Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Johnoco

Anjem Choudray

66 posts in this topic

Whilst there is no point on putting him on, the BBC are in an awkward position.

 

There are many on here who seem to think science is politically biased and would think it ludicrous that only people who know what they are talking about get to argue about science.  They should have handled the vaccine debate by saying it was a corrupt doctor will to see kids die to boost his profits, and papers willing to see kids die to sell more papers.  Imagine the BBC then arguing they were not biased.

 

This is the flip side of that coin.

I think you've gone off on a tangent here. And I don't follow your logic.

 

I would love to know the editorial process that took place on the Today programme whereby someone said, "I know, let's ask Anjem Choudary onto the programme tomorrow to ask him about the trial of Lee Rigby's killers." It's isn't a very awkward position for the programme's editor to say, "No, that's a terrible idea. Let's instead have someone from a recognised Muslim body."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's isn't a very awkward position for the programme's editor to say, "No, that's a terrible idea. Let's instead have someone from a recognised Muslim body."

Why a recognised Muslim body? This heinous and disgusting murder has nothing at all to do with Muslims or Islam.

Should the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury be made to account for Branch Davidians or the Ku Klux Klan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why a recognised Muslim body? This heinous and disgusting murder has nothing at all to do with Muslims or Islam.

Which is why Choudary shouldn't be invited onto the BBC to claim that it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury be made to account for Branch Davidians or the Ku Klux Klan?

If someone committed murder, and claimed they had done it for religious reasons, while kissing the Bible when they were convicted, I suspect that the Archbishop or someone like him may be asked for his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone committed murder, and claimed they had done it for religious reasons, while kissing the Bible when they were convicted, I suspect that the Archbishop or someone like him may be asked for his views.

Really? I would have thought a psychiatrist more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why Choudary shouldn't be invited onto the BBC to claim that it has.

I think Choudary and his fascist ilk become more marginalised by their lies to be honest. They don't recruit through the Today programme or BBC News but by taking advantage of disaffected young people in schools, colleges and Universities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I would have thought a psychiatrist more appropriate.

So would I. But would the BBC share our view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Choudary and his fascist ilk become more marginalised by their lies to be honest. They don't recruit through the Today programme or BBC News but by taking advantage of disaffected young people in schools, colleges and Universities.

I agree with you there but having them on showss like Today gives them a veneer of credibility that further enhances their ability to recruit gullible idiots. And the BBC should not be helping them achieve this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone committed murder, and claimed they had done it for religious reasons, while kissing the Bible when they were convicted, I suspect that the Archbishop or someone like him may be asked for his views.

Well that didn't happen with the bible john murders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Choudary and his fascist ilk become more marginalised by their lies to be honest. They don't recruit through the Today programme or BBC News but by taking advantage of disaffected young people in schools, colleges and Universities.

And what are the UAF and Hope Not Hate doing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've gone off on a tangent here. And I don't follow your logic.

 

I would love to know the editorial process that took place on the Today programme whereby someone said, "I know, let's ask Anjem Choudary onto the programme tomorrow to ask him about the trial of Lee Rigby's killers." It's isn't a very awkward position for the programme's editor to say, "No, that's a terrible idea. Let's instead have someone from a recognised Muslim body."

Martyn, I was clear Iit was a bad idea IMO.

 

However, the objection of many is that they invite ignorant people on as experts in the name of balance.  This is true, but they would face heavy criticism from people if they did not.

 

On this, they were clearly wrong.  The suggestion that people generally would be OK with them only inviting reasonable people who knew what they were talking about is also misguided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that didn't happen with the bible john murders

But there is a big difference between a lone madman and people acting on behalf of others (or so they think)

It wouldn't make sense to ask the local bishop to comment on a serial killer like that. This is a case of people claiming they do something and blame others for it. (IE we are killing this guy because of British foreign policy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats good to see but just been on there facebook page and it's still more directed towards the EDL/BNP and even more so now with the UKIP then towards Anjem Choudary as they don't want to give him any more publicity ??? but at least HOH are making an attempt unlike the UAF who think racism is just from white Anglo-Saxon Football fan's and thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that didn't happen with the bible john murders

That's a rather eccentric posting.

 

I must admit I had never heard of 'Bible John', but the Internet is a very useful tool.

 

Apparently someone unknown killed three young women in Scotland in the late 1960s and was given the moniker because he was suspected of saying he read the Bible on Hogmanay, or something to that effect. The murderer was never caught, although one individual was and still is suspected of the crime.

 

Not strictly comparable, I would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a rather eccentric posting.

