction in Britain.

Opinion polls after the Woolwich attack showed rising positive sentiment about Muslims – though, as with so many of these exercises, the answers can depend on the questions you ask.

Yet broader politics are also driving the Islamophobia industry.
For Islamists such as the Cordoba Foundation, the narrative of British Muslims under attack, increasingly hated and feared by their fellow citizens, is essential for recruitment, and for furthering their central lie that different races and faiths cannot coexist.

“Islamophobic” is also a handy charge to throw at anyone who questions Islamist ideology.

Tell Mama is not Islamist, though Mr Mughal has written in the Cordoba Foundation’s journal (he says it was a “mistake” which he will not repeat).
But part of its motivation appears to be an attempt to draw some of the sting from Islamist terrorism by equating it with the work of anti-Muslim extremist groups such as the English Defence League.

As Tell Mama’s Twitter feed puts it, “whilst we need to tackle the narrative of hate inspired by al-Qaeda, we also need to tackle the thuggery and hate of the EDL”. Mr Mughal insists that “both groups are significantly problematic”.

Loathsome as the white extreme Right is, however, there is clearly no comparison. No one in Britain has been killed by the EDL; 53 people have been killed by Islamist terrorists. White racists, unlike their Islamist equivalents, do not control key religious institutions or have a significant presence in British universities.

Over the past decade, half a dozen or so white British Right-wingers have been convicted of possessing explosives and other weapons. But all were loners not acting in concert with any group.

In contrast, there have, over the same period, been 150 convictions for Islamist-related terrorism in the UK, many relating to serious, carefully organised, often multinational plots against specific targets involving substantial numbers of people.

For some quarters of the Islamophobia industry, it has now become Muslims who are the main victims of the Woolwich horror.

But while some innocent Muslims have of course become victims, the main victim was Drummer Lee Rigby. And in overhyping the backlash, some in the Muslim community are playing right into the hands of his killers.

[Teddy Bear]

Whether as a result of Andrew Gilligan's previous article showing the spurious claims of the 'Tell Mama' organisation regarding the supposed anti-Muslim backlash following the murder of Lee Rigby, or for whatever other reason, MP's have decided to end the funding for this organisation.

Predictably, the BBC have not reported this on their website.

Well done to Andrew

Muslim hate monitor to lose backing
Ministers end funding for body that claimed 'wave of attacks’ against Islam.

By Andrew Gilligan

A controversial project claiming to measure anti-Muslim attacks will not have its government grant renewed after police and civil servants raised concerns about its methods.

The project, called Tell Mama, claimed that there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims after the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, with 193 “Islamophobic incidents” reported to it, rising to 212 by last weekend.

The group’s founder, Fiyaz Mughal, said he saw “no end to this cycle of violence”, describing it as “unprecedented”. The claims were unquestioningly repeated in the media.

Tell Mama and Mr Mughal did not mention, however, that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity that took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook, or that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. Not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

Contrary to the group’s claim of a “cycle of violence” and a “sustained wave of attacks”, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment.

There have been a further 12 attacks on Islamic buildings, three of them serious, including a probable arson attack on a Muslim community centre in north London, which burned it to the ground.
Tell Mama supporters launched a furious campaign of protest against The Sunday Telegraph after it disclosed the breakdown last week, with round-robin emails to the newspaper accusing it of behaviour “better suited to the days of 1930s Germany”.

However, The Sunday Telegraph has now learned that even before Woolwich, the communities minister, the Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster, called Mr Mughal to a meeting and said that Tell Mama’s grant would not be renewed.

The organisation has received a total of £375,000 from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) since last year.

“Mr Mughal was giving data on attacks to DCLG which wasn’t stacking up when it was cross-referenced with other reports by Acpo [the Association of Chief Police Officers],” said one source closely involved in counter-extremism.

“He was questioned by DCLG civil servants and lost his temper. He was subsequently called in by Don Foster and told that he would receive no more money.”

A senior Liberal Democrat source confirmed the sequence of events, saying: “There was a bit of a spat. He was called in and told that Acpo had cast doubt on his figures. He was told that he would be closely monitored for the remaining period of the grant and that there would be no more money.”

A DCLG spokesman confirmed that Tell Mama’s funding would not be renewed and refused to deny that officials had raised concerns about its methods.

Tell Mama claimed in March that anti-Muslim crime was “rising”, even though the group had only been in operation at that stage for a year and had no previous figures to compare with.

Other figures, collected by the police, show that hate crime in mainly Muslim areas has fallen in the past 10 years. The only large force that collects figures on specifically anti-Muslim crime, the Metropolitan Police, reported an 8.5 per cent fall in such crimes between 2009 and 2012.

There was a spike in anti-Muslim incidents after the killing of Drummer Rigby. However, contrary to Tell Mama’s claims that it was “unprecedented”, the Met’s assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick, told MPs last week that it was “slightly less” than after previous terror attacks.

“There has not been such a very big increase in attacks as we might have feared,” she said. Mr Mughal himself has now admitted to the BBC that the number of physical attacks was “small”.

Tell Mama has also been using its budget to threaten members of the public with libel actions for criticising it on Twitter.

In mid-May, before Woolwich, one Jewish activist, Ambrosine Chetrit, received a threatening letter from solicitors after she tweeted that “Tell Mama are sitting on Twitter on the EDL hashtag, threatening anyone and everyone whose comments they do not like about Islam”.

