Someone could try telling Magdi Abdelhadi of the BBC.
Abdelhadi has an opinion piece in which he attributes the cartoon situation to three factors:
‘1)the rise of violent political Islam
2)America’s war on terror
3)modern transnational media.’
So it’s one part bad muslims, one part bad America, and one part neutral (I suppose).
Well, curious. I thought that ‘America’s’ war on terror was contingent on a certain act of Islamic violence. (maybe it shouldn’t have waited that long, but it did). I mean 9/11, of course.
Setting that aside though, the BBC’s analysis overall is really short on a factor they know very well to have been at play: that is the agitation of muslim clerics. Abdelhadi should know a lot about this because he did the BBC’s profile on one of authorities which received a delegation which publicised the cartoons in the Islamic world: Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. For an expert on Islam and the Sheikh, it’s curious the BBC’s man thought this irrelevant. He mentions ‘diligent’ internet activism, but not the actual delegation, which was received by ‘Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi’ (The Counterterrorism blog) .
The interesting part about the BBC’s role in all of this is that, in the reports that initially heralded the cartoon controversy as it re-emerged over that last week or so, they included the three ‘extra’ cartoons that the delegation used to arouse anger- cartoons which had nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten. (see The Counter-terrorism blog for more detail, as linked above) The cartoons were presented in a booklet, according to this account, which brought to mind DFH’s excellent screen grab from a BBC report. I wonder if the BBC didn’t in fact have the inside track on this delegation, either directly or more likely though their link-up with Al Jazeera. (for those wondering about the BBC’s recent decision to launch an Arabic channel in competition, I would say that this doesn’t mean the BBC is any less involved with Al-Jazeera, but that it is trying to diversify its role in the region)
I’d argue that this link up is actually deeply undermining any sense of the BBC’s objectivity. In order to have the opportunity to interview the likes of Al-Qaradawi they have to accept that what they get from their Islamic sources is reliable, when it isn’t. This was a major gaffe, not least because the defusal of the situation could have been achieved by pouring scorn on the whole train of propaganda which was clearly at work, of which the BBC’s faked cartoons were the best evidence. So far as I am aware the BBC have not apologised or even recognised their mistake, if it can be called that, or analysed the part the fakes have had to play in the events that have transpired. No doubt they’ve merely been basking in the pathetic Jack Straw’s approval of their peep-show approach. Oh, and no doubt Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s.
Update: I’ve just discovered this post from Michelle Malkin which includes a partial transcript of an Fox interview with the leader of the delegation mentioned above. Reading this, I find Abu Laban- no relation to the B-BBC blogger that I’m aware of :-)-, who was the leader of the Danish Imam delegation that the BBC seems keen to avoid mentioning, concluding a dialogue thus:
‘Jonathon Hunt: So, you want a new set of rules for the way Western Europe lives?
Imam Ahmad Abu Laban: Yes.’
And this is interesting, because see how Magdi Abdelhadi finishes his report:
‘part of the Western consensus is that poking fun at religious figures is acceptable.
It seems that some Muslim activists living in Europe are determined to redefine the boundaries of that consensus.’
Seems as though the BBC know all about it. Mmmm. They’re just telling us in their own ‘balanced’ way.
Things seem to be escalating,
I heard on the Italian TV evening news that an Italian misioonary priest in Turkey was hot dead in his church by a “youth” who reportedly shouted ‘allahu akbar” before he did the deed. (no internet links as yet).
I wonder if the beeb is ever going to take cognisance of the fact that they may have helped to inflame passions with their erronious reporting.
Deepdiver
found a link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4683548.stm
from the beeb – but what can one do:-)
Ed, a very good post. The DFH screengrab link doesn’t work though.
OT
Did the BBC show the two men dressed as bombers in their reports? as I have only seen the pictures in the papers.
What made the Police think they were NOT real bombers?
‘Suicide by Police’ (I believe it’s popular in the USA) would have been an appropriate headline had they received a bullet in the head
Max- thanks. DFH link is now fixed. I must’ve been so impressed by the Counter Terrorism blog I linked it an extra time by mistake.
