BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Our Racist Press

 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
 
Olulabelle
13:24 / 15.10.06
The evil scum have also stolen her eyebrows, apparently.

Yes, yes. Let's mock her for her appearance shall we? Much better than addressing the actual issue, especially if she choose to appear in a way we don't.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:36 / 19.10.06
'Twould appear the Guardian did cover the story... but only in its Diary section.
 
 
Char Aina
01:27 / 20.10.06
'curious case' seems a bit of a wierd tone to go with.
i wonder what he thinks makes it more curious than frightening, say.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:56 / 20.10.06
That's Henley's general tone. He understates everything to ludicrous degrees- it's actually quite effective (see also his reference in the same column to a "characteristically nuanced" piece by melanie Phillips).

Funny that the Guardian's only mention is to wonder why the papers (including the Guardian) didn't mention it. There's often a lot of really good shit tucked away in the Diary.
 
 
Quantum
17:25 / 20.10.06
So in theory the BBC and the papers will be covering this on Monday?
 
 
Saturn's nod
08:50 / 21.10.06
Peter Wilby in New Statesman 23/OCT, last section of his page:

"Rocket launchers? No comment
I noted last week that Muslims need only sneeze, or drop veils, to make headlines. Anglo-Saxons, however, can allegedly stockpile rocket launchers, chemicals and a nuclear biological suit without any comment whatever.

I jest not. This month, a retired dentist and a former BNP council candidate appeared before a Lancashire magistrates' court and were remanded in custody. The prosecution alleged they possessed the largest haul of chemical components ever found at a British house and had "some kind of master plan".

As far as I can discover, this case, though reported in the local press, has otherwise featured only on a handful of blogs, on the excellent First Post website (run by Telegraph exiles) and as the seventh item in the Guardian diary.

The case is due to be heard at Burnley Crown Court on 23rd October. I look forward to appropriately alarmist press coverage in the coming days."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:25 / 21.10.06
You know, that's a very good point. Would Jack Straw object to somebody coming to his surgery wearing an NBC suit?

Do we know anyone who lives in Blackburn?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:01 / 21.10.06
The Daily Telegraph have decided to equate Aisha Azmi, the classroom assistant in the veil, with Islamic radicalism:

The veil stretches our tolerance to its limits

Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, spoke for almost the entire nation yesterday when he told Aisha Azmi – the Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a veil – "to just let this thing go". An employment tribunal has rightly rejected Mrs Azmi's case for unfair dismissal, though – absurdly – it has awarded her damages for "victimisation" by her local council. Now is indeed the time for her to drop the matter, though, needless to say, she intends to take her case to a "higher court". (Radical Muslims in Britain are quick to explore legal avenues that are not open to Christians in the countries they admire.)

Mrs Azmi's unreasonable demands, coupled with Jack Straw's bold comments about the intimidating aspects of the full-face veil, have forced the British public to think carefully about the presence of Muslim ghettos and Islamic fundamentalists in our society. A clear conclusion has emerged. As a nation, we feel that our tolerance is being stretched to the limit.

Moreover – and this is something that has gone largely unremarked – the behaviour of Mrs Azmi and her suspiciously glib supporters has particularly annoyed many British women. We are not talking here of those earnest feminists who are desperately trying to disentangle their allegiances to multi-culturalism and secularism: the hand-wringing of, say, the Guardian's Madeleine Bunting is a joy to behold. What strikes us is the anger of sane, civilised women at the claim that Mrs Azmi's dismissal impinges on their own rights. That is a preposterous notion. If British women feel any sympathy for the teaching assistant, it is because she appears – ironically, given the casus belli – to have been turned into a mouthpiece for male Islamists who genuinely wish women to endure a form of medieval subjugation.

Yesterday also witnessed an intervention by David Cameron, who warned his fellow politicians not to "pile in" and exacerbate the controversy, and suggested that Muslims in Britain are now feeling "slightly targeted". That is probably true; but both the Tory leader and the Muslim community should ask themselves who, exactly, is targeting whom.