Tell Mama also objected to a tweet in which Ms Chetrit said it was “trying to close down pro-Israel accounts daily”.

Other recipients of legal threats at the same time include Atma Singh, a former race adviser to the then Labour mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who received a legal letter from Tell Mama after tweeting that it “gives a platform to Islamists”.

Tell Mama did not claim that either of these individuals was racist or anti-Muslim. But it said their tweets were false and “defamatory” of Mr Mughal, had “damaged” his reputation, causing him “distress and embarrassment”, and demanded immediate apologies and damages. Up to four other people are believed to have received similar threats.

The letters were written by Farooq Bajwa, a solicitor who has acted for a number of Islamists and Islamist sympathisers, including the Palestinian radical leader Raed Salah and the Respect MP George Galloway.

The letters to Mr Singh and Ms Chetrit were sent to their private home addresses, neither of which are in the public domain. Ms Chetrit’s lawyer, Mark Lewis, who has acted for many phone-hacking victims, has reported Mr Bajwa and Tell Mama to the police after they refused to say how they obtained the information.

“I have been instructed to resist the claim,” said Mr Lewis. “It has no merit. I have not had any response as to how my client’s name and address were obtained.”

Mr Singh said: “I find it absurd that someone can threaten people on this kind of basis and use libel in this political way. This is nothing to do with Islamophobia – they are just trying to shut down debate.”
Ms Chetrit said: “It is very worrying and scary. All the people who have been threatened by Tell Mama are pro-Israeli.”

The DCLG claimed that Tell Mama’s funding was always due to cease in September 2013 and that Mr Foster was “very impressed” by the “progress” the group had made.

However, the funding of Tell Mama was described as “ongoing” in the Government’s “hate crime action plan” last year and only in November Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, announced that £214,000 of “new” and “further” funding had been granted to Tell Mama.

Mr Mughal said: “The meeting with DCLG officials related to the publication of 2012 anti-Muslim prejudice figures and having an independent review of those figures, which is good practice.
"This was agreed and has always been part of the process. The 'loss of temper’ did not relate to the methodology of data collection.”
Mr Mughal said that no public money had been used to issue the libel threats.

He said: “We will defend the right of all people to express their identities and their support for countries and groups freely.
However, we have the right to defend the integrity of our work when people broadcast [on Twitter] comments that are simply untrue and highly damaging about us.”

He declined to explain how the private addresses had been obtained, but said it was “within the law.”

[Teddy Bear]

Call it karma, or just the perfect antithesis to the original point of this thread, - the grovelling apology by the BBC for referring to the Islamic perpetrators of the murder of Lee Rigby, as being of Muslim appearance.

Here's where they should be apologising, for their stupidity - as Raheel Raza in the Commentator explains:

Looking for an authentic Muslim woman's voice?
How can women's rights advance if the mainstream idea of an authentic Muslim woman's voice is strictly confined to the oppressed?

What is an authentic Muslim voice?

Raheel Raza

A few days ago I received a call from a producer at BBC World Service asking if I knew of a Muslim woman who would comment on a news story about the bikini being banned at the Miss World pageant in Indonesia. I promptly responded that I would and the producer asked me some questions which I answered (I think) quite intelligently; she said she was very impressed.

Then she asked, “Are you a Muslim? Your website photo doesn’t really show that you are.”

To say that I was flabbergasted would be an understatement. I fired back: “and how do you think I should look as a Muslim woman? Should there be a tattoo on my forehead, maybe I should have been in a niqab or a burka?”

The producer said she would call back. Half an hour later I received an email from her saying that while she is very taken by my comments, the editor has said they are not doing that particular story right now because of some breaking news that came up.

Was I surprised? No. This has happened before and as Islamism grows faster than grass in the West, so do the rules about what a Muslim should look like.

I suppose it’s not the producer’s fault. I imagine the conversation taking place behind doors at the BBC probably went something like this:

Editor: There’s a breaking news story about Muslim women in Indonesia. I need you to get a comment from a Muslim woman right away

Producer: I’m on it – actually I was just googling Muslim women activists and I came across this woman in Canada

Editor: Speak to her – we need this like yesterday

Producer: I just called her and she sounds really on the ball. She made some very interesting comments on the issue

Editor: Find out more about her

Producer: Well it says here she’s been an activist for women’s rights for more than half her life. She’s educated, eloquent, is accredited with the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and has spoken about similar issues before. She sounds good.

Editor: Good work. What does she look like? What’s her website? Let me have a look.

Producer: Her website photos have her in short hair, very modern with make-up, and she’s wearing Western clothes

Editor: Let me see – Oh this won’t do – we have to have a Muslim woman who looks Muslim

Producer: Umm what exactly does that mean? What are we looking for? Aren’t Muslims extremely diverse in their ethnicities and way of dress?

Editor: Yes but you know the rules. We have to have an authentic Muslim voice so you have to find someone who wears the hijab or at least a burka, preferably no make-up, ethnic dress, intersperses her conversation with Inshallah and Mashallah, has an accent and should be well versed in the Koran.

Producer: But what does the Koran have to do with this story?

Editor: Doesn’t matter – quoting the Koran and Hadeeth just makes them sound so much more credible than someone who quotes from the UN declaration of Human Rights

Producer: So what they say is not as important as how they look?

Editor: Yes you got it so please get on it right away

Producer: In that case we don’t need to bother looking too far. We will find our authentic voice right her in Londonistan!