On the Abdelhad piece I notice the caption under the Koran is…
“The cartoons are seen as an attack on Islam by the West”
Should that be…
“The cartoons are seen BY MUSLIMS as an attack on Islam by the West”
He also mentions…
Farag Fouda, Naguib Mahfouz, Salman Rushdie but he neglects to mention, Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gough
Laban Tall’s blog has a piece on the Met actually arresting people at a protest on Saturday:
http://www.ukcommentators.blogspot.com/
When I heard about it, that two people had been arrested to prevent ‘a breach of the peace’ and ‘posession of cartoons’ I instinctively knew they weren’t Muslims. It simply beggars belief that people can get away with what they did on Friday, yet posession of cartoons with intent to supply is an arrestable offence. What the hell are the Metropolitan Police doing?
in saturdays “any answers”, still available on the radio 4 site, Dimblebey clearly didnt have a clue about the cartoon fakes or the Danish Imam Middle East tour. it was NEVER mentioned.
have a listen to it. it’s seriously worrying that somebody like Dimblebey is not in command of the full facts surrounding this issue.
RE: BBC NEWS @ 10 SUNDAY NIGHT
FIONA BRUCE’S CLOsing comments:
MPs have called for arrests…
actually Dear BBC, it is the Conservative Party who have sought to act responsibly and call for action.
Not the Labour govt or liberals.
The Conservatives have the balls to deal with major problems like this.
The current govt has clearly demonstrated its inability to act and the BBC has clearly demonstrated its bias yet again, in taking away credit from the conservatives.
What a surprise.
I guess it is true that the BBC is in the government’s pocket.
Anonymous writes:
“I guess it is true that the BBC is in the government’s pocket.”
Some of them always were. The rest are now crawling back in, post-Hutton.
“I guess it is true that the BBC is in the government’s pocket.”
And millions of previously “non-believers” now understand how warped and biased the BBC is.
In the last few days I’ve even seen die hard “lefties” that haunt the BBC Message Boards, come out against the BBCs pandering and bootlicking of certain “groups”…..
They have utterly shamed themselves this time, and the whole country is watching them flap and flounder as their PC version of reality comes crashing down around their ears……
This has been a HUGE wake up call….and people ARE at last waking up…….
And Jack Straw just looked a total weak baffoon, a total coward in the eyes of this nation…..a laughably weak “man”…..lolol.
The Chickens are coming home to roost. At Last…..
people are comparing what the “man of straw” said versus what the Germans said.
Wolfgang Schauble , German Foreign Minister:
“Why should the German government apologise? This is an expression of press freedom.”
i also think that the Neville Chamberlain comparisions are starting to sink in.
‘It seems that some Muslim activists living in Europe are determined to redefine the boundaries of that consensus.’
Given the British media’s unwillingness to publish these cartoons and the craven attitude of our ‘leaders’ and ‘intelligentsia’, it is not just Muslim activists who are seeking to “redefine the boundaries of that consensus”.
People, I just had another vision: The accentuation is wrong. It should be Mo-HAM-MAD!
After that vision… are you going to call me “Prophet-DG” now or do I have to tell you that GOD just appeared to me?
Earlier today, the news on BBC Radio 4 took to describing the cartoons as “poking fun” at the Prophet.
Now they are saying that the cartoons have “inflamed Muslim anger”.
Hmmm.
The cartoons, regardless of what you think of their quality, were intended to raise questions about censorship in the face of Islamic extremism. This is a very important issue. To dismiss them as “poking fun” serves to belittle the bravery of the newspaper that tackled it. At the same time it promotes the BBC / Guardian view of the Muslim / Arab world: they wouldn’t have behaved like this if we hadn’t provoked them. That is to say: it’s not their fault. This is not only mendacious, it is also insufferably patronising.