 

I must admit I had never heard of 'Bible John', but the Internet is a very useful tool.

 

Apparently someone unknown killed three young women in Scotland in the late 1960s and was given the moniker because he was suspected of saying he read the Bible on Hogmanay, or something to that effect. The murderer was never caught, although one individual was and still is suspected of the crime.

 

Not strictly comparable, I would suggest.

Stephen Lawrence still is front page news but nothing of the Kriss Donald murder....why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martyn, I was clear Iit was a bad idea IMO.

 

However, the objection of many is that they invite ignorant people on as experts in the name of balance.  This is true, but they would face heavy criticism from people if they did not.

 

On this, they were clearly wrong.  The suggestion that people generally would be OK with them only inviting reasonable people who knew what they were talking about is also misguided. 

Again, I'm not sure about the way you use the term 'ignorant', and I certainly wouldn't use that word to describe Choudary.

 

I rarely if ever hear the Today programme, for example, interviewing ignorant people.

 

Your final sentence suggests that the audience for some reason doesn't want to hear 'reasonable' people, whoever they happen to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm not sure about the way you use the term 'ignorant', and I certainly wouldn't use that word to describe Choudary.

 

I rarely if ever hear the Today programme, for example, interviewing ignorant people.

 

Your final sentence suggests that the audience for some reason doesn't want to hear 'reasonable' people, whoever they happen to be.

Martyn, Sorry if it is complicated. 

 

Again, I am not saying that Choudary should have been on.  What I explained was that this error was a result of them feeling obliged to have two sides to every argument, regardless of how reasonable they are.  Part of the reason for this was illustrated with the vaccine debacle, when science was presented as bias.  Many on here felt the problem was that people who knew the issue were given too much platform and people who were shouting nonsense should have had a greater platform on the BBC.  The BBC has learnt through experience like this to give a platform to clearly unreasonable views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martyn, Sorry if it is complicated.

Again, I am not saying that Choudary should have been on. What I explained was that this error was a result of them feeling obliged to have two sides to every argument, regardless of how reasonable they are. Part of the reason for this was illustrated with the vaccine debacle, when science was presented as bias. Many on here felt the problem was that people who knew the issue were given too much platform and people who were shouting nonsense should have had a greater platform on the BBC. The BBC has learnt through experience like this to give a platform to clearly unreasonable views.

In a democracy you're allowed to be wrong, express your wrongness with equal vigour and access to the media, and ultimately turn wrong into right through the ballot box. It's the worst system except for all the others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do, definitely, is like on The Day Today when the Gerry Adams style character had to inhale helium before speaking. This would be more apt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is a big difference between a lone madman and people acting on behalf of others (or so they think)

It wouldn't make sense to ask the local bishop to comment on a serial killer like that. This is a case of people claiming they do something and blame others for it. (IE we are killing this guy because of British foreign policy)

I agree

Although Jesus/god told me to do it is a feature of murders committed by schizophrenics

Didn't the ripper come out with something on those lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree

Although Jesus/god told me to do it is a feature of murders committed by schizophrenics

Didn't the ripper come out with something on those lines?

He did. But Radio 4 didn't interview someone who claimed 'actually, he has a point' did they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did. But Radio 4 didn't interview someone who claimed 'actually, he has a point' did they.

I doubt it

 

But again I agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although Jesus/god told me to do it is a feature of murders committed by schizophrenics

 

Is it really? That's quite a sweeping statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudary appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning talking about the verdict in the Lee Rigby trial.

 

Naturally he refused to condemn the killers, and the presenter John Humphrys proved incapable of exposing Choudary's cant and hypocrisy.

 

It's difficult to know why the BBC keep giving him publicity, treating him as some sort of Muslim spokesman, when clearly he isn't, apart from for a minority of perverted individuals such as the two murderers in this case.

 

As Mehdi Hasan has commented about him: "Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what gives him the right to pontificate on Islam, British Muslims or 'the hellfire'? Or proclaim himself a 'sharia judge'?"

 

That having been said, Choudary was trained as a lawyer and dealt with Humphrys quite impressively. It would be easy to imagine young hotheaded Muslims listening to that interview and siding with him, and joining his so-called jihadi organisation. On the other hand, I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been a relative of Lee Rigby.

 

For reaction to the interview see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10529802/BBC-criticised-for-giving-extremist-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-airtime.html

Of course the fair minded Telegraph are going to give the Beeb a good write up aren't they!?  I listened to the Humphreys interview and I though Chouday was shown up as a total bigot whose opinions are not worth listening to.  The Telegraph really has got a bee in its bonnet about the BBC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017