To whom precisely will the apology directed?

“I may be a terrorist, but how dare you suggest I’m British….”?

@cjcjc

Oooh, I know the answer to this one!

“To Our Readers. We apologise for lying to you. Sorry, it won’t happen again*. Love, The Editor

*It will, but don’t expect us to hold ourselves to the same standard we expect from everyone else”

Why no Daily Mail? I thought they were the root of all evil? Good to see the Independent upholding the high standards of the Left press!

Why do Tory trolls think they should just invite themselves to other peoples property and then drop their pants and shit everywhere?

I would never go on a Right wing site, or Torygraph site. I know what hypocritical bollocks they spout. The Right seems to have this terrible need to go and shit on every body else’s views.

“I would never go on a Right wing site, or Torygraph site. I know what hypocritical bollocks they spout. The Right seems to have this terrible need to go and shit on every body else’s views.”

So because you do it on your own doorstep it’s ok?

“So because you do it on your own doorstep it’s ok? ”

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that this is a liberal site for liberals talking about politics. The majority of posters seem to be moronic brown shirt fucks who come here to shit everywhere and cause trouble. I just find it rather strange because I hve no interest to waste my time on their sites.

But hey, Lee, you seem to to want to cuddle the Tory trolls and argue with people on the left rather than on the right.

Seconded, Sally.

Oh – and this is from the linked article that neither cjcjc or chavscum (ha! ha! ha! Brilliant! Well done! That’ll show us!) could be arsed to read before spraying their crap around:

And what of the Mail? Despite not splashing its coverage on the front page, it updates readers who might have read ‘Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and ‘came from same area as 7/7 bombers” with a paragraph in the middle of ”I was told to kill to my last breath’: Captured terrorist’s account of Mumbai massacre reveals plan was to kill 5,000′, but seems unhappy tht the British connection seems to be false. It also publishes ‘Mumbai terrorists were ‘funded by cash raised in UK mosques”, another story littered with ‘belived to be’, ‘suggest a link’ and ‘is accused of’ style disclaimers, which is about a group that has denied responsibiity for the attacks – so it mght not be long before the paper buries a denial in another story.

It’s the pride – the genuine pride – in being an ignorant *wanker* that really boggles the mind about these two trolls.

“Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that this is a liberal site for liberals talking about politics.”

I’m just wondering why you don’t see the hypocrisy in your apparent lack of ability to debate anything with “a Tory” simply because they are “a Tory” and therefore a “Troll”. Yes you do it on a site that is more in line with your political beliefs than theirs when they dump the old “Typical liberals/lefties” line…but ultimately your style is the same, and just as tedious.

“The majority of posters seem to be moronic brown shirt fucks who come here to shit everywhere and cause trouble. I just find it rather strange because I hve no interest to waste my time on their sites.”

So instead you waste your time on this site, goading them and making things worse?

Lee, quite frankly I would not want to fight a battle with you by my side. You seem to spend more time attacking your own side rather than the trolls.

University debating style is not my thing. Particularly with trolls and Tory Time wasters.

“Lee, quite frankly I would not want to fight a battle with you by my side. You seem to spend more time attacking your own side rather than the trolls.”

Who’s the troll? You’re the one attacking this site for being full of trolls and arguably that makes you more of a troll than… oh this is ridiculous.

“Britain for the British!” Where are the liberals? All I see is intolerance and puerile Toryphobia. Diverse opinions means healthy debate. Sally, if you moderate your abuse, maybe we can worked together to find solutions to the nation’s problems and become friends.

Nothing wrong with Toryphobia.

I have to say though. The Telegraph wasn’t particularly unbalanced or hiysterical here.
To begin with, theirs was a question.
Secondly, I actually had a look at that day’s paper and the report was fairly balanced. There were plenty of quotes suggesting that the rumours of British terorrists involved were unsubstantiated or unproven.

On a different level, I think it’s understandable that some peopel were asking those questions given the recent involved of British citizens in terrorist attacks in Israel as well as London in 2005 and the “shoe bomber” and others. I’m sure I’m gonna get some stick for this, but it is a matter of national interest in this case.

That said, yes, the Sun -for instance- was as usual OTT and based on nothing. That paper is a joke.

Claude: Well yes, but there’s a difference between wondering whether there was any British links and putting on the front page as stone-cold fact that those involved were British, especially when they were basing those reports on similarly unsourced reports in the Indian press, despite them being denied by the Scotland Yard, security sources and the government over here.

The second thing is that reports like this influence opinion for potentially years to come. For instance, the claim that Jean Charles de Menezes ran from the police and vaulted the barrier was still be brought up as an excuse for why he was shot on message board threads and comment sections despite it being completely disproved by subsequent reports. That’s why when newspapers get such crucial information as this wrong they should at least make clear in a similar fashion to the original report that the facts have changed. None of them, except for perhaps the Telegraph, have done so in a satisfactory manner. The Sun was even using the completely unsubstantiated claims that they were British to demand ever more powers for the police, including 42 days, while below that it condemned the arrest of Green as a “blow to democracy”.

