From: GDHDTHSHS@SDSRSF.COM   
      
   "P.S.Burton"  wrote in message   
   news:1138105372.360346.245990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > The difference is, a policeman exposed as a racist or similar won't   
   > make it his lifes work to hunt you down and kill you for exposing him   
   > and getting him/his friends banged up   
      
   Not necessarily. If reporters were scared of what they were exposing their   
   would be precious little exposes of any kind.   
      
      
   . A jihadist very well might. Thus   
   > the work is *much* more dangerous and finding someone willing to do it   
      
      
   (I don't know how you've got the front to say that, but still...) So what   
   you're saying is, is that nobody wants to do it? So that in a corporation   
   that prides itself on being the world leader, they all look at each other in   
   conference and say: 'I'd like to expose this but I'm too scared.' If you can   
   get reporters who risk beheading, shooting, kidnap and friendly fire in war   
   zones, then can easily get a reporter to go undercover in a mosque. Your   
   argument remains uttlerly, gobsmackingly childish.   
      
      
   > rather more than a matter of finding someone 'brown' off the   
   > multicultural staff.   
      
   Oh yes (I just wanted to give you the chance to talk witheringly to an   
   urchin like me about 'brown people').   
      
      
   >   
   >  > 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?   
   >   
   > They report on the dangers of radical islamic terrorism now though,   
   > don't they?   
      
   I keep reading about how they dislike even the use of the word terrorist.   
   They hide the victims of 7/7. You can bet your arse if the 7th July bombings   
   had been far right attacks against a mosque YOU WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF   
   IT ON THE BBC. However the BBC are far more obessed with the police killing   
   of Menezes.   
      
    And to write/broadcast about how muslims in Britain were   
   > *going* to do something evil *before* they did it wouldn't be   
   > reporting, would it.   
      
   If they had been to Abu Hamza's (or I suspect many others) mosque before the   
   7th July, they would have been able to. But they didn't. Get me?   
      
      
      
      
    It would be guesswork. Inflammatory, offensive   
   > guesswork.   
      
   If they had been to Abu Hamza's (or I suspect many others) mosque before the   
   7th July, it wouldn't have been. But they didn't. Get me?   
      
      
   >I'd say most people saw it coming   
      
   The BBC didn't. They were busy making programmes that said Islamic terrorism   
   was an illusion of neo-cons. Remember 'The Power of Nightmares'? How it was   
   all just something got up by Bush and the Daily Mail?   
      
      
   , but to say so on the   
   > national news would be a bad idea because it would frighten people   
      
   Unfortunately bad news does frighten people. ARe you proposing a censored,   
   nice news? Why don't the BBC cut out more alarming news stories then? They   
   don't spare anything they *want* us to see: projections of ecological   
   meltdown, white-on-black racist crimes for example. I mean I understand you   
   are a utilitarian, but surprised you support the state broadcaster news   
   managing to its own leftist agenda.   
      
      
   ,   
   > offend decent muslims   
      
   When did the BBC worry about offending, say, decent white working class   
   people when they expose the BNP? Your argument is puerile.   
      
      
   and play right into the hands of arseholes like   
   > Griffin.   
      
   They - the BBC and the political classes - already play into his hands by   
   refusing to face up to porblems ordinary people know full well exist.   
   Disenfranchised people will, more and more, vote for what they see as a   
   honest reaction. The Left best learn this if they are not to contribute to   
   the rise of fascism.   
      
      
   They can't just speculate, and run reports along the lines of   
   > "an attack is coming, and it's going to be big, but where? when?"   
      
   They could have reflected the growing anti-western, anti-British invective   
   that was occurring in Mosques and radical Islamic meetings. It was their   
   duty to do so, their duty to do it as much as other exposes. Their ignoring   
   of it is proof positive of their suicidal partiality.   
      
      
    and   
   > that's got nothing to with political outlook. They wouldn't do it about   
   > any group.   
      
   Why did they secretly film Griffin's speeches and not any Islamic fascist   
   ones? Come on. It's no good trying to narrow the argument. They wanted to   
   stuff the BNP for making anti-immigration speeches. They should have done   
   the same to Hamza who was doing the same thing with the opposite target.   
   They didn't.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > > d) The BBC still hasn't engaged with the problem of radical Islam in   
   Britain   
   >   
   > They do report on it don't they?   
      
   They report on it the highly managed way they have developed: for example:   
   Abu Hamza's long defences of hismelf have been reported at length on the   
   BBC. Griffin's and Collett's defences - many of which poke a finger at the   
   BBC - have not been quoted at all. Hamza's getting a better deal from the   
   BBC than Griffin or Collett.   
      
   Since the BBC is blatantly anti-Israel in its agenda anyway, it has far more   
   in common with Hamza. This is the reason Kilroy-Silk was sacked for   
   so-called imflammatory remarks against arabs and Tom Paulin wasn't for   
   definitely imflammatory remarks against Israelis.   
      
      
   I can't speak with any authority   
   > because I haven't got a telly (not snobbery   
      
   Are you saying its snobbery not to have a telly if you can afford one?   
      
      
      
   , can't afford the licence).   
   > When you say engage, what would you have them do, again given a free   
   > hand?   
      
   I would have them get out into the Islamic 'community' and take its   
   temprature honestly. It doesn't do this. The BBC believes it is holding a   
   situation that could worsen (will worsen in my opinion). This is interesting   
   because it shows that the BBC is capable of deviating from its charter and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)