The Huffington Post UK says, “In its climb-down letter to Miqdaad Versi, a management consultant who complained about the story, the paper admitted it had no evidence to prove it’s factually stated ‘Muslim gang’ criminals were followers of Islam.”
In reality, however, Mail on Sunday Managing Editor John Wellington makes no such admission, but instead marshals the evidence and says that the story was “not inaccurate or misleading.” The Huffington Post waves away this evidence as “unverified tweets,” ignoring Wellington’s reference to Muslims who wrote approvingly about the attack, and dismisses the eyewitness for no apparent reason at all.
Nonetheless, despite affirming the story’s accuracy, Wellington apologizes, and writes, “we intended no disrespect to the Muslim religion.”
This is Britain today: a news outlet apologizes for running a story that it says is accurate, because it has offended Muslims. The Daily Mail, Mailonline, Mail on Sunday has always been maddeningly schizophrenic, publishing accurate material about jihad activity that other news outlets didn’t dare touch, while smearing and denigrating foes of jihad terror at every opportunity. Its coverage of our free speech event in Garland, Texas in May demonstrated conclusively that it has no understanding of the importance of the freedom of speech, and no will to defend it. And this unnecessary “climb-down” shows that it shares the general malaise of British society: Muslims are a protected class and are not to be offended, no matter what — even by the truth.
“Mail On Sunday Apologises For Offensive ‘Muslim Gang’s Attack On Immigration-Raid Van’ Story,” by Aubrey Allegretti, Huffington Post UK, July 30, 2015 (thanks to Lookmann):
The Mail On Sunday has apologised for publishing an “offensive” article on a Muslim crime gang, after it was revealed there was no evidence to prove the perpetrators of an attack on immigration enforcement vehicles were Muslim.
The national newspaper issued a letter saying it “intended no disrespect to the Muslim religion”, after printing a story which claimed Islamic youths were behind the “disturbing” vandalism of three Home Office vans and a single un-marked car on Saturday.
Days after the original article was published, the Mail On Sunday’s managing editor admitted that the criminals’ religion had only been identified because of unverified tweets, sent by a supposed Muslim Twitter account, and after one witness claimed: “I think they were local Muslim hoodies.”
In its climb-down letter to Miqdaad Versi, a management consultant who complained about the story, the paper admitted it had no evidence to prove it’s factually stated “Muslim gang” criminals were followers of Islam….
“We apologise again for any offence that was cause”. [sic; the Mail editor wrote “caused,” but the HuffPo UK illiterately misquoted him as writing “cause.”]
Paul says
The rape gang members don’t necessarily have to be practicing
Muslims, it’s enough that they’ve already been exposed to deeply
misogynistic teachings since childhood. Oddly enough, this problem
doesn’t exist with the Hindus and Sikhs that live in Britain. However,
the ideology far supersedes the suffering of the victims, which is the
path that the left-wing Establishment has chosen and by far the
quickest towards an all out civil war. It’s so true about the schizophrenic
reporting by The Daily Mail. Their somewhat contemptuous reporting
on Gavin Boby – somebody who helped bring the problem of these
child rape gangs to light and who has successfully opposed the
construction of a number of mosques – was particularly galling.
mortimer says
Gangsterism and admiration of the gangster Mohammed are not incompatible…FAR FROM IT!
Those who have met Muslim gangsters are AMAZED that these criminals still consider themselves serious Muslims, even though they drink alcohol, take drugs, pimp women and commit robberies and assaults.
The article about criminal Muslims was ACCURATE, but not politically correct.
Paul says
The pervert, murderer, sadist, hatemonger, narcissist and
madman Muhammad is the “perfect” man for them. Though
they deny it, he’s actually help up as the object of worship,
not ‘Allah’. Banning the adoration and emulation of this evil
character would solve so much, but it won’t happen. It’s just
appeasement until World War 3 properly breaks out.
Marty says
Totally correct Paul.
Mohammed was a truly satanic character and is the opposite of most great
religious leaders such as Jesus or the Buddha.
The Mail is about the most popular paper in the UK & on most subjects represents
the views of at least 60% of the English.