I agree Scepticisle,
however I maintain, The Telegraph (which is not my fav paper by any chance, but I have to hand them some credit here) were the only one who had the headline in the form a of a question, rather than “stone cold” truth. Unlike every other paper, including The Independent. Which is why I felt The Telegraph should be exonerated from what is otherwise an excellent point made by Scepticisle.

As far as The Sun is concerned, I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The Sun is one of the biggest culprits for what is going wrong with Britain – and has been for a long time. At all levels.

Here is my analysis of how they’re reacting in the wake of the suspension of Sharon Shoesmith (the Baby P saga) http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2008/12/victory-for-sun.html

I’m responsible for the post Septicisle links to here. (Cheers for the link – if I knew people would link to it I’d have expended a little more effort).

Anyway – I had originally intended to praise the Telegraph for phrasing the headline as a question, but the paper ruins that by including a definite claim in the sidebar on the left of the page (too small to be visible on the reproduction above, but you can see it on the pic I nicked from Sky News) that says ‘UK Born Pakistanis among the captured terrorists’.

That changes the meaning of the question in the headline a bit. Is it referring to the terrorists in general, or the specific two in the pictures?

It’s nice that the paper is a bit more measured than we might at first think, but the paper clearly wants us to come away from the story believing that UK born Pakistanis were among those arrested, which of course proved to be rubbish.

Does anyone else here think that sally and chavscum are the same person?

Actually I’ve heard that sally and Lee are the same person. Lee has a repressed dark side which he expresses in the form of sally’s posts.

I’m just wondering why you don’t see the hypocrisy in your apparent lack of ability to debate anything with “a Tory” simply because they are “a Tory” and therefore a “Troll”.

Oh, Tories I have no problems with in general… the ones who can muster up an ounce of intelligence and don’t just come here to sneer and scream oh call yourself liberals do you?. Unfortunately,
trolls like chavscum don’t pass the IQ test. He/she is about to go on the disemvoweler list anyway.

Sally – entertaining as it is, I think its best you lay off the attacks, as I’ll be taking a harsher line against trolls now anyway. This site’s guidelines are crystal clear.

[troll]
“Oh, Tories I have no problems with… the ones who can muster up an ounce of intelligence and don’t just come here to sneer and scream oh call yourself liberals do you?. Unfortunately, trolls like chavscum don’t pass the IQ test. He/she is about to go on the disemvoweler list anyway.”

And the answer to people who question your liberal credentials and your political allegiances……is to ban them! I wondered how long it would take. How very new Labour. I’m amazed that I can come on here and in a few weeks force the “blogger of the year” to surrender.

Interesting the “vaulting the barrier” story has been mentioned. That of course was disgracefully leaked to the press by senior police, who now arrest Tory MPs for leaks in the public interest.

I’m not sure the disemvoweler is the best solution – I’m actually more inclined to read chavscum’s posts as they’re far more interesting to decipher than the content itself.

Is that disemvoweller (excellent word – though probably two l’s?) automatic, or do you have to do it yourself?

I don’t know if I have been disemvowelled, but when I posted a comment on another thread about your very good recent CiF post being by far and away the hottest post on that site it did not appear. Modesty?

Did we establish to whom we are supposed to be apologising then because I am a bit mystified ?
Sunny the sites guidelines are deliberately opaque but I endeavour stick to them (Ok I may be sarcastic but come on… ) You are always deleting my comments out of sheer malicious whim . If all you are trying to achieve is a crèche for a collection of spotty would be meeja flunkeys then it seems to me you are setting your sights unnecessarily low . In my opinion this is the best site around and its writers are quite capable of defending their views . So I suggest you revisit your rules and clarify that contrary views are not to be verboten by Grupenfuhrer Hundal .

Just a thought

Sunny’s only response to some one who questions his liberal credentials and political allegiance is to ban them!

Looks like him and New Labour are made for each other:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3543266/Police-and-immigration-given-powers-to-demand-to-see-identification.html

PAPERS PLEASE!!

Newmania: I’m pretty certain we established that in the second comment. When you get something so clearly wrong you usually apologise for doing so. In this instance the newspapers ought to both say they got it wrong and correct their original reports in a similar fashion to how the originals appeared. Simple, yes?

cjcjc: There are five messages currently in the spam queue, and you often end up in there if you link somewhere so it might well be one of those.

