Email This to a Friend
BBC’s Terrorists in Need
How did cash from the network's telethons for children end up in the hands of the 7/7 London bombers?
It says everything about the BBC’s attitude to Islamic extremism that the documentary which entailed the notorious paintballing trip was called Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic. So gullible were the program’s makers, and so blinded by their determination to portray young Muslim men in a positive light, that they recruited active supporters of terrorism to take part in a show that was intended to make viewers embarrassed about their silly prejudices.
The self-censorship of the corporation’s drama output is just as bad. Last year plans to feature a storyline involving Muslim suicide bombers in the hospital drama Casualty were scrapped, while in the spy series Spooks the bad guys inevitably turn out to be from the CIA or Mossad, rather than al-Qaeda or Hamas. And in possibly the most egregious example of factual inversion to date, a recent BBC drama featured a Muslim being beheaded by an extremist Christian.
We don’t know exactly who made the decision to hand over the £20,000 that found its way to Khan and Tanweer, but we can safely assume that those responsible shared the BBC’s concerns about “sensitivity” in dealing with all things Islamic. The current board of trustees for Children in Need comprises senior BBC employees, charity professionals, and what might loosely be termed “diversity specialists.” If we had “community organizers” here in the UK you can bet a couple of them would be on the board too.
According to the Telegraph report, the bookshop run by Khan and Tanweer told charity regulators that its aim was “the advancement of the Islamic faith,” while the “community school” that funneled the money to the pair claimed its mission was to “advance the education” of Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils. Enough there, surely, to lead any responsible organization to ask precisely what its money would be used for, or to at least make follow-up checks.
But the trustees chose not to ask, exercising a degree of deference that’s hard to imagine being extended to other religious organizations — it would be highly surprising if, for example, money from Children in Need found its way to a Catholic anti-abortion group. Not surprisingly, the suspicion is that the trustees chose not to pry into the activities of Muslim “charities” for fear of causing offense.
The affair raises wider issues about the ease with which charities can be used as fronts for extremism and the need for closer scrutiny. But it’s also a reminder that the obsession with the PC tenets of “sensitivity” and “inclusiveness” exhibited by the BBC are more than just a source of irritation to the millions of Britons who pay for the privilege of being lectured by it.
The unwillingness of the BBC and the rest of the largely unaccountable cultural establishment to challenge the activities of radical Islamists emboldens the extremists, alienates reformers, undermines intelligence gathering and law enforcement efforts, and leads to increased hostility on the part of the general public towards those Muslims who are law-abiding and happy to integrate into British society.
Unfortunately, the institutional conceitedness that pervades the BBC makes it unlikely that lessons will be learned from its entanglements with jihadists. So far there’s no evidence that its indiscretions have led directly to loss of life, but we may not be so lucky next time.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Mike McNally blogs at Monkey Tennis Centre.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
8 Comments
1. 49erDweet:Generally Brits are doomed by their centuries of upbringing in a class-based society to a lifetime of never comprehending or appreciating the difference between assimilating and segreating their immigrants. They believe with their “rational” minds that as long as they honor and recognize [whatever that means] the others who are not like them it will be “enough” for those to live their lives separately but sort of equally. Almost. Though Brits are also unclear on just what “enough” really is, too.
Most Yanks, otoh, believe immigrants should assimilate and not ghettoize themselves, though a significant number of liberals might argue against this. [Query. Why are socialistic liberals so intent on re-establishing a class-based society? Never mind, answered my own question.] America understands the overwhelming value of assimilation, and insists on it.
The BBC folk merely reflect the UK class to which they aspire to belong. Few Brits will admit the Beebs are off base on this, though. Ah, the advantages of controlling a government sanction monopoly. The hoi polloi don’t even understand there is a problem.
