From: GDHDTHSHS@SDSRSF.COM   
      
   "P.S.Burton"  wrote in message   
   news:1138099779.290871.248900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > THE KINKS ARE THE VILLAGE GREEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY wrote:   
   > > "P.S.Burton"  wrote in message   
   > > news:1138096561.091156.61210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > > > The police weren't looking out for it, and there was no real danger   
   > > > involved. The Mosques that peddle Jihad *are* and there *is*.   
   > > >   
   > >   
   > > I'm sorry but your whole defence of the BBC is absolutely risible and   
   you   
   > > must know it. They send reporters all over the world to all the major   
   > > flashpoints and you are seriously suggesting that its too difficult and   
   > > dangerous for a journalist to get inside a public mosque in Bradford or   
   East   
   > > London?  Don't. Be. Silly.   
   > >   
   > > ROBBIE   
   >   
   > I think that there's a consdierable difference between everyday   
   > reporting of events, no matter how dangerous, and infiltrating a mosque   
   > or similar. It's roughly analogous to having police for the day to day   
   > stuff and a separate set of detectives for undercover work. And, if you   
   > look back at my original post, I said "for starters", i.e. it's *a*   
   > reason, not *the* reason. Are you saying that the difficulty and danger   
   > of infiltrating a radical Abu Hamza style mosque i) doesn't exist, ii)   
   > isn't a factor, or something else?   
   >   
      
   I'm saying  all of the below (just to make it clear):   
      
   a) The BBC has undercover reporters. They are very proud of them. These   
   undercover reporters have, in the last 18 months, infiltrated the police and   
   the immigration service to expose racism and 'brutality' in them. To   
   infiltrate, long-term, these institutions is not easy - no undercover work   
   is.   
      
   b) The BBC could easily perform the same trick at a mosque for an hour. It   
   has a large multicultural staff many of whom could pass quite easily as a   
   muslim. The operation would be no more difficult than penetrating the   
   police, in fact easier since no forged documentation or official deception   
   need occur.   
      
   c) The reason the BBC hasn't done this IMO is because of the institutional   
   political outlook in that organisation: they refused to see the threat of   
   radical islamic terrorism because it ran counter to their political beliefs.   
   So they followed the BNP around and bugged the police. However, who killed   
   all those people in London in July? The BNP? The police? The Immigration   
   service?   
      
   d) The BBC still hasn't engaged with the problem of radical Islam in Britain   
   and IMO won't for the above stated reasons. This is a gross dereliction of   
   its duty as a broadcaster and as clear a signal of its supine political   
   correctness.   
      
   e) The BBC screened a melodrama about racism last year called 'England   
   Expects'. It identified the far-right as the biggest danger facing londoners   
   in terms of destabilising terrorist activity. Muslims were portrayed as   
   worthy victims. However, on the 7th July 2005...   
      
   Try not to delete everything in this post and then write some gnomic   
   utterance which you hope will get you off the hook: it doesn't work.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)