With regard to the BBC’s assertion about inflaming “Muslim anger”. This is simply not true. The cartoons have inflamed the anger of a small number of moronic extremists. I am sure that there are many moderate, decent Muslims who have been hurt and offended by the cartoons, but they are reacting to the situation with restraint and civility. There are also many who, quite frankly, don’t care much one way or the other. Despite it’s obsession with “diversity” the BBC seems incapable of viewing the Muslim world as anything other than monolithic.
I have called those assholes at the BBC three times about this and they always claim they know nothing about it! For Christ’s sake, one the Danish Imams was interviewed on the weekend news last night on Five Live and referred to the other cartoons without even being asked, but only to moan that the Danes had found out and were pretty pissed off about it. He didn’t reckon this was fair as the “new cartoons” weren’t presented on the same page as the published ones. Needless to say the point wasn’t pressed by the muppet conducting the interview. These people are twats of the highest order – my 3-year-old daughter could do a better job!. I’m usually a bit of a news junkie and keep an eye on the BBC but they have me beaten now – I just can’t face BBC “news” any more.
well its obvious – its a blatant cover up. doesnt fit into the “blame the west” agenda at the bbc does it?
BBC please note.
The correct term should be the Muslim prophet ‘Mohammed’ it is incorrect to say the Prophet ‘Mohammed’ because that implies he’s everybodies head honcho.
And he bloody isn’t my ‘Prophet’
‘Nor mine Pounce!
The main point of my post is this…it is 12.04 here in Bangkok (5.04 am London time).I have just logged on to the (D) HYS board and Al Beeb is STILL claiming technical difficulties,even after having the the weekend to put things right. When are we going to get our normal service back? probably never if Al Beeb get their way.
ps I am making my own small protest by boycotting flights on airlines owned/operated by Muslim countries.
The Cartoon Wars are interesting in re-defining European Politics. The violent scenes in Brussels and the flaccid response of the political class are classic in Marxist terms of a ruling class completely at sea in the face of street violence and intimidation.
The tactic is to expose the ruling elite as cardboard cutouts bending and blowing in the wind so the majority lose confidence in them.
Where are all the pieties of “Europe” ? Where are the certainties of “upholding our values” and “human rights”………..the silence of the usual brigade of commentators – Baroso, Fratini, Verheugen; and where is Trevor Phillips, where is the Archbishop of Canterbury, where is Clare Short, or Peter Kilfoyle, Kim Howells ?
Where is Sir Ian Blair ?
We hear nothing but the moronic chants of the mindless mob inviting us to assume they can burn embassies as in Beirut and Damascus given the word, or kill in the streets as with Theo Van Gogh, or London Transport.
No hidden BBC cameras……..no police action – no police team working full time as in West Yorkshire to stop Nick Griffin – LOndon seems to be so tolerant of threats of violence just so long as noone reads out the names of dead soldiers by the Cenotaph………………….must be a case of “different strokes for different folks”
I’m not sure how close we’re verging to conspiracy theories on muslim actions towards freedom of expression in Europe, but EUreferendum are also arguing similar:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/#113918430451060609
So the protests, complete with offensive and inciting placards, that took place on Friday make the BBC Views Online site with a time stamp of Monday, 6 February 2006, 06:20 GMT!!!
Archduke said that Wolfgang Schauble , German Foreign Minister said :
“Why should the German government apologise? This is an expression of press freedom.”
Have you a link for that? Ive heard it reported a couple of times and have to say I feel like coming over all Germanic. Is it only the Germans, scarred by what happened last centuary, the ones to see what this is actually about?
A long time ago, there was a TV series in which a liberal newspaper editor (Ed Asner if memory serves) had to decide on weather he should appear in defence of a pornographic magazine that was getting prosecuted for some reason. In the end he says (paraphrased) “I may dissagree with everything they say and stand for but I stand absolutely for their right to say it” . To which I’m sure we can but imagine the chorus of nodding heads, mine beeing generally liberal, amongst them. However, where is the similar morality in our present day liberal inteligencia?