Yes but that’s not the point is it . What you actually mean is the UK Muslim Community who, it appears, are not , by association with extremists in their midst involved in this particular act of carnage .
I feel the blame for this sort of paranoia primarily lies with those who have maimed killed and terrorised innocent UK citizens on many occasions and I think you should make it clear that you are not erecting a “biased media “ defence by inference and get your own sense of proportion back into shape .

On many occasions? By that I presume you mean once, which is the number of successful attacks in this country carried out by actual British Muslims. The others have all conspicuously failed, or in the case of the Glasgow firebomb attack, were carried out by foreign born Muslims working here.

And actually, that is exactly the point. The fact that a tiny minority of Muslims in this country are involved in extremism is completely irrelevant to the fact that none of those involved in this instance were British, as they either suggested or stated as almost fact that they were. It’s not a defence that some of our citizens are extremists, it’s whether they were in this actual case. Coming from someone who laughably suggests that the BBC is the television equivalent of the Guardian, I’m not especially inclined to get “my sense of proportion back into shape.”

Yes ok they are terrorists but really really incompetent ; super . I have seen scary surveys showing wide support for AK especially among young Muslims so its not quite as simple as few bad apples is it . I used to live near Finsbury Park Mosque where a cache or arms was found , its not as if such a thing has been found in the nearby Methodist Chapel ….we don’t have guns in my own church unless our Vicar has deceived us all ….

Anyway this begs the question who do you want the Papers to apologise to . Presumably not to terrorists which leaves the debatably moderate majority … well whose fault is it that they are associated with acts of violence , not , primarily British Newspapers in my judgement . I am just saying it’s a good idea to remind everyone of that before we get into a self flagellation session.

BBC
Andrew Marr , for one ,said the BBC was packed with Guardianistas and he should know .
( Don’t get me started )

If I can be permitted to offer my tuppence worth, I’d like the papers to apologise to everyone they might have misled by splashing vague nonsense as absolute truth on their front page headlines.

But that’s just me.

I’m pretty certain that’s what I intimated as well, but Newmania when he isn’t obfuscating by bringing up irrelevancies seems to just ignore what has already been said.

I’d like the papers to apologise to everyone they might have misled by splashing vague nonsense as absolute truth on their front page headlines.

There’ll be a lot of apologising going on if *that* was ever to happen!

Its not that , I was just trying to get at who it was you felt had been badly treated and what the implications of such a headline were . I took it that you meant the headlines gave the impression of nest of murderous extremism here which this event does not , as it transpires , provide evidence of . I assume you do not care if terrorists who sat this one out are offended so I thought you meant others who are caught up in the general suspicion ie British Muslims

If you are saying British Muslims are owed an apology and, you may well be right , isn’t it fair to mention that the chief culprits in difficulties of this sort are the British extremists and terrorists that do exist ?

That’s all , perhaps I should have kept quiet but I was actually trying to expand on your post in my own way

“isn’t it fair to mention that the chief culprits in difficulties of this sort are the British extremists and terrorists that do exist ?”

God no, the presence of a minority of bad eggs should never amount to the reckless and baseless reporting that goes on in this country and others. Innocence until proven guilty is a principle that shouldn’t be hard to mould in the mind of an editor into “No blanket statements that can stir up racial tension until facts are verified.”

But then papers wouldn’t be as “interesting”, and as cjcjc is saying, if they were to apologise for this lapse in standards (or perhaps maintaining of already poor ones) then they’d be apologising all the time.

Newmania, to be completely clear, I don’t want an apology for British Muslims; it would instead be nice if there was an apology for stating something as fact on the front page of your newspaper which subsequently turns out to be entirely untrue. I’m not demanding they apologise for every inaccuracy (although the Grauniad and some other papers incidentally attempts to do that in their correction columns) but rather for ones such as this where mistakes are made in such a prominent and potentially inflammatory way. Understood? Of course, I’m sure that some of them in their defence would bring up exactly the points you’re making, but that’s no excuse for splashing such stories on your front page when the sources amount out to similarly unsourced speculatory reports in the Indian press.

It’s quite common, I believe, for papers to print a big sensational story all over the front page, and page 2,5,8 and so on. Then when the story is found to be slightly less than completely accurate, they print a slightly truer version on page 12. With no apologies.

Some years ago I remember a story about some schoolchildren who claimed they had been assaulted in the park by a dishevelled black man with wild staring eyes. News all over the papers. A couple of days later it transpired that the kids lied about the incident to get out of trouble for being late home. That news update completely escaped my work colleagues who were asking ‘have they caught that **!** who tried it on with those poor kids?’

Then there was the plane that was brought down by ‘Arab terrorists’ (‘it is believed’ said the papers). It was a couple of years later when I realised that it was due to a structural defect in the plan,e according to a documentary I just caught the end of. I didn’t know and like my workmates after the first story, I could have gone to my grave thinking that ‘Arab terrorists’ had caused that plane to crash. But the truth is not such hot news is it?