The English, in particular, hate islam for its cruelty & stupidity, but even the Mail has to
grovel. The alternative is the Charlie Hebdo treatment.
voegelinian says
“The rape gang members don’t necessarily have to be practicing
Muslims”
They already are practicing Islam, by raping and abusing their virtual Kuffar sex slaves, by simply dwelling in the Dar-al-Harb and acting out criminally, they are advancing the jihad’s ultimate goal of destroying and conquering the West — a goal that requires many different styles and flavors of jihad, mainly because Muslims are not capable of launching full-scale direct military assault. Criminal behavior is one of the myriad forms of Jihad. We really have to stop seeing Muslims as some kind of Oriental Amish who “practice” “religion” in the ways we think. Stop superimposing our Western perspective as a model onto Muslims.
Linde Barrera says
To Voegelinian (Vogue)- As per your 6:06 pm Aug 1 comment, I agree 100%. You identified what the counter-jihad participants need to remember. Thank you.
Paul says
Didn’t notice this one till late, Voegy. As nitpicking as ever.
Cheers!
Guy Macher says
Let me apologize in advance for what follows.
Islam is the satanic doctrine conjured up by the lying, looting, raping, murdering pedophile, psychopath, Mohamed. If you ape, whole-hog, the actions of a psychopath you are a psychopath,
No hate mail please. I already apologized.
mortimer says
Muslims never apologize.
Jay Boo says
BBC Radio is now linking ‘religion’ to violence.
Ultra-orthodox Jew attacks gay parade.
BBC website also implies religion is the motive and then actually states it in the last sentence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33726634
Yet they refer to ISIS as the (self-styled) and (self-proclaimed) Islamic State..
Why not call ISIS ultra-orthodox Muslims?
Paul says
The BBC have taken dishonesty to a whole new level.
We’re supposed to believe the left-wingers there that
they’re experts in what ISIS and Islam truly stand for
and not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – the self-proclaimed
“Caliph” who is a devout Muslim with a doctorate in
Islamic Studies!
marty says
Al Beeb has been creaming itself over these criminal dregs in Calais.
Selected ones are interviewed as “asylum seekers” fleeing persecution.
Al Beeb always fails to observe that these desperate refugees have passed through a dozen safe countries & safely ensconced in France.
Yet they risk their lives to escape a safe haven ?
Just like burglars risk their lives climbing on roofs.
Paul says
They escape hell, bring hellish precepts with them,
complain that their host countries don’t uphold such
hellish precepts. Then they’ll go back to their hell hole
countries, escape to a Western country, complain etc.
etc. etc.
ISIS also said that they’d hide jihadis amongst the
“asylum seekers”. We should at least believe what they
say. When Nigel Farage talked about this at the European
Parliament they appeared to be totally disinterested. It’s
got to the point where we can trust what ISIS have to say
and people like Anjem Choudary, as opposed to those
who are meant to be on our side and keeping us properly
informed. It’s literally insane.
KrazyKafir says
England’s 5th column is strong, and growing stronger, while much of its dhimmi stooge population eagerly prostrates themselves. And they are not alone.
Mo says
It’s embarrassing to see people grovel in this manner. It really is.
Angemon says
Ah, I was wondering why the Mail was being so uppity. Figures – they grovel on request.
zulu says
East London is full of Muslim gangs of Bengali and Somali descent. When I lived in Bow, I would see Muslim gangs of 20 or so beat up other kids (usually black kids). The gangs would only fight if the numbers were in their favour. Every Friday I would see the same kids leaving this Bow Mosque.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/graffiti-outside-london-mosque-jihad-is-the-only-solution-for-israel
jayell says
This is terrible. About 20-30 years back Bow was beginning to get its original good reputation back and starting to look nice & neat again after a bit of a ‘slum’ period. There are lots of really nice Victorian town houses there. Now it’s got this infestation.
zulu says
Soaring number of sickening attacks against British Jews: Anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled in parts of the country over the past year
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179266/Soaring-number-sickening-attacks-against-British-Jews-Number-anti-Semitic-incidents-doubled-parts-country.html#ixzz3hUE9t0q6
In this article the Daily Mail will not tell it’s readers why Anti-Semetic incidents have doubled in parts of Britain. Read the comments, people know it has somethin to do with Islam.
jayell says
I suppose it’s back to the ‘clash of cultures’ thing. We in the West have been brought up with a civilised mindset based on a Christian philosophy where a high level of ‘civility’ based on unconditional mutual respect and consideration are at a premium, and we therefore assume others think the same way and we look for the ‘good’ in them. It’s taking us far too long to come the realisation that it’s actually not quite like that, and other creeds & cultures really don’t even begin to understand or follow our ‘rules’. So with Islam, where any semblance of ‘mutual respect and consideration’ is strictly limited by the myopia of an institutionalised sociopathic egocentric imperialist bigotry inherent in their creed, and any show of western ‘reasonableness’, accommodation or pragmatic compromise is interpreted as ‘weakness’ since they see this as their native reaction had they been ‘vanquished’. So the answer is NOT to apologise under any circumstances, since this ‘civilised’ response is only going to be misinterpreted and encourage them to commit further obscenities – rather as you would deal with a demanding spoilt brat.
