In 'Veil teacher link to 7/7 bomber', the Mail goes to extraordinary lengths to invent a link between Aisha Azmi and one of the 7/7 bombers, and then, within the very same article, denies the very link it has set up. Words almost fail me.
See, apparently, the bomber 'is said to have' attended the same 3,000 person capacity mosque that Ms Amzi's family worships at, and has a school attached that her father was headmaster of. That's it. That's the extent of the link. It'd almost be weirder if two or three Muslims from the same area hadn't at some point visited the largest mosque in the area. The Mail knows this 'link' is nothing but bullshit, so it covers its arse from being sued to Kingdom Come by saying:
However, there is no suggestion that Miss Azmi or anyone in her family have any connection with terrorism. [...]But this doesn't make things alright. Not by a long shot. Even though the paper says there's no link between Ms Azmi and terrorism, it clearly wants its readers to infer one - otherwise why bother printing this story? Without the implication of this kind of link, what has the paper got? Why say she played a major role there when it was her father who did, and she might have never even been there? Two or three Muslims from the same area might have visited the largest mosque in the area. That's all it's got. In short, it's got nothing. A non-story. The only thing that makes the thing worth printing is the implication of a connection between Ms Amzi and terrorism. That's why it's there, and that's why the headline mentions the link between her and the bomber.
As a woman, Miss Azmi is more likely to pray at home than attend the mosque, although it does have a room reserved for females.
This is the lowest any paper could ever sink. There can be no lower. Question for John Reid: who's the bully now?