Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
lots more intelligent and thoughtful debate here I see. Pounce tells us that women who wear the veil do so because they are opressed. Even the simplest research reveals that many of them say they wear it out of choice. Liars I suppose.
What do you think of the jewish guy who though lopping of baby boys foreskins was a good idea ? Or the catholics who go to church every sunday to be told they are sinners ? But they all do it through choice. Your real problem is with Islam, not the BBC.
Bijan Daneshmand | 06.10.06 – 11:59 am |
no problem them! since there is no objective standard of beauty, no one can be accused of being sufficiently beautiful so as to have no choice but to cover up!
(without being immodest, of course, which is surely a greater sin?)
Eamonn | 06.10.06 – 11:22 am | #
look, if i’m not supposed to think it is representative of islam when a muslim himself tells me he is obligated to kill me if necessary to defend the honour of his religion, why on earth should i believe anything said by a bbc presenter or anyone else for that matter when they tell me what joys islam promises, unless they quote chapter and verse?
(so where does the koran say babies go to heaven? i mean, it may well do, but why should i take a non-muslim’s word about islam over a muslim’s)
in any event, even the catholics admit limbo is an extra-biblical concept, so comparing catholicism and the koran is NOT the same as comparing christianity/the bible and the koran.
… you offended John Reith in the other thread…
Anon | 06.10.06 – 3:15 pm
John Reith began by offending me, Bryan and anybody else who doesn’t pay the TV tax either because they refuse to, or like Bryan and I because we live abroad.
For a BBC employee to tell a commentor on this site that they have no right to express their opinion because they don’t subsidise the BBC is pretentious and offensive.
As for engaging in slanging matches, perhaps you would like to count the number of times you have called me an idiot, cretin, moron and a liar, and how often have I risen to your bait?
Anon
You are only half right when you state.
“Your real problem is with Islam, not the BBC.”
Our real problem is Islam, AND the BBC.
Given that you are so concerned about women’s rights have a look at this and tell us all what you think.
http://www.amitiesquebec-israel.org/texts/stoning.htm
at least she has “ben allowed to wear her chadoor”
you make me sick Anon.
One of these days a Kirsty Walk or a Jenni Murray is just going to start foaming at the ears
as with so many Beeboids, they are still fighting the last war.
Sack `em all. Get some young people in. They are ones who are going to have to repair th damage done by the likes of Jenni (cute spelling, Jen!) and the BBCs assorted Kirstys.
Even Germaine Greer no longer believes in 70s feminism.
The BBC will keep the Red flag flying until the Earth stops spinning
Thins are really not going well this Friday at the Al Beeb.
On three islamic stories the respondants on “Have Your Say” aka “Give US the Right Answer” have consistently been reccomending the wrong answers!!
Some at AlBeeb will pay with their heads for this!
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4121&edition=1&ttl=20061006174216&#paginator
i don’t want to pick on you, anon, but do you really believe the other extreme, that ALL muslim women cover up by choice, or indeed, that ALL muslim women are muslim by choice?
or that ALL muslim women agree that their testimony is worth less than that of a man, by choice?
Anon wrote;
“Pounce tells us that women who wear the veil do so because they are opressed. Even the simplest research reveals that many of them say they wear it out of choice. Liars I suppose.
Oh please spare me your trollish attributes. The only time women wore a hijab in the 60 and 70s in the muslim communities in the Uk was when they visited the mashjid (mosque) but all of a sudden it is now the vogue. (Have a look how many women started wearing it after 9/11 and what message does that send to the 98% of non Muslims in the UK. Isn’t that what Jack straw is on about.)
On another but related manner. Men are told that they are more righteous than women under the tenets of the Koran.
(That may explain why women are forbidden to walk through the front door of nearly every mosque. (They have to use the back or side) Why they are forbidden to lead the prayers, they are consigned usually to another room or the back of a room or even how they have no rights when it comes to anything in a divorce)
Women say they wear the Hijab and such in order to show their religious affiliations. If that is the case. Can you please explain why nearly ever Muslim male is more than happy to wear western clothing?
Now tell me how many men have you seen attacked in France for not dressing like a Muslim? Hey I’ll even accept an answer ref how Muslim girls rush to the Bogs first thing on a Morning at Uni in which to take off a few bits of clothing.
