For anyone in doubt (and I was) it's been an eye-opener about the integrity of the media and the forces that must exist within some newsdesks' middle management and beyond to squash any story that doesn't go along with their agenda.
I'm not saying the Daily Mail doesn't do this when it suits, but at least the DM is ensuring that a large chunk of people know the truth about Jihadi Daddy, even if others are doing their best to keep the lid on this one.
He's a hardliner and a liar, the teddy bear and Chelsea shirt is a facade, but some 'journalists' are still pumping out this false image.
Hasn't the DM's update on this story been lifted from The Times? Where did I read that? Can't remember, but I'm sure I did.
For anyone in doubt (and I was) it's been an eye-opener about the integrity of the media and the forces that must exist within some newsdesks' middle management and beyond to squash any story that doesn't go along with their agenda..
I kind of agree. considering what a massive story it was when it first broke, followed by him and the family all over the press and media making statements and calling for her to return.
There does seem to be something dodgy going on here.
Yes you are right. The DM often (more than often) Nick stories from others.
I'd like to read the Times article because from the bit I can see it seems that the families of the other girls have cut Mr Hussen off from them.
No more joint trips to Turkey or the Palaces of Westminster I guess.
ETA, in fact I would like to hear from these families, with perhaps an acknowledgment about their hasty blaming of the police.
I read that not only Mr Hussen, but the father of the first girl who left from Behnal Green Academy, initially turned to CAGE for advice.......
Yes I'd like to know what the families of the two other Jihadettes feel about Hussen. He was front of stage when all the weeping woe was going on. There was also that odd bit at the Select Committee hearing when the senior police officer revealed that they believe the trip had been funded by the theft of family jewellery. Some of the family witnesses gave that a look of disbelief, either angry it came out, or in shock. There's an additional story here. It may well be that the other families feel the 'groomer' in the case of their kids was him and his daughter.
Yes I'd like to know what the families of the two other Jihadettes feel about Hussen. He was front of stage when all the weeping woe was going on. There was also that odd bit at the Select Committee hearing when the senior police officer revealed that they believe the trip had been funded by the theft of family jewellery. Some of the family witnesses gave that a look of disbelief, either angry it came out, or in shock. There's an additional story here. It may well be that the other families feel the 'groomer' in the case of their kids was him and his daughter.
Indeed.
But at the risk of putting on my tinfoil hat - with the exception of the Mail this story seems to have been completely buried and I find that rather sinister - especially the BBC's paper reviews which have airbrushed the Mail out of existence whenever they have mentioned Hussen.
Yes I'd like to know what the families of the two other Jihadettes feel about Hussen. He was front of stage when all the weeping woe was going on. There was also that odd bit at the Select Committee hearing when the senior police officer revealed that they believe the trip had been funded by the theft of family jewellery. Some of the family witnesses gave that a look of disbelief, either angry it came out, or in shock. There's an additional story here. It may well be that the other families feel the 'groomer' in the case of their kids was him and his daughter.
Yes it would be interesting to hear the other families side of the story. But I very much doubt they would be willing to speak to the press or perhaps they have been advised not to by their legal representation.
But at the risk of putting on my tinfoil hat - with the exception of the Mail this story seems to have been completely buried and I find that rather sinister - especially the BBC's paper reviews which have airbrushed the Mail out of existence whenever they have mentioned Hussen.
It casts doubt on the legitimacy of the BBC 'paper reviews'. Between them the Sun, Mail and Mirror outsell all the other "nationals" each day. The Mail outsells the Guardian nine times, and the Independent 30 times over, but the BBC would much rather talk about them, I suppose.
I understand you are concerned about BBC News coverage of allegations that Abase Hussen attended extremist rallies. I note you feel it important this story is included in our reports given coverage previously of Mr Hussen’s daughter’s disappearance.
We are aware of video said to show Mr Hussen at a rally in 2012 and have looked into the matter ourselves.