If you’re into Sci-fi, it’s a bit like having a ‘Star Trek’ complex. The ‘strange new worlds’ of the first series weren’t really very ‘strange’ at all, and the ‘new life forms’ were far too ‘human’ with which Capt. James T. Kirk could usually have some kind of ‘dialogue’. So, at the end of the day, we could all be ‘nice and happy’ (cue the theme music and roll the credits). On the other hand ‘Dr. Who’ had the ‘Daleks’, which were mindless, insensitive machines from a totally different universe and bent on supremacy and destruction. Dialogue was out of the question because they seemed incapable of listening and understanding anything beyond their programming, and their vocabulary seemed almost to be limited to ‘exterminate!’. So, looking at their track record to date, are our Mohammedan friends like Capt. Kirk’s ‘nice aliens’, or are they more like ‘Son of Dalek’?
Just a final thought to do with the ‘clash of cultures’ and comparitive ethics. I had an unsolicited email from a muslim charity (possible Islam Aid??) promoting their ‘penny appeal’ for funds to help underpriviliged children around the world. I looked at their map of the globe where they claimed to be active, and it seemed to be covering just muslim areas. So I emailed them back, asking them for facts and figures about whom they helped and why because I noticed this apparent limitation. About four days later a reply came from one of their ‘directors’, stating that they helped all uncoditionally, in the ‘spirit of Islam’, but he didn’t give ANY facts or figures. This person also told me about their ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ campaign. Now, I though there was something a bit wrong with this, so I emailed him back, congratulating him on his ‘nice’ reply, but observing that he had NOT supplied any facts or figures and therefore had not proved that they were not just helping their fellow muslims. I also informed him that, according to my own readings into islam, it was NOT part of their creed to offer unconditional aid since all references to ‘comprehensive generosity’ in their holy writings were in fact heavily qualified, and the one reference to this sort of thing from their ‘revered Prophet’ Jesus – the ‘Parable of the Good Samaritan’ – was in fact missing form the Qu’ran. I also pointed out that the phrase ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ had in fact been plagiarised from Christianity, and, since this amounted to mis-selling and mis-representing their product, not to mention theft of a ‘marketting slogan’ from a rival organisation, they would in the commercal world have been dragged to court by now. Needless to say, I have yet to receive a reply to that.
Linde Barrera says
To jayell- I am proud of you (for whatever it’s worth) because you sent an email asking for details of who/where/what receives help from the Muslim charity who asked for YOUR monetary contribution, as per your 12:22 pm July 31 post. I am projecting that perhaps anyone’s monetary contribution will actually fund a jihad somewhere, demonic thought as it is.
jayell says
Hello Linde. What gets me about all this is how these people are presumptiously and transparently muscling in and setting themselves up alongside the genuine established charity agents here in the UK, basically as an ‘image promoting’ exercise (just like all that crap about the ‘Religion of Peace’, etc. etc. ad nauseam). They’re using similar names and logos as the Christian charity organisations (e.g., ‘Muslim Aid’ – or is it ‘Islam Aid’ sounds and looks just like the well-established ‘Christian Aid’.) They CLAIM to do the same thing (i.e, they actually say they offer aid without strings attached to all depending on need and irrespective nationality or creed, etc.) but two things strike me about this;
1. Christian charities have NEVER spelt it out that offer aid without any conditons, because they don’t have to. It’s part of the Christian ethos, and anyway you can see it in their track records. The muslims spell it out because they know it’s NOT part of THEIR ethos, but I don’t think they realise that many in the UK aren’t aware of this (there are still many who think islam is just another name for the ‘nice’ sort of thing you get in church). So to an extent it’s a bit of unnecessary quasi-commercial overkill but I also believe it’s a deliberate con-trick to get the kuffar’s money on false pretenses because when you look at the published details as to where it goes it seems to be all islamic places or things that largely involve muslims. However, these would be the projects that would somehow ‘look good’ to the British public. Do we know that they’re the only places that the money goes?
