The BBC hiding facts again

This BBC article about the latest child sex offence case seems to be lacking some details, here's the whole piece:

'West Yorkshire Police have charged 25 men with child sex offences including rape, grooming and trafficking.

The offences are alleged to have been committed between 2006 and 2011 and largely relate to one girl who was under 16 at the time.

The men are mainly from Halifax or Bradford, but also Huddersfield, Derby, Shipley, Nantwich and Newport in Wales.

All 25 have been released on bail and are due to appear before Calderdale Magistrates' Court on 12 February.

The full list of charges are rape, trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, sexual activity with a child under 16, sexual assault, voyeurism, sexual grooming, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16, causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity without consent and supply of a controlled drug of class B.

One of the allegations also relates to a second victim, during the same time period.'

25 men 'mainly from Halifax or Bradford, but also Huddersfield, Derby, Shipley, Nantwich and Newport in Wales.' Hmmm and the names of these men who the BBC choose not to list?

Breitbart have the list:

'HEDAR ALI, 35, of Nantwich, Cheshire. He is charged with rape (x2) and trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation (x2)
FASIL MAHMOOD, 35, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 and supply of a class B Drug
ZAMEER ASIF, 24, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child
MOHAMMED RAMZAN, 34, of Bradford. He is charged with Conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16, rape and trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
KHALID ZAMAN, 37, of Bradford. He is charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16, rape (x2) and supply of a class B drug
ATAF ALI, 32, of Bradford. He is charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16 and voyeurism.
MOHAMMED FIAZ ASKAR, 32, of Bradford. He is charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16
AESAN PERVEZ, 26, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual assault (x3)
MANSOOR AKHTAR, 23, of Huddersfield. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x2) and the supply of a class B drug.
FURQAAN GHAFAR, 30, Derby. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16
AFTAB HUSSAIN, 35, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual grooming, sexual assault and sexual activity with a child under 16 (x2)
TALIB SADDIQ, 29, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x2)
AMAAR ALI DITTA, 25, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x2)
SIKANDER MALIK, 30, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16
AKBAR AZIZ HUSSAIN, 29, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 and supply of a class B drug
AZEEM SUBHANI, 23, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x2)
TAHIR MAHMOOD, 42, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x3) and sexual assault
MOHAMMED AHMED, 41, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16
HAARIS AHMED, 31, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x3) and supply of a class B drug (x3)
TAUKEER BUTT, 29, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16 (x4)
ARSHAD MAJID, 24, of Shipley. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16
CHRISTOPHER MULQUEEN-BENNETT, 36, of Newport (Gwent). He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16.
MUHAMMED ASIM JANJUHA, 33, of Bradford. He is charged with rape.
HAIDER ALI, 39, of Halifax. He is charged with rape, sexual activity with a child under 16 and causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity without consent
SIKANDER ISHAQ, 30, of Halifax. He is charged with sexual activity with a child under 16.'

Now what exactly is it that links these 25 men?

Why am I, yet again, reminded of this sketch?

The BBC must be so frustrated this morning

Ordinarily the news that a David Cameron aide had been arrested for anything, let alone an offence "relating to child abuse imagery", would be headline news at the BBC.

However the PIE affair is still hanging over Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and her husband Jack "winner of an all women's shortlist" Dromey. Also we all remember very clearly that the BBC ignored the PIE story until it was impossible to continue to do so.

So the BBC just can't go big on this story, they must be so frustrated this morning.

The suitable age for marriage - According to a fatwa from Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz

The Suitable Age For Marriage

Question: What is the suitable age for marriage for men and women, because some young women do not accept marriage from those who are older than them? Likewise, some men do not marry women who are older than them. We request a response and may Allaah reward you with goodness.

Answer: I advise young women not to refuse marriage from a man due to his age, such as being ten, twenty or thirty years older than her. This is not a reason, because the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi was salam, married 'A'ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, when he was fifty-three years old and she was a girl of nine years old. So being older does not harm. There is no sin in the woman being older, nor any sin in the man being older, because the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi was salam, married Khadijah, may Allaah be pleased with her, when she was forty years old and he was twenty-five years old, before the Revelation came to him, sallallaahu alayhi was salam; that is, she, may Allaah be pleased with her, was fifteen years older than him. Then he married 'A'ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, when she was small - six or seven years old and he was fifty-three years old. Many of those who speak on the radio or television deter people from marriage between men and women of differing ages - this is all wrong & saying such things is not permissable for them. It is obligatory for a woman to look at the (prospective) husband, and if he is righteous and suitable, she should agree, even if he is older than her. Similarly, a man should devote himself to finding a righteous, religious woman, even if she is older than him, if she is still young and still fertile. In short, the age should not be an excuse and it should not be considered something shameful, as long as the man is righteous and the woman is righteous. May Allaah reform the situation of us all.

Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz

Fatawa Islamiyah, volume 5, The Book of Marriage, page 169-170

This and more at Fatwah Islam

I came across this fatah having first read Sheikh Fawzan's thoughts on Muslim “child-marriage”

'Muslim “child-marriage” — euphemism for pedophilia — is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”
Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6 years old, “consummating” the marriage — or, in modern parlance, raping her — when she was 9.
The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”'

Vile? Disgusting? Sanctioned by Fatwa...

