Transphobia is a hate crime in the West but not in Saudi Arabia?

Transphobia hjas been fingered as a huge hate crime problem in the West at the moment, cheer lead by the priests of political correctness - the BBC. Objecting to men who identify as women using the ladies at a public facility is a hate crime and the BBC will report every infraction BUT this sort of story is of no interest to the BBC because it hapened in a Muslim majority land.

Apparently:

'Two transgender Pakistanis were reportedly packed into sacks and thrashed to death with sticks by police in Saudi Arabia. 

The pair from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, were arrested in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for cross-dressing in public. 

It is a punishable offence in the kingdom for a man to imitate a woman and officers arrested 35 people in a raid on a guest house. 

...

 

While 11 were released later after paying a fine of 150,000 riyals (£32,000), 22 are still in police custody, Naseem added.

'The suffering ended for these two after being physically tortured, however, the rest are still languishing in Saudi jails.

'No one is there to save them as the life of a transgender is not of any value to anyone, not even for our own government.' '

It seems that when the BBC's pro-transgenderism comes into conflict with its pro-Islam obsession, it's Islam that wins.

Oxford marks Hebdo attack with Voltaire per BBC News

Of course this BBC piece approving of free speech, and the Oxford University campaign for it, manages not to mention the Oxford students campaign to rid Oriel College of the statue of Cecil Rhodes. Nor of the campaign to ban Donald Trump from the UK that they have been happily promoting.

The BBC are very capable of simultaneously holding two completely contradictory thoughts, George Orwell would be so unamazed.

Songs to ban from the BBC? - NSFW - Warning songs include the 'n' word, quite a lot in some cases

The BBC have just let a rather elderly local radio DJ go for having the temerity to play 'The Sun Has Got His Hat On' a song that includes the (as it is now almost compulsory to say) 'n' word. This comes soon after they censured Jeremy Clarkson for maybe or maybe not muttering that same word under his breath during a recital of 'Eenie Meenie, Minee Mo'. However I note that at the BBC not all their output is as regularly policed for the 'n' word. There are numerous repetitions of the 'n' word in Pulp Fiction which I think the BBC has broadcast but also in many songs, some of which I have definitely heard on the BBC and others which I doubt the BBC would refuse to play on one of it's 'music' stations.



Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five - New York New York



Elvis Costello - Oliver's Army



Stiff Little Fingers - White Noise
This song may have more 'racist' words than any other... lyrics here.



NWA (aka Niggas With Attitude) - Straight Out of Compton



Ice-T - Straight Up Nigga



Ice Cube Ft Lil Jon - Roll Call



Eminem and Biggie and 50 Cent - Realest Nigga



Snoop Dog - Vato



Kelis ft Clipse milkshake remix 



Public Enemy - I don't want to be called Yo Niga 




Now I'll be honest, I only knew the first three songs straight off, the others needed some looking up. 

I do like the output of Grandmaster Flash: it's intelligible, often intelligent and has musicality that is so often missing from the likes of Public Enemy etc. I used to love Elvis Costello's songs although his politics grates more and more now. Stiff Little Fingers are not my favourite punk era band but they had their moments, I'm not sure White Noise is one of them.

After those three there were a huge number of (mostly) American, Gangster Crap (the c is silent) tracks that I could have picked, most of which are unintelligible, unintelligent and lacking any discernible musicality. 

I spent much of my time at school being called 'Yid' or 'Yiddo', did I like it? No. Did I want the people shouting it to stop? Yes. As an adult would I run screaming to the police if someone called me the same today? No, because I'm an adult and those words only cause upset if I allow them to.

'I am doing everything I can' - apart from watching defamatory programmes before they are broadcast, that is.

This screen grab shows the BBC's problem regarding the Lord McAlpine defamation

George Entwistle is doing everything he can but George Entwistle also admits that he didn't see the Newsnight report, which led to Lord McAlpine being wrongly implicated in child sexual abuse, before it was broadcast. Somewhat too late George Entwistle says that the Newsnight film should not have been broadcast.

What gives me hope is the news that Lord McAlpine is seriously considering  taking legal action against the BBC:

'"Then we have to look at Newsnight and... the way in which they behaved, the way they trailed, they made it obvious who it was, or who they alleged it was by referring people to the internet."'

What happened seems fairly clear to me; the BBC and its Labour allies saw a way of taking attention away from the Jimmy Saville story and placing the spotlight onto the hated Tory party. Tom Watson raised the matter in the House of Commons during PMQs on 24 October:

"Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10."

The BBC took the story forward with its Newsnight programme, a programme that cast serious aspersions without every even showing the alleged victim any photos of the alleged culprit. Basic journalism you'd have thought, but not at the BBC.

When even The New Statesman and The Guardian can spot the problems with Tom Watson and the BBC's coverage, you know that the left have a problem.