2. Although they say that charity is an obligatory part of islam, it’s only meant for themselves internally, and ‘charity’ in this sense often means the propogation of Islam, not actually helping people. I’ve NEVER noticed islamic countries rushing to offer aid to other islamic countries when international crises occur, it usually seems to be the Christian West that get involved. So why are we getting this big show of (clearly ‘ersatz’) pseudo-Christian islamic charitable concern in the UK? To con us, that’s the answer. And I don’t buy the whole business of charitable virtue being ijn any way unique to islam (which is what they seem to try to suggest), because the Church has done the same thing for centuries (schools, hosptials) and the Christian charitable ethic is essentially written into our modern tax-based national welfare programmes. So muslims can teach us NOTHING on that score.
3. Since this whole ‘Islam Aid’ business is little more than a contrived con and no more than a transparent image-promotion exercise to take over at least some of the Christian patch and get some false credibility for themselves in UK society (e.g., the ‘Love The Neighbour’ farce) it is disturbing to see how many are actually falling for it. The local C of E where I live proudly announced that they were working with them through the local (small) ‘Islamic Community’ to raise money for various combined projects. Well, we equally have Hindus, Sikhs and Jewish people locally, and I know that these people have given to our Christian Aid in the (non-religious) international projects undertaken. Why couldn’t the muslims have just done likewise? Or could it have been that, in obtaining money for their own ‘pet projects’ from the pooled campaign resources, they would have obtained more from the ‘kuffar’ than they could possibly have done otherwise? And, if the boot were on the other foot, would they have cheerfully thrown their own well-established campaign open to local Christians in the same way?
This makes me seem a very untrusting person. But where the followers of Mohammed are concerned, I’m afraid that experience of them plus some knowledge of their ‘creed’ does not exactly encourage trust.
Linde Barrera says
To jayell- Thank you for your 5:24 pm post of July 31. To conclude, I feel you are totally correct to mistrust any Islamic charity, due to the hidden agenda of propagation of Islam, as well as their alignment with the C of E that seems to me to be “an annex” of the nearest mosque. And if the Islamic charity did by chance help the “kuffar”, would that mean the “kuffar” would have to take a few lessons in the Quran? In the United States, we have Charity Navigator, an entity that rates charitable organizations. I am unaware of anything like that in the UK. About 6 weeks ago, a poster named “Joseph” responded to me about being leary of giving to any charity with a high degree of “administrative overhead” meaning a high salary for the CEO of that charity, and of course, Joseph was right on that point. And here is a question that nobody, but nobody has been able to answer for me on the topic of giving alms. Why haven’t the Saudis and/or the Iranians with all their $ from oil, ever tried to help the Palestinians (who used to be Jordanians) if indeed “charity begins at home”?! Again, thank you jayell, and stay well.
Sam says
“UK’s Mail apologizes for accurate Muslim gang story, meant “no disrespect” to Islam”.
The whole world should disrespect Islam but no, we apologize to Evil.
Conclusion: we deserve the wrath of ALLAH AND/OR MOHAMMAD.
cs says
indeed we are in terrible shape: Read this text here
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-migrant-hordes–people-6165167#ICID=sharebar_twitter
And there is a lot of people in favor.
Really, wtf, they are in a different planet.
abad says
“They are stateless and helpless, foodless and friendless.”
Oh the violins (or is it BS?) the bleeding hearts in the UK are slitting their own throats without the help of Allahu Akhbar……
Linde Barrera says
To abad- As per your 8:20 pm post of July 31, I have to agree with you, mournfully, but hope and pray that the citizens of the UK will be able to “take back” their nation from the “collectivists” who want a strange, new order.
Karen says
Sad, also, that they had to distance themselves from Cameron’s statement, “British way of life” by putting quotes around it.
abad says
The Religion of Hate strikes again – It is time the UK seriously considers deporting these Muslims, revoking their passports and shutting their borders to Muslims.
citycat says
Perhaps a mistranslation of “no disrespect for Muslims who are the choice choiceless victims of Islam”
David says
Where in the Koran does it show that Islam is a peaceful religion? Tell me that world wide leaders that are in denial.
David M says
In other words “we published it, it is true, but we don’t want you to do a Charlie Hebdo on us so we will apologise”.