Lest my irritation with the BBC (and with much of the rest of the MSM) be misunderstood, my concern is that the conscious censorship of news regarding the problems caused my mass (Islamic) immigration into Europe (or any other issue) is foolhardy, and is demonstrative of a "we know best" attitude by the elite who seek to control our access to news media and therefore to control the news we are allowed to hear/see and the way in which it is to be interpreted, and therefore also to control - even stifle - debate.

In the new world of the internet, 24 hour satellite TV news and social media this is short-sighted (as well as being wrong in principle) because people get to know what's going on anyway and are angered that their "betters" are seeking to deny them access to the truth and are seeking to deny a debate about the truth and what we can/should do in the light of the problems ordinary people now encounter but which the political and media elite don't want to acknowledge.

This can have the effect of turning people to more extreme parties. Which is exactly the outcome the "liberal" elite seek (but fail) to avoid. Not only are they failing in this objective, they are in part causing the move of (some of) the people towards extremist parties. I'm currently halfway through Yanis Varafakis' "Adults in the Room" (subtitled "My Battle With Europe's Deep Establishment"). In it he reports how, at one meeting with the Eurogroup, he pointed out that the far right Golden Dawn were now the third largest party in the Greek Parliament, and that this was the inevitable result of the policies being forced on Greek by the troika. He pleaded, in the name of liberalism and European solidarity, for a different strategy. It got him nowhere, just as we'll get nowhere trying to break the "liberal" censorship of news, though that won't stop me calling it out where I see it.

Varoufakis (a leftie) gets it. He doesn't like Golden Dawn, but he understands why people vote for them. He would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU, but he fully understands why we voted to leave. If only our elite would listen to him (or work it out for themselves), then maybe Europe wouldn't be heading for the rocks. Censorship of the news is almost always wrong. As is dumbing it down. I still mostly watch the BBC because it's better than the alternatives, but I despair of their news and current affairs coverage.

Supertroll

As I said, if I was feeling more charitable, I might consider that the BBC's reporting of the story developed as more facts became known, and that theirs is exemplary and careful journalism. If such was their normal modus operandi, I would be happy to concede - and applaud - the idea. As I said, however, they have form where stories like this are concerned. And that form is to bury the news away from the main page of the website (or low down a radio or TV news broadcast) then drop it as fast as they can. The only surprise for me here is that the BBC has finally reported the story more fully and that it eventually made the front page of their website (not for long, though - it's already been replaced by far more important stories):

U2 stop Berlin show after Bono loses voice

'I had gender reassignment surgery at 81'

Homeless man walks 8,000 miles with dog; and

Spurs' Son to avoid military service (this one is obviously really important as it's up there for the second day now).

Stories evolve, more confirmed details become available. So there are further questions about the news report that Mark read and commented upon. At the time it was written and transmitted, was the story of the perpetrator's identification known and confirmed, or is it still an unconfirmed report? What is totally inconsistent about the whole episode has been mentioned by GolfCharlie - why was non-lethal force used on someone using a knife on other people, who was suspected of being a terrorist? He could have had other weapons including explosives. Was he labelled a terrorist after the event as an act of racial profiling?
Mark concludes that the more complete story that became available from the BBC was forced upon them. I don't know but I think an equally likely story is that the BBC held back until significant details had confirmation. I would be surprised if they call the person a terrorist (they are more likely to report that police are treating him as a terrorist) and if they do, then their standards are slipping. There was a time that the BBC would never say someone was guilty of something until after they had been convicted in a court of law, and perhaps not even then. I am surprised Mark that you apparently don't applaud this careful practice.

Mark Hodgson & Supertroll

"The man, who has been named in Dutch media as Jawed S, was shot and wounded by police during the incident."

Does "shot and wounded by police" imply good or poor marksmanship by Dutch Police? It is my understanding that UK Police do not shoot to "wound". Was a non-lethal weapon discharged?

Terrorism? Was he proclaiming "Allahu Akbar!" during the attack?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir
"The phrase is well known for its common use as a battle cry in Islamist extremism and Islamist terrorism"

Supertroll

I have to disagree. The BBC was too quick to suggest that the motive was not known, given the facts that were known at the time the BBC chose to report it in such a way. CNN are in many ways the US equivalent of the BBC in terms of how they see and report the world, but the CNN headline is "'Terrorist motive' cited in Amsterdam knife attack on 2 Americans" and the story as they report it commences as follows:

"The suspect in Friday's knife attack at Amsterdam's central railway station had a "terrorist motive" and is believed to have acted alone, police in the Netherlands said Saturday.

Police said the suspect is a 19-year-old Afghan man who lives in Germany. Police would only identify him as Jawed S.
Two US citizens were stabbed, US and Dutch authorities said Saturday. The victims were seriously injured but are not in critical condition, the Amsterdam mayor's office said.
Police shot the suspect after the stabbings. A police spokesman told CNN the teenage suspect remains in a hospital, where he will be questioned later Saturday with the help of a translator.
Police in Amsterdam said they are in "intensive contact" with their German counterparts on the case. German authorities did a search of the suspect's house, where they found and seized data storage items that will be analyzed, police said."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/01/europe/amsterdam-train-station-incident/index.html

You ask "What evidence is available to substantiate a terrorist motive?" I would reply that if the police say he had a terrorist motive, then that's a pretty good start!

I'm also disappointed that you don't think a terrorist incident at a major European transport hub isn't really worthy of reporting. Personally I think it's a little more significant than the following stories currently appearing on the front page of the BBC news website:

Declan Donnelly and wife Ali Astall welcome baby girl

Son Heung-min to avoid military duty after South Korea win Asian Games

Aretha Franklin bishop sorry after 'groping' Ariana Grande

'Sexualised' niqab hero gets makeover after costume criticism

...and several others demonstrating an extraordinary dumbing down of modern life and of the BBC.

Be that as it may, it seems the BBC have now reconsidered (been forced to reconsider?) as the story does now make it onto the main page of their website:

"Amsterdam stabbing: Afghan suspect 'had terrorist motive'"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45382557

If I was feeling more charitable I would say that they waited until they were certain of the facts before reporting. Unfortunately the BBC has form so far as this sort of thing is concerned. I can't help feeling that they are now reporting it more fully only because everyone else is reporting it properly, and they'll look stupid or dishonest if they don't follow suit. But they are following, not leading, in this case.

Environmentalists condemn polystyrene pumpkins.... and miss the bleeding obvious objection that these are a safety hazard as some idiot will try and put a candle in one.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/01/1polystyrenepumpkins-branded-total-madness/