John Redwood has a pretty good feel for the BBC/Labour motives:

'Some  Conservatives feel particularly unhappy about the way this has been treated. Of course the treatment of the wrongly accused is the worst feature, but they are not happy that in a fairly unsuccessful attempt to disguise his name the Conservative party was accused of harbouring a paedophile in the Thatcher era. Some Conservatives will ask why the unnamed person had to be described in this way. Would the BBC have said a senior figure of the Callaghan or Wilson era, if the dates had been different, or were they as often seems the case, out to attack Margaret Thatcher?  Would they have constantly repeated the word Labour, if the senior figure had been from that party, or sufficed themselves with a general word like politician? Why, in the North Wales abuse cases, did the BBC not constantly refer also to Clwyd Council, the  Council responsible for the childrens’   homes? Clwyd was certainly not a Conservative Council. Why did  they not add the Labour party label to a very nasty set of incidents if they thought the fact that it was a national Conservative government mattered? Why didn’t the unpublished Clwyd report into the abuse crisis become a matter of interest, as well as the wide  ranging enquiry ordered and published by Conservative Ministers?'

What is also interesting is that Tom Watson asked another question in the House of Commons recently,

Hansard 29 October:
'Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many files relating to the premiership of Sir Edward Heath (a) are retained by Government Departments and (b) have been transferred to the National Archives but have not yet been released under the 30 Year Rule. [124917]'

Anything you'd like to add Mr Watson?

'Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard'

The BBC are relentless in informing us that 'Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard has been asked by the BBC to investigate why the Newsnight investigation was dropped last year. He will look at whether there were any management failings by the BBC. He will also look at the handling by the Newsnight investigation of material that might have been of interest to the police or relevant authorities.'

Oddly the BBC seem completely uninterested in telling us that prior to working at Sky he had worked at the BBC. BFBS tells us that:

'Nick Pollard, 58, has had a distinguished career in British journalism spanning four decades, and has extensive experience in domestic and international news coverage. Nick says he "sort of fell into journalism" when he joined the Birkenhead News on leaving school at 17 and has enjoyed it ever since. He has worked for BBC Radio News, BBC TV News, and, for 13 years, ITN where he was Executive Producer of News at Ten. Most recently he was Head of Sky News for 10 years from 1996 to 2006, scooping four RTS 'News Channel of the Year' Awards in a row and winning two BAFTAS for Best News Coverage.'

Wikipedia tells us that:

'He was born in Birkenhead and was educated at Birkenhead School.^[1] He started his career in journalism as a reporter at the Birkenhead News, and later worked for the BBC in Liverpool and London.^[1] He was executive producer at ITN for 13 years, before joining Sky News where he worked from 1996 to 2006.^[2][3] In 2009 he was appointed as chief executive of the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC), responsible for providing broadcasting and cinema services to British forces and their families.^[2]'

Alongside the above note the news as revealed by Guido Fawkes that  the law firm chosen to 'gather evidence for these two inquiries has... previously defended the BBC in litigation cases on numerous occasions' and that 'No less than six of their current lawyers have worked for the BBC in the past.' Also that  'Most interestingly of all, this year Reed Smith hosted a series of conferences entitled “Protecting the Media”.

Hmmm this investigation is looking all totally above-board isn't it?

The Jimmy Saville affair

I've been following the Jimmy Saville affair with some interest, watching and listening as various BBC bigwigs twisted and turned in the unfamiliar glare of scrutiny. I heard parts of the DCMS quetioning of George Entwistle and the Radio 4 Media Show last night where Steve Hewlett asked some direct and pertinent questions of David Jordan, the Director of Editorial Policy and Standards at the BBC.Take a listen and enjoy the sound of a BBC chief frantically trying to explain without saying anything of note.

Meanwhile we have heard that BBC Trust Chairman Chris Patten has warned the government not to question the corporation's editorial independence in relation to its handling of the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal. Thinly veiled threats from a CINO to a dripping wet Conservative led coalition. In any case, the BBC tell me that 'The purpose of the BBC Trust is to work on behalf of licence fee payers, ensuring the BBC provides high quality output and good value for all UK citizens, and to protect the independence of the BBC.' Did you spot that 'work on behalf of licence fee payers' not try and stop anyone criticising or investigating alleged wrongdoing at the BBC.

It seems to me that there is a lot more to come out re the BBC in the Savile affair.
I don't think anyone doubts that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile. It also seems that he seemed not to bother covering up his activities whilst working on BBC premises.
So how did managers not know what was happening on BBC premises when others have admitted that they knew? A BBC employee was having sexual relations with underage girls on BBC premises and rather than censure him or fire him, the BBC continued to employ him and use him to front more programmes, including ones that involved him being put in close proximity to children.

If all the above is true, and does anyone think it isn't, then how can the BBC avoid taking corporate responsibility for the abuse?



By the Way: If you haven't yet done so, may I suggest that you watch the Panorama Report into the Newsnight Jimmy Saville story, it is absolutly fascinating .

One difference between Israel and the palestinian Authority

In Israel Muslims can own land, vote, be elected to the Knesset (Parliament), become judges; in short have the same rights as Jews. In the Palestinian Authority administered 'West Bank' this is not the case for Jews: currently at least 16 Palestinians are in PA prisons for selling property to Jews. I am informed that nine of these Palestinians face the death penalty.