The answer is that Islamic fundamentalists – followers of a puritanical and distinctively Arab version of the faith – are targeting a largely Pakistani community that, until recently, has conspicuously avoided picking fights with its neighbours. It would be interesting to know more about what British Muslim women feel about this process of radicalisation and Arabisation, of which they are often the victims. We suspect that they would agree that Mrs Azmi has done them absolutely no favours, and that she should, in Mr Malik's words, just let this thing go.


The Telegraph forum on the subject is pretty vile too.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:48 / 22.10.06
Oh, fuck off, Telegraph. For fuck's sake. She wasn't a fucking extremist, she wanted to be a teacher. This was the job she wanted to do. She wanted to work for society, with society, helping kids of all types learn. For fuck's sake.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:03 / 22.10.06
I like the "absurdly" and the scare quotes around "victimisation", also.

Regardless of the facts of the case, this editorial is prejudiced and prejudicial. It reminds me of a wonderful article in yesterday's super, soaraway Sun, in which page 3 stunna Keeley Hawes wore the veil for a day. In the introduction to that it said that Aishah Azmi received £1,000 for "hurt feelings". Difference being that we expect the Sun to appeal to racist halfwits, whereas the Telegraph...

Oh.

Ah.
 
 
nighthawk
18:12 / 22.10.06
I'm suprised by how explicitly racist that is. I mean, what on earth is 'Arabisation'?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:42 / 22.10.06
At least the NUJ put a stop to this one...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:29 / 23.10.06
Dear, dear, dear. I almost wish I hadn't looked at this thread but actually you know I suppose it's for the best.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:48 / 23.10.06
Apparently the New Statesman had something about the dentist too, but I can't find it.
 
 
nighthawk
12:09 / 23.10.06
I think Saturn's Nod quoted it above...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:15 / 23.10.06
(Slaps forehead)... d'you know, I think that may well be where I found out the NS mentioned it in the first place... I am teh stupid today.

Oh well, to make up, I've found the earlier Guardian diary piece on it.

An exhaustive search of our extensive archives has failed to find a single mention of this in any national daily. Furthermore, Mr John Reid has not, to our knowledge, appeared on our TV screens to enlighten us as to the terrifying extent of this new threat to our nation's security. Then again, no one involved was a Muslim. Arf arf.
 
 
Quantum
13:04 / 23.10.06
Well two weeks ago crikey dot com reported;
Some terrorists get all the attention
Britain is in uproar today after the discovery of what is alleged to be the largest ever suburban home-made explosives factory in a suburban Lancashire house, and the charging of a member of an extremist group with a variety of offences.

Whoops, sorry, no it’s not. Because the extremist group in question was not Islamic, it was the British National Party, and the former member, R***** C******, is a white Anglo-Saxon.


So, Australian news is reporting the case better than the UK news. w00t.

I'm watching the news like a hawk today, nothing so far.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:06 / 23.10.06
If it hits the papers it'll be tomorrow.
 
 
Quantum
15:00 / 23.10.06
Seeming like a big if at the moment.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:13 / 23.10.06
Still nowt on the news?
Hmm.
 
 
Quantum
00:56 / 24.10.06
Well they reported on this case;
A YOUNG Muslim man charged with terrorism offences was allegedly using websites he set up to demonstrate how to make and use firearms and explosives, court papers revealed yesterday.

but not a peep about the two men's hearing today. indymedia list the sites that reported it (ten days ago) and ends with this;
So, even if this story is now to be picked up by the mainstream media, it would only be because of the attention given to it by bloggers and the alternative media, and not because the 'war on terror' isn't a racist sham.
My thoughts exactly. If this case is all over the papers tomorrow, stoats, I'll buy you a jetpack and then eat my hat.
 
 
Sax
09:54 / 24.10.06
On the newswires today:

A former British National Party election candidate and a dentist both appeared in court today accused of possessing an explosive substance.

Robert Cottage, 49, of Talbot Street, Colne, Lancashire, and David Jackson, 62, of Trent Road, Nelson, Lancashire, were charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 after chemical components were allegedly found at Cottage's house.

Cottage stood for the BNP in this year's local elections in Colne.

Both men were remanded in custody at Preston Crown Court.

No application for bail was made for either men.

The case was adjourned until January 15, 2007 for a plea and case management hearing.