The really scarry thing about all this is that the already kid gloved treatment of Islam is going to get even worse. Islam is a subjet you can not disscuss without raising very inflametory subjects. You can’t disscuss Mohameds life in any deapth without talking about paedophilia, ethnic cleansing, slavery, rape, murder etc so we won’t disscuss anything, and the media will keep spouting platitudes ad nauseum.
Not that this hasn’t already been going on. Last years “In the footsteps of mohamed”, acknowledged that he was a “warlord prophet” then cut to someone saying how we can’t trust the veracity of any Islamic text (quite a thing for dhimmi BBC) and then back to someone saying how they seek to emulate Mo’s beautfull example in their own lives…. so BBC what would that beautiful example be? Because you sure as hell don’t tell us.
Were are the journalists who actually behave like journalists. As far as I can tell they run blogs.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/Jew%20cartoon.jpg
Excellent!
A picture is worth a thousand words, or however it goes.
‘Have Your Say’ update – the BBC has changed the title of the relevant discussion to “Are protests over cartoons justified?” Something finally getting through to them perhaps?
Having heard Jim Naughtie spluttering incoherently on Today this morning when an interviewee said that people who insult Mohammed should be executed, perhaps the Beeb is at last seeing sense. Won’t hold my breath though.
OT
LONDON PROTESTS
I’m sorry ladies and gents, but i dont know about you, i’m getting tired of this new labour spin government that doesnt do its job.
They have some of (So the word goes) best barristers and lawyers on their books, Tony and Cherie are just such an example and yet, miraculously, they didnt feel it necessary to arrest those protesting on friday?
An ideal opportunity to arrest them, while they are there and havent now run away in hiding.
If this was a protest of fox hunters, as we all know they were arrested in some cases, or even anti war protestors, them too.
But in this case, muslim fanatics wanting to kill all of us, are not game?
Come on now, i think its time Tony you woke up.
Stop playing politics here, and do your bloody job.
Problem is those guys who held up the placards have been brainwashed, and to all intents and purposes are fanatics.
Anyone who knows anything about these kind of people will know that no talking shop or softly softly approach will change anything, in fact it actually encourages more violence.
Some preacher or priest in a mosque is radicalising these young men, and the police should be doing everything to find those responsible and deport them before they convert anyone else to radicalism.
But i now fear that it is all too late….the New Labour lot are responsible for this…you can thank them…
2 dead in afghanistan over the cartoons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm
however, theres a quote in that story that wins the “irony of the year” award:
“They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers,” he said.
“Having heard Jim Naughtie spluttering incoherently on Today this morning when an interviewee said that people who insult Mohammed should be executed”
that was Omar Bakri, the self appointed leader of al-Muhajiroun.
why is this “news” ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4684344.stm
linked to from here: “also in the news”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Archduke:
that interview was total comedy.
But JN failed completely to make the point – with any of Omar Bakri (who came over a complete psychopathic, frothing loon), the chap from the OIC (who came over as a diplomat trying not to appear as the frothing loon that he clearly is) OR with EU External Affairs commissar errr commissioner – that Freedom of Speech IS the Freedom to Offend.
He made, awkwardly, the point that this particular offending item did not contravene DANISH law, but disregarded completely that this is a fundamental tenet of any civilisation, post-Enlightenment “Western”-type or otherwise.
I am getting the feeling that the BBC know they are seriously out of whack here, but have absolutely not a clue what to do about it.
To alter their line means junking all of their cherised cultural relativism in general and apologism for terrorism
in particular.
I think they are badly rattled. A really principled, peaceful opposition to the fundamentalists – FREE SPEECH FOR ALL! – will force the BBC to come out on our side.
“I am getting the feeling that the BBC know they are seriously out of whack here, but have absolutely not a clue what to do about it. ”
“any answers” over the weekend – dimblebey didnt have a clue (or maybe suppressed a clue or two) about the danish imams who toured the middle east, whipping things up with 2 extra fake cartoons. this wasnt mentioned once.
interesting aspect about that Today interview – not a single elected representative.
the response of the major political parties is laughable.
also, we have had attacks on a NATO allies territory (the embassies).
where is our threat to use military force in support of the Danes, or is NATO just a waste of time?