It is illegal in the Palestinian Authority territory to sell land to Jews. Where is the international outrage? Where is the cry of 'apartheid'? Where is the BBC documentary team? Why is it only Israel that is censured, when the Palestinians often are more discriminatory and certainly more filled with hate?

The BBC making a mountain out of a molehill

On wednesday I blogged about how the BBC were giving undue prominence to a nothing story, giving it massive coverage so as to get Labour back on the front-foot and boost some anti-establishment sentiment following an incredibly popular Diamond Jubilee. Yesterday it emerged that the Labour/BBC story was not all that it seemed and the the Daily Mail printed a rather more balanced view:

'Around 80 unemployed people were driven to London on Sunday from Bristol, Plymouth and Bath. But the coach company mistimed the length of the journey and dropped them off at 3am instead of 5am. Instead of staying, the drivers left the drop-off point.

One volunteer, Robert Cooke, 30, from Plymouth, said: ‘A couple of people have complained about things that weren’t controlled by CPUK – the coach drivers who insisted on leaving, and the weather.’

...

The complaints were reported at length by The Guardian, which quoted two unnamed jobseekers claiming they were forced to camp overnight under London Bridge before they started work on the river pageant.

They were then picked up by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, becoming the subject of its main interview slot at 8.10am, and again by The World At One at lunchtime.

Labour’s former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott also weighed in, demanding an inquiry in a letter to Home Secretary Theresa May.

He said: ‘Not only was it under the bridge, but they were then sent to a camp which they described as “swampy and wet” after this event, almost becoming a development of labour camps. Is this going to be the circumstances for the Olympic sites?’

Labour’s deputy chairman Tom Watson wrote on Twitter: ‘Young people as commodities with few rights in a show of opulence by state elites? Isn’t there a powerful symbolism to that?’'

The Mail also has some direct quotations from people willing to be quoted, unlike The Guardian/BBC alliance who relied upon anonymous comments and the bluster of John 'does anyone take this individual seriously' Prescott:

'Among the volunteer stewards defending Close Protection UK yesterday was Robert Cooke, 30, from Plymouth.

He pointed out that the company could have done nothing about the cold weather, or the coach drivers’ decision to leave after dropping off the stewards two hours early.

He added: ‘Organisers found somewhere for us to shelter, and said that if any of us wanted to get into our sleeping bags to keep warm, then we could.

‘Most of us just stayed up chatting. It was a good laugh, and we had access to the portable loos the whole time.’

Mr Cooke, who hopes to work for CPUK during the Olympics, added: ‘They have paid for all the training for my licence and an NVQ in crowd safety.

‘They gave us boots worth £80, and a uniform. We worked out that what they’ve spent is the equivalent of us being paid £45 an hour.’

In a message to the company, Kirsty Nicholls, 23, also from Plymouth, said: ‘I would like to thank CPUK for the amazing experience I was a part of this weekend.

'I am extremely grateful for this opportunity. We were treated with the utmost respect and highly praised for the work we had done.

‘I personally volunteered to do all three days work as I found the experience incredibly pleasurable. I look forward to a long career with CPUK.’

Markus Hanks, another volunteer, said: ‘Thanks for a great time at the Diamond Jubilee. Brilliant company to work for, great staff, brilliant atmosphere between everyone, looking forward to working with Close Protection UK again at the London 2012 Olympics. I’m supporting you and the Close Protection UK 110%.’

One text message to CPUK’s operations director Danny Sheehan said: ‘Just wanted to say thanks for the weekend, had a great time, got some good experience. Look forward to working with you in the future.’

Another said: ‘Thank you for the chance of the work experience in London’, adding that it had stood them in good stead of getting a job.'

The BBC have dropped the story as far down their news website as they reasonably could bearing in mind it was headline news 48 hours earlier. But the damage has been done, the story has been established in the public mind and no doubt one or more lefty 'comedian' will be opining on the return to Dickensian labour conditions under a Tory toff lead government on Friday's News Quiz.

The BBC gave huge airtime to the SWP last year in order to publicise their campaign against such work experience schemes. The BBC long ago ceased to have any claim to be an impartial news organisation, for a while they have been a campaigning organisation on many subjects and a real Conservative Prime Minister would address the problem, I leave it to you to decide why David Cameron has done nothing.

Meanwhile the BBC who went with this attack have been caught out. The Telegraph reports that:

'Documents released under Freedom of Information laws show that 6,283 people have worked for the Corporation (BBC) for free since 2007.

Asked what rights interns had, the BBC stated: "Volunteers do not have any employment rights," adding that it had “no budget” for paying them a wage or expenses.

A BBC source said last night: "These interns do a valuable job - they really help out with any number of projects and they do it all for nothing in the hope of getting a job at the end of it. '

The BBC's hypocrisy is staggering but predictable. What is also predictable is that our CINO