SCUMBAG JOHN

There has been much talk in the British media about the true identity of a vile Islamic murderer who had personally executed many entirely innocent people in a manner that may best be described as utterly inhuman and barbaric, and for some considerable time they had described this creature as Jihadi John, a nickname given to him by one of his captives. In recent days, after his background became known, BBC Television broadcast an interview with the Islamic Charity Cage during which its spokesman described the killer as a decent, warm and kind hearted human being. In view of the horrific conduct of the killer, glorifying his actions by allowing them to be aired on video, the permissiveness of the interview shocked and outraged a large section of the British public. To my mind the conduct of the Corporation should have surprised no-one given its long standing light touch tolerance of Islamic extremism and its undoubted reporting bias and hostility towards the Jewish State of Israel. This kind of dual policy has been demonstrated on more occasions but the interview itself reached a particularly low point of disgust.

All of this raised media attention to a fervor of enquiry into the background of the killer with much revealed about his background and youth. Soon after information revealed by a former schoolteacher it became known that he had serious behaviour problems during his first year at secondary school during which his aggressiveness required anger management courses. Later it transpired that he associated with a group of Muslim fundamentalist teenagers during his early teenage years after which he attended the University of Westminster, well known for its extraordinarily permissive policy towards Muslim student activities in which a wide platform of Islamic fundamentalist activities was tolerated by the college authorities.

It has been a view of surprise, so often expressed in our media, that how on earth is it that so many Muslim children and youths who’ve passed through the British schooling system and given one of the best educations available on the planet have taken the earliest opportunity available to run off to the Middle East to engage in Islamic terrorist training and activities or in the case of young women carefully plan to rush and marry such people? There’s been so much head scratching and consternation over the issue that it’s almost a joke. Or is it? Is it any real surprise I wonder that given the career path of the creature our media have fondly called Jihadi John should have turned out to be such a filthy specimen?

Quite frankly the very name itself is disgusting. It’s a kind of convenience. Something easily said and presentable. A name easily identifiable for readers of block capital headlines. And in this respect I have to ask myself whether the editors of newspapers couldn’t have created something more fitting, something altogether more appropriate to describe the youth whose bestial behaviour had already been established time back so as to avoid any confusion in their minds whether he was actually slicing people’s heads off or not. John is a Christian name so why tarnish the faith with that? If you want to call him John to make it sit easy with your readers why not use it to describe him for what he actually is, a piece of filth without any morality or conscience. Someone without any care or concern for the pain and terror he’s inflicting. An utterly inhuman piece of evil. In that sense a piece of filth sends out an appropriate message don’t you think?

And if any of you can give me something better, please don’t hesitate.