I hear and read that the police are reviewing video footage to see if there was an offence committed as incitement to violence as concerns the blood-thirsty slogans on the banners carried by muslims outside the danish Embassy. WTF! The police were there. They were standing right in front of those banners and there is photographic evidence to prove it. The police are refusing to do their job – they have mutinied.
So the Met Political Police (“Blue Blair Boys”) arrested a German and an Irishman at the Great Cartoon Provocation in London yesterday……………..must have been the only two without a placard, or maybe they just looked “too European” or “too white”
The police are refusing to do their job – they have mutinied.
The are only obeying orders – the Met is under the control of Charles Clarke (who is pleased to have a Blair to order around)
TaOL,
The link appears to be broken.
“a TV series … “I may disagree with everything they say and stand for but I stand absolutely for their right to say it””
This is older than television; it is often attributed to Voltaire, the famous electrician and philosopher, but according to this page:
http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
it was invented in 1906 by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a woman!
“How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.
Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire’s words in his Essay on Tolerance: “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.””
“In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche: ‘Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.'”
Gosh, I love words. I have no idea who Voltaire was, although I have heard the name. Supposedly he lived in the 18th century but I think there’s something fishy going on because (a) the letter quoted above was written in 1770, which does not have an 18 in it and (b) if I do a Google image search, I find pictures of the man despite the fact that cameras had not been invented in this so-called “18th century”.
Also, have you ever met someone who claimed to be from the 18th century? No, I thought not. I doubt this century even existed.
“I am getting the feeling that the BBC know they are seriously out of whack here, but have absolutely not a clue what to do about it.”
From their point of view, why should they do anything about it? I knew last week which way they were going to go, the economics and their political views made it inevitable.
They have huge investments in the Arabic media and are going to invest more. This is a volatile area of the world (to say the least) and they know that anything less than full support of Islam means that next time it will be BBC offices in the Middle East burning, not embassies. On the other hand, they have a huge and guaranteed income from extorting billions from British taxpayers, this is not at risk in any way. They know they can just ignore almost any level of criticism in Britain, what can people do about it short of a mass refusal to pay the TV poll tax?
Also, enthusiastic support for radical Islam dovetails nicely with their world view anyway.
I filled in the Police ‘Hate Crimes’ form online. I recommend that everybody does the same. At least you’ll get a response from the police (unlike the BBC).
Remember, so long as you, the victim, ‘percieves’ a hate crime to have been committed, then it has in the eyes of the law.
If we register a few thousand ‘hate crimes’, perhaps even the BBC will have to report it.
The BBC has started to refer in news broadcasts to the “prophet” Mohammed. Well I for one don’t think he’s a “prophet”. And neither do millions of Christians who believe in the ressurection of Christ.
So… shouldn’t the BBC start saying
“the “son of God” Jesus?
They should refer to Jesus The Messiah or Jesus The Christ and probably should speak of Elijah and Elisha as Prophets and Mohammed as a Mecca-based Businessman or illiterate trader married to an older richer woman, but I suppose they won’t get to show the blockbuster “The Life of Mohammed” because Hollywood will not make it into a film.
Maybe they should speak more about the 2.500.000.000 Christians in the world and the 800 million Hindus who tend to find the proximity of fanatical Muslims irritating and wish they would settle down and learn to feed themselves.
“I am getting the feeling that the BBC know they are seriously out of whack here, but have absolutely not a clue what to do about it
Neither do the Danes who are indulging in post navel gazing as did the USA, “What did WE do wrong to make these people hate us so much”.
It really is simple, you are hated because you are not Muslim. The moderates kid you that Islam is the religion of peace, after all the word “Islam” means “peace”, and there is ONE line in the Koran against suicide, BUT there is a career path for martyrs. Most Westerners know of the 70 virgins but also a martyr can choose 70 relatives who can reside in paradise with him. Martyrdom means that you do not have to account for your sins on the day of judgement, you bypass the prosecuting angels and go straight to the top table. Your sins are wiped clean.