But as my leaving stamp here is how Muslim boys explained the honour killing of a Turkish girl who wanted to lead a western life;
“The Whore Lived Like a German”
By Jody K. Biehl in Berlin
In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women? The shots came from nowhere and within minutes the young Turkish mother standing at the Berlin bus stop was dead. A telephone call from a relative had brought her to this cold, unforgiving place. She thought she would only be gone for a few minutes and wore a light jacket in the freezing February wind. She had left her five-year-old son asleep in his bed. He awoke looking for his mother, who, like many Turkish women in Germany, harbored a secret life of fear, courage and, ultimately, grief. Now her little boy has his own tragedy to bear: His mother, Hatin Surucu, was not the victim of random violence, but likely died at the hands of her own family in what is known as an “honor killing.”
Hatin’s crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family’s adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men.
Followed by;
One of the unsettling truths about Hatin’s death and the plight of many Muslim women is that it took the comments of three Turkish boys and the outrage of a male school director to get people to notice. When the murder first happened, it sent no shock waves through the mainstream German press. I it only became big news when a group of 14-year-old Turkish boys mocked Hatin during a class discussion at a school near the crime scene. One boy said, “She only had herself to blame,” while another insisted, “She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German.” The enraged school director not only sent a letter home to parents, but also to teachers across Germany. The letter ignited a media fury. Less known, however, is that the letter also hit a nerve among educators. “Teachers from across the country wrote back saying they had had similar experiences,” Boehmecke said. They reported Turkish boys taunting Turkish girls who don’t wear headscarves as “German sluts.” “That’s the part no one has written about.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374-2,00.html
Subject: In tonight’s programme
From: Newsnight
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:34:27 +0100 (BST)
============================================================
NEWSNIGHT – FRIDAY 6 OCTOBER 22:30 GMT – BBC TWO
============================================================
————————————————————
FROM KIRSTY WARK
————————————————————
Hello to viewers in every part of society in Britain – and abroad,
Tonight we devote Newsnight to an exploration of whether the cracks and tensions appearing in Britain are a result of multiculturalism. I’ll be speaking to Muslim women who have chosen to wear the full veil – the Niqab – where before they didn’t even wear a scarf.
Why are they covering themselves to all but their close family? Do they feel any empathy for non Muslim women and men who like Jack Straw see the veil as a barrier. Do they feel part of a broader British society? I have many questions for them.
Tim Whewell has gone to Blackburn to find out why communities there are becoming more polarised, and to find out what Jack Straw’s motives might be.
And then we’ll debate in the studio the best way forward.
So much for the BBC and its efforts to dhimmify the UK population. Meanwhile, in the Arab world:
Morocco moves to drop headscarf
Morocco is making major changes to religious education, in particular regarding whether young girls should wear headscarves.
…
Education ministry official Aboulkacem Samir says the headscarf has political overtones:
“This issue isn’t really about religion, its about politics,” he says.
“The headscarf for women is a political symbol, in the same way as the beard is for men. But we in the ministry must be very careful that the books are fair to all Moroccans and do not represent just one political faction.”
Across the Arab world the headscarf issue seems to be gathering momentum.
In Tunisia for example, young women who wear veils say they have been harassed by the authorities who are forcing the girls to remove their veils at schools and universities.
Biodegradable said:
For a BBC employee to tell a commentor on this site that they have no right to express their opinion because they don’t subsidise the BBC is pretentious and offensive.
Damn right.
I’m an ex-pat living in Norway but my parents live in the UK and pay their license fee. Tell me, John Reith, am I allowed to critcise the BBC?
I really do hope so because there is such an abundance of articles, opinions and personalities that thoroughly deserve it!
And before you start harping on about more right-wing contributors I’ll just point out that whilst living in the UK (until 1996) I was a member of the Labour party (Real not Nu) and a shop steward for the AEWU. BBC bias is being discovered by an increasingly wider audience and I believe the rate of discovery is snowballing dramatically.
GCooper –
It’s fascinating watching the BBC’s female programme presenters as they wrestle with the inherent contradictions in trying to appease Islam and simultaneously be true to post-70s feminism. One of these days a Kirsty Walk or a Jenni Murray is just going to start foaming at the ears.