We did not consider it merited a report on its own, but it was included in a TV report due to run on the evening of Friday, March 27th. Unfortunately, because of other news priorities - including the court verdict in the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case - it did not make it to air.
There are several factors that we take into consideration when deciding how to put together our news bulletins. For example, whether the story is new and requires immediate coverage, how unusual the story is, and how much national interest there is in it. These decisions are always judgement calls rather than an exact science, however it is a story that we may well return to in the future.
What twaddle i really wish we could opt out the BBC and the licence fee pile of rubbish
Given the current media debate surrounding the nature of radicalisation, the revelation that one of the fathers attended an extremist rally strikes me as being of great "national interest". But I guess the BBC thought otherwise.
Given the current media debate surrounding the nature of radicalisation, the revelation that one of the fathers attended an extremist rally strikes me as being of great "national interest". But I guess the BBC thought otherwise.
The bbc think it knows whats in the British public best interests>:(
Plus they do not want to upset the muslims views.
You are right to.
This matter has completely changed my perspective of the BBC after 40 plus years. I'll not trust it again. It's not that I don't recognise their right to work with 'news priorities', but in this case they themselves had been pushing out a false perspective. In choosing to stop covering the story when the truth came out they have really shown themselves up.
When the story broke, Majjid Newaz tweeted the Daily Mail story caused 'anti-Muslim hate'.
It's safe to assume the BBC don't want to be accuseed of causing 'Islamophobia'
Or they're scared of upsetting the 'peaceful Muslim' community and don't want Abdul, Jamal, Tariq and friends storming their buildings, lobbing grenades and magdumping AKs before executing hostages live on air.
You are right to.
This matter has completely changed my perspective of the BBC after 40 plus years. I'll not trust it again. It's not that I don't recognise their right to work with 'news priorities', but in this case they themselves had been pushing out a false perspective. In choosing to stop covering the story when the truth came out they have really shown themselves up.
That just about sums it up. For day after day, both on the TV and their news website, the BBC had no problems with covering the story in every detail. When something unpalatable popped up they dropped the story like a hot potato. It's so obvious.
Hmmm, that Knox/Kercher case was more the stuff of TV drama and had little impact other than the families involved. The terrorist supporting father was far more important as it involved the police, select committees, Islamic state and the muslim community in general.
That just about sums it up. For day after day, both on the TV and their news website, the BBC had no problems with covering the story in every detail. When something unpalatable popped up they dropped the story like a hot potato. It's so obvious.
And of course, none of their pathetic excuse covers the strange case of how they managed to 'lose' the Daily Mail during the paper reviews. >:(. If there was no time to cover the story on the main news because of Foxy Knoxy , it could easily have been dealt with in the review section but somehow all mention of the DM, a top selling paper, just vanished. Arrogant agenda-suiting bastids.
And of course, none of their pathetic excuse covers the strange case of how they managed to 'lose' the Daily Mail during the paper reviews. >:(. If there was no time to cover the story on the main news because of Foxy Knoxy , it could easily have been dealt with in the review section but somehow all mention of the DM, a top selling paper, just vanished. Arrogant agenda-suiting bastids.
Unfortunately I failed to mention that in my original complaint. The email I received is out-going only so if I want to reply I have to do it via the BBC's website. I didn't see the segment where the Mail was dropped from the paper reviews. I don't suppose anyone knows which day it happened? Or when exactly?
And of course, none of their pathetic excuse covers the strange case of how they managed to 'lose' the Daily Mail during the paper reviews. >:(. If there was no time to cover the story on the main news because of Foxy Knoxy , it could easily have been dealt with in the review section but somehow all mention of the DM, a top selling paper, just vanished. Arrogant agenda-suiting bastids.
They are rapidly losing people's respect with their utterly blatant pro-Islamic agenda.
Whatever happened to the BBC's famed journalistic neutrality?
