Friday, 11 December 2009

Artificial Floavouring

A happy day for all those who believe Britain is one hijab away from slavery: A British Muslim was convicted of conspiring to murder civilians, and then a couple of Christian hoteliers were cleared of insulting an Islamic convert.

You'll never guess who failed to do justice to this wondrous day: The BBC. No, really.

Thank God Biased BBC is here to put them right. Crusader-in-chief David Vance leads the charge:

OK, so it's not the lead story and indeed one has to click across from the main newspage to even see it.

Yeah. Just boring stories about the Budget. And they call that journalism?

I refer to the item curiously entitled "UK Muslim guilty of planning attack".

Something about kittens, maybe? Or I'm A Celebrity?


Uh oh.

a tad innocuous but curiosity got the better of me

Curiosity about any story with the word Muslim in it, perhaps?

so I went over and discovered that the actual story is that several Muslims have been convicted of planning mass murder over the Atlantic.

The plot ringleaders were actually convicted in September. This week's accused were their gofers. And only one of them was convicted of the main charge of conspiracy to murder. Hence the headline.

So, "Jihad horror averted" might have been more accurate,

That would be old news. The plot was made public in August 2006. It's why we have to stick our toothpaste in see-through bags before we get it X-rayed.

or perhaps "Muslim plot to murder hundreds of British people"......

Or possibly: Jail All Muslims Now, Otherwise They'll Kill Us In Our Sleep.

but I guess "UK Muslim guilty of planning attack" fits the bill for the BBC.

By being accurate and not inflammatory, David. Oh, look: Here's George R, who shares with no-one his devotion to naming and shaming Mohammedans.

the issue is about how the BBC politically shields Islam in its biased use of e.g. the wording of its headlines.

Shielding Islam? Only if you assume that all Islamics are terrorists. Which you do, so fair enough.

Never mind. We can all rejoice that the God-bothering Scouse hoteliers got off their charge of insulting an Islamic guest, can't we, Mr Vance?

Quite obviously this was another pointless prosecution by the CPS but I notice that twice in the BBC item they repeat the CPS claim that there was sufficient evidence to bring the prosecution.

Though they ran more of the judge rubbishing the charge.

If only the Judge had agreed, eh? I am sure the BBC must be gutted.

But you'd be wrong.

Why, it's B-BBC's leading social commentator Martin. You must be very pleased, Marty...

It was a nonsensical prosecution, it was simply one persons word against another's without any other evidence.

Untrue. A born-again Christian guest gave evidence against the hoteliers. But what the heck.

We see Muzzie's spitting hate all the time in London or at soldiers parades and the Police do NOTHING, so why act in this case?

Apart from the 7 Muslim protesters awaiting trial over the anti-Army protest. But what the heck. Again.

Perhaps John Anderson can offer a fresh perspective.

Press reports suggested that the Muslim woman was a bit of a nutter, grossly over-reacting, playing the victim.

Google News has little truck with a search for nutter in the trial reports. Or grossly over-reacting. Fancy that.

But somehow that floavour did not appear in BBC reports.

Good point. We want more floavour from the Beeb. And less objectivity.

So their Muslim supporters in-house, and listeners, can feel that justice has been denied.

What we really need is a news service staffed by Biased BBC contributors. Justice and accuracy personified. Accuracy especially.


  1. Ah, I've missed you in the threads OMTE - where you been?

    not banned i hope

  2. I refer to the item curiously entitled "UK Muslim guilty of planning attack".

    I love that. 'Curiously entitled'. Firstly they claimed the BBC ignored any bad terrorism type stories, then when that didn't work they complained that the beeb never used the word 'muslim', now that line of argument doesn't fool anyone anymore, they grumble about a vague and curious title. How does B-BBC rumble on? It's doing the unthinkable; getting weirder and more pathetic with every new day.

  3. It's all about the "glint in the eye" and the "tone of the voice" these days.

  4. Can I suggest you seek medical help ?

  5. Anon 16.43

    By all means. Any particular reason?

  6. You have some kind of cognitive defect, OMTE. It's quite clear that you can't see bias where there is clear bias. It's quite clear that you're just not capable of the leaps of logic made daily by David Vance, Martin and whichever racist, unemployed pigfucker (because Muslims don't like pigs, so that would really annoy them) decides to leap on the internet and tell everyone how democracy isn't democracy because the government don't do exactly what you think they should do...

    ...that's why.