Aug 27, 2008 - 2:14 pm 2. Tyler1984:49erDweet: Your belief that America demands assimilation is a nice sentiment – I only wish it were true. African-Americans and Hispanics (whether they be citizens or illegal immigrants) do have the tendency to “ghettoize” themselves and expect a liberal government ot take care of them – read: Nanny State / socialism
Aug 27, 2008 - 3:36 pm 3. richard flohill:“BBC reporter Lyse Doucet”
Canadian readers may correct me, but that name sounds familiar. I believe she is a graduate of our own loony left CBC.
Aug 28, 2008 - 7:04 am 4. boazhorribilis:I have to say that the facts do not surprise me. The BBC has been at the front of the efforts to turn British society in to this multi-culti witch’s brew. For sure, the Government was in it up to their eyeballs and still are.
Recently, a young British couple on their honeymoon in Antigua were brutally murdered during a robbery at the hotel they were staying, on the last day of their vacation. Whitehall (read Gov’t here) delayed by a few days sending much needed help to the Antiguan police because: if they found the perpetrators, under Antiguan law they might get the death penalty. Help eventually arrived after much hand wringing by the imbeciles in charge and there are a couple of suspects in custody. Such are the dilemmas of the British government agents when it comes to protecting their citizens. Disgusting and eventually self defeating.
All I can say is that unfortunately, more hideous things are yet to come for the Brits at the hands of their government. Do not forget that the BBC is fully funded by the overtaxed British tax payer! Within a couple of generations, Britain will be a shell of what it used to be unless some new, sane direction is found politically and socially to preserve its identity and security.
Aug 28, 2008 - 11:03 am 5. john from cinncinati:tyler1984: nice try on the ghetto issue, which Hispanics do you mean? Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Central Americans. maybe its the governor of New Mexico, you were talking about. why, just the other day i was told, i was very Americanized. which is funny in itself cuz i’ve never thought of myself as anything else.
Aug 28, 2008 - 11:39 am 6. Bugs:so what do you think the final solution is to the British problem?
Seems to me black people were forcibly ghettoized and are still working on getting un-ghettoized. But that has nothing to do with the BBC kissing up to terrorists.
Aug 28, 2008 - 12:45 pm 7. Rob:The BBC, when it does actually specify the race of terrorist suspects (not often), now uses the term “British Asian” instead of “Muslim”. For one thing, are they British or Asian? The other thing, is that in order not to give offence to perhaps 1bn Muslims worldwide (which as we know is a demographic hypersensitive to taking offence), they are now offending 2.5bn Chinese and Hindus by lumping them all together as “Asians” and exposing them to suspicion of terrorist offences!
In other news reports about arrests of terrorists and searches of property, the BBC does not identify that the suspects were even Asian, let alone Islamic. It was left to the reader to interpret the article to find out – and the signs were there, of course. When the police said that the searches would be carried out “with sensitivity”, only one demographic group in the UK is blessed with such treatment, and the puzzle was solved.
What is strange is that the BBC seems to think that if they don’t report the motivations of Islamic terrorists, people will not think for themselves and fill in the obvious gaps. They will, of course, and all that happens is that you now have a majority population which resents a certain demographic for the extremism in their midst and which also distrusts the national broadcaster, the self-styled “national treasure” and Voice of the Nation (TM).
Aug 29, 2008 - 6:25 am 8. Shocked!:It reminds me of an incident back when Canada (under the Liberal party) needed to replace the two dollar bill & one dollar bill with coins. Titles for these two new coins had to be invented. During a meeting of Canadian politicians at the House of Commons with the presence of CBC, (the equivalency of BBC), the speaker asked all members of Parliament grab a pen, piece of paper & write down a possible title. They were given 5 minutes, in which afterwards a vote will take place on the two titles. The politicians sat in deep thought looking for the answer. Suddenly their focus turned to one another & the members of the liberal media (CBC). As they carefully scanned each other, after some thorough examination, all spontaneously wrote something down. We now have the LOONIE’s & TOONIE’s.
Aug 31, 2008 - 8:56 pm