SHARIA: BBC bans word ‘terror’ – London Bridge killings now ‘van attack’

Rewarding terror. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. This gives terrorists carte blanche to terrorize.

BBC backlash: Anger as Beeb to ban word ‘terror’ – London Bridge killings now ‘van attack’

BBC has been accused of ‘sanitising’ terrorism after banning its journalists from using the word ‘terror’ when reporting on atrocities, prompting an outcry from staff and MPs alike.

By Joe Gamp, The Express, Jun 10, 2019:

Reporters working for the corporation are to be effectively banned from using the word – unless they are quoting a source or someone else using the word. The outlet will no longer use the words “terror attack” to describe the appalling events that took place at locations such as London Bridge or the Manchester Arena – despite the corporation using the phrase at the time of the attack. BBC journalists will now refer to terror attacks by location and the methods used when atrocities were carried out.

Reporters would now describe the events as the “London Bridge van attack” or “Manchester Arena bomb attack”.

But the new rules have sparked rage, with experts and MPs accusing the BBC of “failing in its public duties”.

Former Home Office advisor and head of think tank Civitas, said of the new edict: “If they don’t want to use that then they’re failing in their public service duty which is to be clear and accurate.

“I think there is a common usage, which has some recognition in law, which if you use attempted killing or injury to a political objective, then that’s terrorism.

“It would be misleading not to say that these are terrorist episodes if they are attempts to advance political or ideological cause through violence.

“The Christchurch one [in New Zealand] was someone a bit wacky but he was trying to make a political point, and all the Islamist episodes are aimed at a political outcome.”

Reiterating opposition to the new rule, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: “They are terrorists and these are terror attacks.

“The BBC should not try to sanitise the behaviour of terrorists by not calling it out.”

A senior source from BBC News said: “It boils down to that phrase ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.

“Our question is: Is Darren Osbourne, who was behind the Finsbury Park attack, a terrorist?

“He is being motivated by far-right thinking in the same way as the guys in the attack on London Bridge.

“Consistency will be the key.”

But according to the Daily Mail, many BBC reporters are angered by the decision to ban the phrase, which comes into force when new editorial guidelines are published this month.

An unnamed source said: “The end result is a desire to squeeze the word terror out altogether, which many people think is nuts.”

Under guidance drawn up during the IRA bombings, current guidelines instruct staff: “Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones”.

As such, BBC broadcast journalists use the words “militants” or “jihadists” as substitutes.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a “terrorist” is “someone that uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”.

A spokesman for the BBC said: “People should wait to read the editorial guidelines.”