You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > Self-Censorship And The BBC

Far in the distance, a protracted scream comes out of a dark tunnel. As it rises, the ground begins to shake. A dot of light speeds towards the viewer. In seconds, it fills the screen and a rattling blur of the cold steel shrieks past the camera.

The action cuts to the forecourt of King's Cross station. Hasib Hussein, a gawky 18-year-old with soft eyes, looks imploringly at the authoritative figure of Sidique Khan.

"Sidique ... wait ... ," he says, with a voice full of fear and uncertainty. The older man calms the boy with a bear hug.

"There is nothing to fear in death, Hasib," he says. "When the time comes, we'll face towards Makkah together, as one." He looks Hussein in the eyes. "Our lives begin today."

Hussein nods. Khan ruffles his hair, and disappears to slaughter commuters on the London Underground. Hussein screws up his courage and prepares to murder an equally random collection of passengers on a bus heading out from King's Cross.

So begins The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.

The reporters spent months in Beeston, the Leeds slum where three of the four 7/7 bombers - Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussein and Shehzad Tanweer - grew up. Unusually for journalists working within BBC groupthink, they didn't find that the "root cause" of murderous rage was justifiable anger at the "humiliation" America, Israel, Britain and Denmark and her tactless cartoonists had inflicted on Muslims.

View Full Article
September 18th, 2008
5:09 PM
"Muslims did not start WW1". They didn't? Turkey was an active part of both starting and fighting that conflict. "WW2" Though they actively supported Hitler. "Vietnam", though they are at fault for violence in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere in that region. Not to mention jihad only got to India, not all the way across. "civil wars in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, etc. " Wrong again. All have groups declaring civil war killing people in the name of Allah. In specific: Mauritania, Congo, Sudan, Kenya and the above named Asia countries. "Throughout history" That's just it, in history. There's no current group that comes close to the violence of today's Muslims. "such as the riots that led to the killings of Muslims (by Hindus) in India" Or the fact that India still has a 20% Muslim population while Pakistan and Bangladesh ethnically cleansed all their Hindus? "Hitler claimed his policies in the name of Christianity." No, he didn't. He was a pagan. "Jews killing and stealing land right". where might that be? Again, Israel has a 20% non-Jewish population while the Arab nations are pretty much judenrein and, in the land the Pals want, they demand yet another ethnic cleansing. "disingenuous considering the role of Christianity and Judaism." No, just honest about the clear violence that's much higher in modern Islam than in any other major modern religion.

September 9th, 2008
8:09 AM
Dhimmitude Sucks - Muslims did not start WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, civil wars in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, etc. Throughout history, misguided people of all religions have killed in the name of religion. If you are interested, I would be happy to recommend some books/articles to read concerning events in contemporary history, such as the riots that led to the killings of Muslims (by Hindus) in India, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. These events may not receive the same amount of media coverage as "Muslim terrorism," but that does not make them less relevant. Hitler claimed his policies in the name of Christianity. The British invoked god into the reasons they did what they did. Bush does it too. Remember when President McKinley was commanded by God (via a dream) to bring Christianity and civilization to the Philippines? We got Jews killing and stealing land right now because God said it was theirs. This one-sided blaming of Muslims for committing crimes in the name of their religion is disingenuous considering the role of Christianity and Judaism.

proud dhimmi
September 6th, 2008
4:09 PM
Another example of self-censorship of BBC you may find under There you may read the following "Judge Norman Jones twice intervened to remind Mr Griffin he was not making a speech at a political meeting. Mr Griffin said he wanted the jury to read sections of the Koran as he claimed Islam was incompatible with British democracy. Koran 'misquoted' After quoting from chapters of the text, Griffin said the verses justified "the epidemic of anti-white racist attacks and also attacks on Sikhs, Hindus and black people in every city in this land where there is a significant Muslim population". Mr Griffin quoted further sections, claiming the verses justified Islam treating women as "sexual playthings of very little value beyond that" and also violence, including the 9/11 attacks in the US. He told the jury he had spent a lot of time studying the Koran and believed it was often misquoted by politicians, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, as they tried to claim Islam was a peaceful faith. "Islam and our democracy are totally incompatible," he said. "It's very easy for people brought up in a post-Christian secular society to think that this is a dusty old book, a bit like the Bible, and it's a history book from the eighth century. "To Muslims the Koran is the literal word of God - the only law as to how to live your life." Mr Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, denies two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred." Later under "He was acquitted of one of each charge in relation to one speech, but the jury failed to reach a verdict in respect to a second speech in which he called Islam a "wicked vicious faith". Note the BBC didn´t comment on the ruling not to become "offensive" to Islam "stirring up racial hatred". Because Mr. Griffin as far as I do remember presented to the jury more than 100 quotations from the Koran stirring hatred and speaking up for violence and murder so he may go on denouncing Islam as violent and vicious unharmed by the law. On the contrary the BBC just reports on the jury "failing to reach a verdict." Good luck for Mr. Griffin. One more Muslim victory boosting Muslim proud. Cheers. BTW it was in 2004 that Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad was quoted in the Portuguese magazine "Publica" that a terror attack on London would be inevitable and the life of a dhimmi (non Muslim) is worthless. Read more under As Abdullah says above implicitly as far as I do understand him that only Islam would bring peace and order by squashing greeds. The manual to Islamic peace you may read about in the Koran as quoted by Mr. Griffin. Thus the misery starts again in the middle of our "enlightened" societies we thought to have overcome by our laws and constitutions. And the BBC does play her part dearly in the actual drama named "How we are bartering away our constitutional values of individual freedom and peace for Muslim Sharia"