I still chuckle at the memory of a live Newsnight debate where Anjam Choudery (spelling? who cares?) said to a female and muslim member of the Conservative Party: “Shut up, you have no right to speak.”
More, please.
Trouble at the baby milk factory in Windsor. Don’t the BBC have a spare reporter and camera crew to send down there?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369687-details/Race+clashes+hit+Windsor/article.do
Anon –
GCooper and Bijan.
Don’t say that no muslim women in the UK wear the veil out of choice, because it’s an outright lie. Feminism is about choice.
WTF is that meant to mean?! Sorry, I missed that part of the koran which orders [deleted] wimmin to burn their bras, sleep around and get pissed.
Morons like you will judge that no one would make this choice and women wearing the veil are unfortunate prisoners of a backward religion, and they are being forced to dress like they are.
Don’t leave me out of it. I’m with the morons.
It simply isn’t true, so I want you to admit that this is not the case and move on.
But it might be. So we agree that we’re probably right. Discussion over, we’ve moved on.
Edited By Siteowner
billyquiz
Welcome!
Anyone seen the interesting news that taxi drivers at Minn St Paul airport think it was are refusing to carry people who have alcohol in their possession namely the 99-9% of tourists coming home with duty free?!
Give you two guesses as to which religious grouping these drivers belong to….what next drivers of other faiths refusing to carry people with bacon sandwiches?
Some comments on the newspaper site which also point out that these taxi drivers are refusing to carry gays as well!
http://tailrank.com/606701/Cabs-and-Alcohol
Public Service, Private Morality
mnspeak.com
Found 7 days ago
It seems Muslim cab drivers are now refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol. We’ve already discussed their refusal to carry gay passengers here . Should people who are licensed by the government to provide public service be allowed to deny such service to people who are not breaking any laws? …
and:
Just imagine if these were Christian taxi drivers refusing to drive, say, homosexuals, because their religious beliefs denounce homosexuality: Got wine at the airport? It’s harder to grab a cab. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. …
Nothing on the BBC or in their search engines…..
Francis linked to a bit more info than the BBC has space for, and it may be of interest to somE:
http://www.di2.nu/200610/06c.htm
The outbreak of disorder began after a mother and her daughter were set upon by a gang of 20 Asian youths armed with baseball bats, iron bars and pitchforks. The shaven-headed thugs • all dressed in white robes • launched the attack after pouring out of a former office building which is being used as an unofficial mosque. They attacked Karen Hayes, 46, and her 18-year-old daughter Emily before turning their weapons on the teenager’s car. The pair had gone to help after Karen’s 15-year-old son Sean and a friend were beaten up by the gang. Police have said it is unlikely the mob will be brought to justice.
There’s more from where that came from.
It seems Muslim cab drivers are now refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol. We’ve already discussed their refusal to carry gay passengers here .
Hah! That’s just what I love to read. I mean, what does a leftie idiot do? Who does a lefty whine on behalf of? Which party gets the benefit of a lefty bitch squeal in their defence?
Anon? [deleted] Waddya reckon?
Edited By Siteowner
Anon? [deleted] Waddya reckon?
Pete_London | 06.10.06 – 6:58 pm
😆 You are well on form tonight m’ boy!
Edited By Siteowner
Yeah, deleting your wit broke my heart.
Pete_London could have said:
Hah! That’s just what I love to read. I mean, what does a leftie idiot do? Who does a lefty whine on behalf of? Which party gets the benefit of a lefty bitch squeal in their defence?
Waddya reckon, anon? Is it the Muslim cab drivers or the homosexual passengers that get the sympathy?
Biodegradable | 06.10.06 – 5:38 pm
plus billyquiz
Hold on a minute. First, I never said anything about people who live abroad not having the right to comment on or criticise the BBC.
And I CERTAINLY never even implied that ex-pats like you two should feel in any way constrained about venting your frustrations.
I did say that Bryan was looking a gift horse in the mouth.
From what he has said he is a former south african, now resident in the middle east.
I have no reason to suppose he has any connection with Britain at all.
He’s always complaining about a service he gets free (but clearly chooses to use a lot).
That’s all.
