Butt Butt Butt

Innocent BBC consumers frequently miss the amazing subtlety of its bias. They need a Zen Master in Readin' and Writin' to spot the subliminal vileness. Such a man is George R. In his hands, text is a weapon.

Here, he’s betting that the BBC won’t dare report a Telegraph court story about an Asian man convicted of racially abusing police officers:

BBC may have problem posting on following, because of:

1.)reference to non-white racism, which BBC prefers to ignore;

2.)use of word 'jihad', which, again, the BBC prefers to avoid in dhimmi fashion;



George, this BBC news story about the very same court case could be what you're looking for...



Plus a double helping...



Backing any horses this weekend? I wouldn't bother....

You make my point, but you don't see it.



Oops! My mistake...

The first BBC report you mention gives only half the story. In the BBC version posted at 9 pm this evening, the headline is :



1.) "Man convicted of 'redneck'
abuse."

Last Thursday, the BBC had run with this headline:



2.) "Man denies 'redneck' abuse".


Yes. That's right.

(Note how BBC omits the words 'white' and 'hooligan' from its headlines, on both occasions.)...


In contrast, the 'Telegraph' has this: "Asian man who called policemen 'white redneck hooligans' is guilty of racism "



All bets are on.

George, this was your original point:



BBC may have problem posting on following, because of:

1.)reference to non-white racism, which BBC prefers to ignore;



The BBC does indeed refer to Hassan Butt's non-white racism. So it hasn't ignored it. Now you're complaining about the headline, not the story. As if that robs readers of knowing about Butt's full insult. Which is in the story itself.



There are two ways out of this impasse:

1. You could stop flogging a dead horse.
2. The BBC should simply copy its headlines (and, why not, the rest of its stories) from newspapers of which you approve.



I may be taking a risk here, but my bet is on your choosing option 2.



And, of course the 'Telegraph' refers to Butt's jihad book.



Up to a point. The Telegraph says that he admits making up stories to take money off the media. His proposed book on Jihad therefore sounds a little short of credibility.
 Perhaps we can agree on a compromise here: The BBC should be slapped down for ignoring a book by an acknowledged liar which claims he was a jihadist.

They might as well give back the licence fee and all go home.



Do yourself a favour. Stay out of the bookies.

Still defending the indefensible.



It's what we do.



BBC only emphasies 'redneck' not 'White, redneck hooligans';



You're right. All the bastards did was start their story with the following words:

A man who called police officers "white redneck hooligans" has been found guilty of making racist remarks.



Disingenuous. As ever. How do they sleep?



it is averse to emphasising a main part of the case which is ANTI-WHITE RACISM.



Agreed. Readers who read the opening line that he has been found guilty of making racist remarks for calling police officers white redneck hooligans would have no idea what he had been up to. 



And as for using the word 'jihad' -no mention from the BBC; the BBC butts out. 



Time for a new campaign: We want the BBC to mention jihad every time a convicted racist who has admitted he tells lies to the media for money claims to be writing a book about it.


I think we have reached a tipping point here, George, and I'm proud to be your partner in this moment.



I fancy Befuddled Grump in the 3.30 at Newmarket. I'll put a tenner on for you as a treat.