September 5th, 2008
8:09 AM
I just read a reprint in today's Jerusalem Post. The thing that immediately hit me was the direct similarity between this and the EU survey on anti-semitism done in 2003. The results there had to be leaked. Why? Because, unlike the expectations of the apologists in charge, the rise in modern anti-semitism wasn't from neo-Nazis but from the Left and the Muslims they protect. A phobia ( is "a persistent, irrational fear..." When there are facts that clearly show cogent and intelligent reasons to be afraid, it's not a phobia.

Dhimmitude Sucks
August 26th, 2008
11:08 AM
Abdullah, if all the problems are caused by universal sins, such as greed or lust, why is it that almost all terrorism today is committed by people adhering to one particular belief system? Apart from Muslims, who else is carrying out beheadings, or flying planes into buildings, or strapping explosives to their body so they can kill civilians? Surely if 'greed' caused such things, then everyone would be committing such atrocities. But if there is an act of terrorism in the news, you can be 99.9% certain these days, that at least one of the perpetrators was called Mohammed.

August 20th, 2008
12:08 AM
Steve, shurley shome mishtake.
August 17th, 2008
5:08 AM
Guys check out a film on google video called 'Ludicrous Diversions'. Google Peter Power and investigate the events of 7/7/05 without relying on the mainstream media. Then post a comment as an informed responsible adult. Peace.

August 15th, 2008
12:08 AM
"I'd like to know where this ample evidence of the BBC being afraid to utter the word muslim can be found. Is it in your head, by any chance?" Well no actually: in the beginning was the Draft Report... UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Home Office 2004 1. Prepare and circulate to Departments advice on Muslim sensitivities and appropriate non-inflammatory terminology to be used in referring to Muslim issues. 2. Prepare communications plan aimed at combating distorted public and media perceptions of Islam and Muslims... 3. Build capacity amongst information services like Muslim Council of Britain Direct, in providing accurate representation for mainstream Islam (i.e. representatives and experts) in the mainstream media. Policy objectives include persuading young Muslims that they can be Muslim and British.... the term `Islamic fundamentalism' is unhelpful and should be avoided, ... report/2004/muslimext-uk.htm#poa Next the implementation: 1) '"Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘jihad,' ‘Islamic' or ‘fundamentalist.' The word ‘jihad' is to be avoided altogether ... One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term ‘Islamic terrorism' to be replaced by ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'." The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2007 2) 'Whitehall draws up new rules on language of terror' Alan Travis, home affairs editor, The Guardian, Monday Feb 4 2008 "Phrasebook designed to avoid blaming Muslims for extremism' ... to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities ... Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi fundamentalist but instead to refer [only] to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. 2008/feb/04/uk.terrorism 3) "The Government is renaming Islamic terrorism as 'anti Islamic activities' The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief." Daily Mail, January 17, 2008 Do you expect anyone to believe the Beeb is not cognisant with, and slavishly adhering to, government 'guidelines'?

August 13th, 2008
7:08 PM
All I want to emphasize that we should look beyond the results. humans are into greed that lead to conflicts and create reasons of their owns to justify it since before anything called religions or believes etc. Thanks

August 13th, 2008
2:08 PM
for a start, the sooks point. Spoooks ran tons of episodes with Muslims as the bad guys, something that is never mentioned by Cohen or indeed his fans. and the second point - I genuinely don't understand how this drama is the 'un-PC' account of the 7th July bombers. What, exactly, is different in this from the numerous accounts of their backgrounds that have been played out ad nauseam on our screens, in news reports, special investigations, etc, since 2005? What is being left out of those reports? the young men are refered to as Muslim in the reports. Their upbringings are amply mapped out. What did this imaginary programme have that's so daringly un-PC? nothing in Cohen's article makes that clear. The fact is that there doesn't appear to be any new material in this programme, which wasn't well-written. the audience is already fully aware of all the facts concerning this case. So there seems to be a rather more obvious reason why it was canned. Because it would have been a waste of money and resources.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.