A provisional trial date has been set for February 12 at Manchester Crown Court. It will be held before a High Court judge and is expected to last one and a half weeks.
 
 
Olulabelle
10:56 / 24.10.06
Quants

You will be needing this I tink:

 
 
Saturn's nod
11:05 / 24.10.06
Still nothing on news.bbc.co.uk as far as I can find. To whom & how do I address my protestations there for maximum effect, anyone know?
 
 
Char Aina
11:11 / 24.10.06
far from extensive coverage across all the major media networks, and not a single mention of 'terror' on the top three hits.

perhaps the BNP are officially freedom fighters.
 
 
Char Aina
11:19 / 24.10.06
i would address your complaint to the people in charge of complaints about content and conduct, and also address your concerns separately to the director general's office and to members of the the news team.

the current DG says

" One of the biggest pleasures of being Director-General of the BBC is the many contacts I have with the public. In meetings, on the street, on the phone, but most frequently through email and letter."

so officially he will welcome your queries.
(i tried to find you the DG's email address, but for all his talk he doesnt seem to publish it very openly.)

you might also ask all the folks on this page what they think of the current level and standard of coverage.
 
 
Char Aina
11:21 / 24.10.06
DG's profile here, without an explicit email.
i would assume it will be his name at bbc.co.uk, or possibly director general at bbc.co.uk.

if not, you could always ask tom.
he should be better placed to know than us civilians.
 
 
Sax
11:22 / 24.10.06
It might be that "terror" hasn't been mentioned because, unlike the link Quantum provided, Cottage and Co haven't actually been charged under terror laws, but the more archaic Explosives Act.
 
 
Char Aina
11:27 / 24.10.06
while i understand what you are saying, i'm not convinced that the media is that scrupulous in general when it comes to labelling terrorists.

regarding the charges, why do you think they werent charged as terrorists as well?
can they not be charged with both?
what are the differences in possible sentences, apart from the camp xray connection?
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:59 / 24.10.06
Thanks for the suggestions. The presenter links seem to go to their individual home pages, without direct contact details. I've made an official complaint on the BBC website: (complaints page link)

I am concerned that you have not provided any coverage of the BNP members arrested for possession of explosives. I have collected a few of the news reports together on my blog which might help you track down the sources: [blog url]

I want to know why the BBC has not covered the story. It is vital to the public interest and really important for race relations in the UK. At the moment it's looking like a racist cover-up - no reporting because the terrorists are white racists?? Please do something about this - preferably, cover the story!

Please reply by email to
[real name, real email address]

Thanks very much for your attention.


If enough people get on their case about it, apparently we might make it important enough to merit a public response.
 
 
Saturn's nod
13:30 / 24.10.06
I got an emailed reply already:

Dear [real name],

Thank you for your email of 24th October 2006. The BBC has been covering this story today - (at 14.18 we did a live interview on News 24 with our correspondent Judith Moritz outside the court.)

We have also covered it on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6080278.stm

You may or may not be aware that reporting restrictions on this case have not been lifted therefore the BBC (and indeed any other news organisation) is quite restricted on what it can report while the case is ongoing. Today's hearing was mainly legal argument and the case has been adjourned until the 12th February 2007. I am fairly certain that the BBC will continute to report the developments in this case and of course the outcome.

I hope this is useful.

Best wishes,
Helen Wade
Producer, Newswatch
BBC Television News
 
 
Quantum
13:53 / 24.10.06
Can anyone help out my searching skills? I tried explosives act, the names, burnley court etc. but got nuffink new.
Trying it now I find three related articles look, all repeating pretty much what Sax got on the wire- it's adjourned until next year.
I haven't seen anything in the newsagent paper papers though, so stoats, all you get is this clip and this one, and perhaps a pint and a sheena treat. I'm still not understanding why this isn't bigger news.
 
 
Sax
13:59 / 24.10.06
THere will probably have been just the PRess Association reporter covering it for all the nats.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:40 / 24.10.06
Reporting restriction can't have been THAT hefty, or the Statesman and Guardian couldn't have run their pieces. Nor the Times News In Brief thing.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:04 / 13.02.07
Finally!

News report on BNP man with guns and bombs.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply