Tag Archives: british

Make Bradford British is what Britain needs; HARDCORE REALITY

by

2


Ok, so I was expecting to be riled up by the “Make Bradford British” programme. I had seen many criticisms of the programme tonight on social networks, stating that it was racist propaganda etc. so it’s safe to say I had preconceptions. But after viewing part one I must admit it is one of the most insightful programmes I have seen in a very long time. Not only that, this programme is exactly what the public need to open their eyes.

Force 8 people who would deny each other of their British identity to live together one house. They each have drastically different values and lifestyles from the food they eat to the clothes they wear. So what happens?

Firstly conflict, a clear lack of understanding and bewilderment of these unfamiliar people. People become defensive, cling to their own values and use them as strength. But they use that strength to attack one another. Then, they realise they cannot live in this way. It is simply not possible. So a compromise is made. In this case, Rashid agrees to pray on a trip with his new housemates rather than the Mosque.

I did feel bad for Rashid. Perhaps this would cause more controversy, perhaps he would be resentful. Did his new housemates expect him to be like them? No, no, no. They showed him gratitude. Not only that, they learnt of what his prayers meant to him by seeing him pray. One lady who previously referred to Rashid as a “dickhead” was even brought to tears.

“Give me your hand Rashid, Thank you for coming, because you’ve helped me to an understanding.”

And as for Rashid, was he a sell out? No way near. He showed incredible strength. He realised that his heart was dedicated to God wherever he prayed and in that devotion, his compromise brought unity to this community. It was nothing less than beautiful.

Another guy, Damon. I admit, he’s the kind of guy I’d look at and call a racist. Don’t get me wrong, his views were racist and slightly ignorant but after a few days living in the house and integrating with people that him and his friends would call “p*kis” you begin to see him change his perception. We mustn’t write off those in society who have harmful views for they may not understand why what they do is wrong. This programme gives them the opportunity to learn.

I’ve seen a fair share of agenda driven documentaries in my time. But I genuinely think this documentary shows a balanced and truthful perception of communities. The show received a lot of criticism, I think people can’t take that it was a bit explicit at times. But that’s reality. It is hard truth, from each side of this conflict. We’ve got to face it, realise it doesn’t work. Realise we integrate with one another to create unity.

We have the potential to learn so much from one another. We must find common ground, let that common ground be that we are all British, regardless of what anyone says.

I might change my mind on this programme after seeing part two.

But till then,

Peace and Love.

Muslims? Daily Mail’s sub-editor is slightly confused

by

1


Below is a link to the Daily Mail story “Breast-feeding mother ‘told to leave council headquaters because she would offend Muslim visitors’” Please take a look.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014222/Breast-feeding-mother-told-leave-council-headquarters-offend-Muslim-visitors.html

Since the world is now questioning the quality of British journalism, it seemed like a good idea to break this typical Daily Mail story down and ask you the questions that came to my mind.

In journalism, the first line of a news story must summarize the incident:

“A mother was ordered not to breastfeed her baby in public because she was in a ‘multicultural building”.

Yes, it summarizes the even but it does not match the headline?
I’m confused. I thought this had something to do with “Muslim visitors”. Am I reading the right story?

The headline states that she was not allowed to breastfeed in the building is because it would “offend Muslim visitors”. Which Muslim visitors is Mrs Mitchell offending? The story clearly states she was told she could not breastfeed in a “multicultural building”. So what does this have to do with Islam? Also the headline states that she was “told to leave the council headquarters”. Was she? I didn’t read that in the story. .

Take out the headline, the story itself is not inaccurate. Mrs Mitchell does have every right to breastfeed and has the legislation to back her. To enforce the law is no bad thing.

The manipulation of this story lies with the sub-editor, the one who has created this headline, unjustly blaming Muslims for this woman’s ordeal. And I say unjust, as there is no evidence of any Muslims being involved. The story does state that Mrs Mitchell “had caused an uproar”. But wait, the story does not give any details about this “uproar”. Nor does it say who was offended. I wonder if this is the moment Daily Mail readers picture a woman in the burka complaining about the fact that Mrs Mitchell had merely asked to breastfeed her child? What vivid imaginations these people must have but unfortunately that is the way the tabloids work.

Sadly Muslims are being blamed here without any evidence, and Mrs Mitchell is seen to be the one causing it. Hopefully readers will clock on and realize that this is not the case.

The press have the ability to create images in peoples minds through triggers. It is psychological, which makes it harder to prove. It is clever. And dangerous. Is it really worth inciting hate within our society for a bit of sensationalism? Readers of tabloids do have the capability to open their minds and question the journalism infront of them. Maybe they do. But if they do, why don’t they hold the press to account? Ahem: http://www.pcc.org.uk/comp​laints/form.html
As I said, stories like this are dangerous to our society. It is simple. Each time you read a news story, question it, and make your own mind up.

P.S. this is a petty point but I thought I’d throw it out there. To the sub-editor (again), why have you used quote marks ‘told to leave council headquarters because she would offend Muslim visitors’. Who exactly are you quoting?!

I have respect for sub-editors. Creating headlines for stories is not as easy as it might seem. But creating headlines that are misleading and do not match the story shows incompetence of the sub-editor.

NoW closes. What now for the British Media & BskyB?

by

0


They claimed they did it to identify paedophiles. But soon the phone hacking was used to listen on high-profile celebrities’ lives. All public knowledge. Editor Andy Coulston took “diminished responsibility” and resigned to later become David Cameron’s press minister, whilst private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, and the papers’ royal correspondent Clive Goodman resigned.

So why only now are the illegal practices of the News of the World (NoW) deemed as unacceptable? The difference is the allegations are now of hacking into the phones of the ordinary person. The phones of murdered school girl Milly Dowler, victims of terrorism attacks, those serving in the wars, their families. All of which are undeniably disgusting intrusions of personal lives. But at this point it is important to remember that these same practices of hacking into someones phone are as illegal in these cases, as they were back when we believed it was only celebrities.

Why did they get away with the celebrity phone hackings? NoW claimed the celebrity hacking were in the “public interest”. According to them the public needed to know what happens in the bedrooms of celebrities. This then poses the question, is a celebrity not as human as the average person walking down the street. Is the intrusion on their privacy not the same?

The News of the Worlds’ antics clearly NOW fall into the category of privacy invasion. But generally speaking, what are the limits of the term of what is in the “public interest”? It is purely opinion based. There is no line to draw what is public interest and what is breaching the law. Clearly there is a problem.

Another issue highlighted and downplayed by this fiasco is the extent of police corruption. Who do you put our faith into to stop these horrific intrusions? The people we have put our trust into are the same people committing these crimes. It seems money can buy injustice.

So what now for NoW? James Murdoch today announced that the NoW will be closing. It is tempting to say this is out of shame but perhaps it is just an easy escape from public and advertising boycotts. After all, the current editor Rebecca Brooks showed no sign of resigning especially after media tyrant Rupert Murdoch backed her yesterday.

Which leads to the BskyB takeover. Do the latest NoW revalations teach us nothing? The government refuse to postpone the takeover yet the will begin an inquiry over the NoW. Ofcom should surely state that News Corp is not fit to have a TV license. Can they not see that the quality of British journalism faces a downfall? News organisations under such media conglomerates are merely profit based. It leads to trashy gossip, shocking revelations becoming the centre of our news base. We cannot allow the majority of our news to come from one source. As much as we’d like to convince ourselves that we have the capability to keep a balanced view, naturally we will find ourselves subjects to the propaganda surrounding us. And it will surround us.

Please sign and express your concerns regarding the irresponsible News Corp taking over the British media.