'If the BBC had devoted as many reporters to the paedophile scandal as it’s devoting to the BBC scandal, there wouldn’t be a BBC scandal.'

'If the BBC had devoted as many reporters to the paedophile scandal as it’s devoting to the BBC scandal, there wouldn’t be a BBC scandal.'

Read more of Michael Deacon's article in The Telegraph . It's well worth a read.

The eighty-ninth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is the BBC for the headline 'Paedophiles 'increasingly access images from webcams''
Really, d'ya think? "No shit, Sherlock"


In fact the BBC are just reporting the findings of The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) who say it has seen a "notable increase" in still and moving images captured on webcams.

This was obvious from the moment the story broke

As soon as I heard about the new scanners at Manchester Airport I realised that someone would use the "paedo" clause to protect children. And just a week later I am proved right as Action on Rights for Childen (Arch) claim the Rapiscan equipment could break the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image of a child. As a result, security staff at Manchester Airport have been banned from using new "see-through" security scanners on passengers aged under 18.

Excellent, do my rights not to be blown up count for less than the rights of a child not to be scanned?

“I got into the habit of paying for boys...All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously."

Not my words, nor my interest, but those of Frédéric Mitterrand France’s culture minister. What is odd is that he made these remarks and more in a book published in his 2005 autobiography "The Bad Life" but only now is he getting any degree of grief.

"I got into the habit of paying for boys...All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously."

"One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint but it pleases me beyond the reasonable."

No wonder Frédéric Mitterrand has emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski.

How to keep children safe from paedophiles

Ex-Pedophile Shares Tips On How To Make Your Kids Less Attractive
"The Onion" getting very close to the bone and/or satirising "Chris Morris" style the media's superficiality and paranoia regarding paedophilia.

Here's Chris Morris's Brass Eye 2001 Special 'Peadogeddon'

Everyone is guilty unless they pay to be proved innocent (update)

I blogged recently about this Labour government's regular school visitor vetting scheme and noted that

"Isn't great to live in a country where every adult is under suspicion of being a paedophile if they visit a school, take photos in a park, smile at a child walking past...

In a totalitarian state all are guilty of something, it is just up to the state to decide who to arrest and when."

So when I learnt that the scheme is predicted to raise £578 million for the UK coffers. As is so often with this government, it's about money and control.

Everyone is guilty unless they pay to be proved innocent

This most totalitarian Labour government, one that seems to have based its principles (such as they are) on George Orwell's 1984 and the East German Stasi, has now upset some famous authors and other school visitors. Even the ever loyal BBC has to report that:

"Several high-profile authors are to stop visiting schools in protest at new laws requiring them to be vetted to work with youngsters.

Philip Pullman, author of fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, said the idea was "ludicrous and insulting".

Former children's laureates Anne Fine and Michael Morpurgo have hit out at the scheme which costs £64 per person.

...

Mr Pullman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's actually rather dispiriting and sinister.

"Why should I pay £64 to a government agency to give me a little certificate to say I'm not a paedophile.

"Children are abused in the home, not in classes of 30 or groups of 200 in the assembly hall with teachers looking on."

Anthony Horowitz - author of the popular Alex Rider series - wrote in a comment article for the Independent: "In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile.

"After 30 years writing books, visiting schools, hospitals, prisons, spreading an enthusiasm for culture and literacy, I find this incredibly insulting."

He added that the database "poisons the special relationship that exists between children and authors they admire"."

So if I decide to go back to my old school to impart my experience of the world of blogging, do I need to be checked out? What if I only talk to sixth formers? What if I only talk over a web link?


Isn't great to live in a country where every adult is under suspicion of being a paedophile if they visit a school, take photos in a park, smile at a child walking past...

In a totalitarian state all are guilty of something, it is just up to the state to decide who to arrest and when.

Closer to reality by the month

Last year I posted a piece about the fear of paedophiles, I think that a repeat showing of the two "Monkey Dust" "Paedofinder General" videos is called for along with some extra ones.

You and your children belong to the state

Take a read of Devils Kitchen commenting on a Manchester Evening News report of a ridiculous incident that happened in Oldham. The Manchester Evening News report runs "A COUPLE were banned from taking photographs of their baby daughter on a swing by a park warden who declared it `inappropriate.'

Steve Brook and partner Mandy Smith were having a family day out with 11-month-old Rebecca when the council worker swooped.

"It beggars belief," said Steve, 35. "The fact that a mummy and daddy can't take a picture of their own daughter is ridiculous. I could understand if it was in a swimming pool, but she was well wrapped-up and as far as I could see we were the only people in the park."

Town hall officials said the warden had misinterpreted council policy when he confronted the family at Alexandra Park in Oldham.
...

Steve, an off-licence manager from Clarksfield in Oldham said: "A man in a high-visibility jacket came over and told us we couldn't take pictures. I asked him why and he said it was illegal to take pictures of children in the park. I explained it was my own daughter but he still said it wasn't allowed.""


What scares me more than the fact that a park warden feels that he can stop a parent taking photos of their own child is that the parent said "I could understand if it was in a swimming pool, but she was well wrapped-up and as far as I could see we were the only people in the park." The fear of paedophiles being everywhere is out of hand.

How long before this sort of thing is more truth than fiction?


Also from Monkey Dust's Paedofinder General comes this version of Arthur Brown's "Fire" ...