Koranic literalism does not distinguish between religious and civil authority, it follows that the Muslim aspiration for world domination is approved by God. On the individual level this means that unbelievers must be killed and self sacrifice to this end is deserving of the highest praise, from God himself.
“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
(Koran 9:73)
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.
(Koran 9:123)
“What did WE do wrong to make these people hate us so much”.
The answer is Spam – if Saudi Arabia were to be drowned in Spam the situation would improve immensely
4:74 “Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”
From the above you can see that if you are not a Muslim you are living in error and do not deserve to live unless you convert. This is not a surprise to the military who circulated briefing papers over 30 years ago on the post cold war menace of the rise of Islam. Liberals call Bush and Blair “warmongers”. Western imperialism is blamed for stirring up and humiliating Muslims. This is a grotesque charge. In fact most recent wars are over religion and Islam in particular.
The martyr waiting to be transported to Allah’s garden where a flock of “dark eyed” virgins await him simply points to the Koran and says, “These the literal words of God”. “How do you know/” you may ask. “Because the Koran (and the Bible) says so”.
Catch 22 get out of that one.
Incitement to murder as set out in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states..
‘Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.'”
An interpretation of what constitutes such behaviour was subsequently provided by Lord Huddleston, as follows:
“The largest words possible have been used, ‘solicit’—that is defined to be, to importune, to entreat, to implore, to ask, to attempt to try to obtain; ‘encourage’, which is to intimate, to incite to anything, to give courage to, to inspirit, to embolden, to raise confidence, to make confident; ‘persuade’ which is to bring any particular opinion, to influence by argument or expostulation, to inculcate by argument; ‘endeavour’ and then, as if there might be some class of cases that would not come within those words, the remarkable words are used, ‘or shall propose to’, that is say, make merely a bare proposition, an offer for consideration.”
As far as I’m concerned irrespective of the mess of more recent legislation drafted by morons, the above would certainly cover the bearers of the placards at the weekend so why not throw the book at them. I can’t see what the ambiguity implied by the police response is.
Recent Conflicts:
Palestine Jews v Muslims
The Balkans Orthodox Serbs v Catholic Croatians. Orthodox Serbs v Bosnian and Albanian Muslims. N Ireland; protestants v Catholics. Kashmir: Muslims v Hindus. Sudan Muslims v Christians and animists.Nigeria: Muslims v Christians. Ethiopia and Eritrea: Muslims v Christan’s. Sri Lanka; Sinhalese Buddhists v Tamil Hindus. Indonesia Muslims v Timorese Christians. Caucasus: Orthodox Russians v Chechen Muslims Muslim Azerbaijanis v catholic and orthodox Armenians .
Where do BUSH and Blair figure in this melting pot of religious warfare?
Tragically we went to war to defend one Muslim country against another i.e. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia invaded by Iraq.
Cockney – the current Police “wriggle” is that the issue is one of public order. They said that to have arrested them would have caused serious public disorder.
The obvious next point was why wasn’t there sufficient police presence to cope with serious public disorder, when it was completely obvious to anyone who isn’t Ian Blair that serious public disorder and criminal incitement were odds on to happen at that ‘rally’.
I suspect that a decision was taken at a very high level in the Met that to have a police presence proportionate to the threat would be construed as “racist” and offensive to the “Muslim Community” (i.e. self-appointed pressure groups), and as a consequence a “softly, softly” approach was used (i.e. surrender to extremists).
This is an extremely serious state of affairs. I have no confidence whatsoever in the Metropolitan Police to uphold order or enforce the law. It is serious because I am not some leftist anti-police agitator; when middle-class people with conservative views lose all confidence in the police, it is with good reason.
Sarge
Even if you accept the concept that we should stay out of other people’s messes I think that Blair could justifiably be expected to keep half an eye on Northern Ireland, given that we subsidise the assorted shades of lunatics up to their eyeballs.