Comments
Hasn't the DM's update on this story been lifted from The Times? Where did I read that? Can't remember, but I'm sure I did.
I kind of agree. considering what a massive story it was when it first broke, followed by him and the family all over the press and media making statements and calling for her to return.
There does seem to be something dodgy going on here.
Yes you are right. The DM often (more than often) Nick stories from others.
I'd like to read the Times article because from the bit I can see it seems that the families of the other girls have cut Mr Hussen off from them.
No more joint trips to Turkey or the Palaces of Westminster I guess.
ETA, in fact I would like to hear from these families, with perhaps an acknowledgment about their hasty blaming of the police.
I read that not only Mr Hussen, but the father of the first girl who left from Behnal Green Academy, initially turned to CAGE for advice.......
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/hedgerow/files/2015/03/05.20.14news-trull-hitler-bus-edit.jpg
probably tme to put these posters on buses here :kitty:
then vote UKIP
Yes I'd like to know what the families of the two other Jihadettes feel about Hussen. He was front of stage when all the weeping woe was going on. There was also that odd bit at the Select Committee hearing when the senior police officer revealed that they believe the trip had been funded by the theft of family jewellery. Some of the family witnesses gave that a look of disbelief, either angry it came out, or in shock. There's an additional story here. It may well be that the other families feel the 'groomer' in the case of their kids was him and his daughter.
Indeed.
But at the risk of putting on my tinfoil hat - with the exception of the Mail this story seems to have been completely buried and I find that rather sinister - especially the BBC's paper reviews which have airbrushed the Mail out of existence whenever they have mentioned Hussen.
Yes it would be interesting to hear the other families side of the story. But I very much doubt they would be willing to speak to the press or perhaps they have been advised not to by their legal representation.
It casts doubt on the legitimacy of the BBC 'paper reviews'. Between them the Sun, Mail and Mirror outsell all the other "nationals" each day. The Mail outsells the Guardian nine times, and the Independent 30 times over, but the BBC would much rather talk about them, I suppose.
I smell BS.
You can. Just do what I do, don't pay it.
Given the current media debate surrounding the nature of radicalisation, the revelation that one of the fathers attended an extremist rally strikes me as being of great "national interest". But I guess the BBC thought otherwise.
The bbc think it knows whats in the British public best interests>:(
Plus they do not want to upset the muslims views.
When the story broke, Majjid Newaz tweeted the Daily Mail story caused 'anti-Muslim hate'.
It's safe to assume the BBC don't want to be accuseed of causing 'Islamophobia'
You are right to.
This matter has completely changed my perspective of the BBC after 40 plus years. I'll not trust it again. It's not that I don't recognise their right to work with 'news priorities', but in this case they themselves had been pushing out a false perspective. In choosing to stop covering the story when the truth came out they have really shown themselves up.
Or they're scared of upsetting the 'peaceful Muslim' community and don't want Abdul, Jamal, Tariq and friends storming their buildings, lobbing grenades and magdumping AKs before executing hostages live on air.
That just about sums it up. For day after day, both on the TV and their news website, the BBC had no problems with covering the story in every detail. When something unpalatable popped up they dropped the story like a hot potato. It's so obvious.
And of course, none of their pathetic excuse covers the strange case of how they managed to 'lose' the Daily Mail during the paper reviews. >:(. If there was no time to cover the story on the main news because of Foxy Knoxy , it could easily have been dealt with in the review section but somehow all mention of the DM, a top selling paper, just vanished. Arrogant agenda-suiting bastids.
Unfortunately I failed to mention that in my original complaint. The email I received is out-going only so if I want to reply I have to do it via the BBC's website. I didn't see the segment where the Mail was dropped from the paper reviews. I don't suppose anyone knows which day it happened? Or when exactly?
They are rapidly losing people's respect with their utterly blatant pro-Islamic agenda.
Whatever happened to the BBC's famed journalistic neutrality?