So he can say whatever he likes…..but he
but he…? JR has obviously fallen off the bar stool or something.
I don’t contribute to the Labour Party, I don’t vote for them but because they are a political organisation which intends to affect my life in ways to which I am opposed, I criticise them.
The BBC is a politicised organisation which intends to affect the lives of many people in a manner to which they would object. The BBC should therefore be subject to robust criticism from anyone who falls within that scope regardless of whether the BBC’s ‘services’ are paid for by such critics.
but he…? JR has obviously fallen off the bar stool or something.
Dave t thanks for that. It had me rolling on the floor!
Biodegradable:
Thanks for the link to what’s really happening in Windsor. I havn’t paid for a tv license since I worked for the bastards in the 1980s, but hwther I do or don’t I’m still outraged that the BBC is clearly trying to keep this story under wraps
It is fascinating to identify at which point in the life of a story the BBC considers it newsworthy. Accordingly we have seen the appearance and subsequent disappearance of coverage of the PC Basha story and that of the conflict between locals and Muslims in Windsor within the space of 36 hours, at a time when both remain current, the subject of considerable public concern, and despite the fact that the latter is clearly still ongoing. On the other hand, the trial of the men accused of the racially aggravated murder of 15 year old Kriss Donald in Glasgow in 2004 scarcely merited mention from BBC TV News or Ceefax yesterday,when gruesome evidence from jailed gang member Zahid Mohammed against 29 year old ringleader Imran Shahid was heard in court but yet it suddenly surfaced on Ceefax today under the headline ‘Kriss accused ‘not the culprits’. Surely this is the reductio ad absurdam of BBC News selectivity – make no effort whatsoever to report the prosecution, but make sure to publish a wholly decontextualised ‘defence’?
Who shot JR?
BBC 5Live subject this morning…
“Should we give Muslims a break?”
Erm, no, just give us, a break.
BTW: could people please stop biting when Anon comments, you’re feeding the trpll.
(Speaking as commenter, not administrator)
John Reith writes, “I have no reason to suppose he has any connection with Britain at all.
He’s always complaining about a service he gets free (but clearly chooses to use a lot).”
I would like to expand on what Allan@Aberdeen said about the BBC affecting the lives of many people. As it often reminds us, the BBC is a worldwide organisation with worldwide influence. There are many occasions when this “service” or “free gift” has had negative value. Stories such as its flirtation with anti-American conspiracy theories about the tsunami or about polio vaccine have probably cost lives already and may cause terrorism in the future. This is of interest to former South Africans now living in the middle east.
Mr. Reith, if you’ve managed to get back up on the bar stool, I want to implore you not to beat this dead horse any more. I’m going to put the following in bold in a separate paragraph because, though I’ve mentioned it before, it’s evidently made no impression on you:
The BBC doesn’t offer me a ‘service’. And it’s not something that I choose to use a lot, it’s something that I choose to suffer, mostly during slack times at work, in order to expose the bias. It doesn’t inform me, but hides and distorts the news and it rarely, if ever, offers me entertainment.
In fact, on the one occasion that I thought I should cash in on what the BBC owes me after years of its biased crap shovelled in my direction I was told that I couldn’t access the service (World Cup Soccer commentary) since I was trying to connect to it from outside the UK.
So, John Reith, I’m sure it will gladden your heart to know that the BBC does guard at least some of its output from the unwelcome attention of bloody foreigners.
In fact, I do have some strong connections to Britain but even if I didn’t that wouldn’t affect my right to counterract BBC bias.
You, on the other hand, are claiming the “right” of the propagandist to broadcast whatever you like, whenever you like and wherever you like without accountability or regard for truth. That’s just not right, Mr. Reith.
The crunch question on the veil for the beeb is:
Would you let someone read the 6 o’clock news on TV wearing a full veil?
Anyone can comment on the BBC because after all the media is the one that supposedly gives the public information, and when the media fails to give information and rather gives commentaries along with the news, it is manipulating the public, just like the Soviets did and like the Cuban dictator does. The media is a very powerful source that affects everyone, and its inputs have a lot of leverage over the population who may innocently believe that the media is telling the truth. The Soviet Union lasted that long due to its political propaganda machine among the Soviets and in the rest of the world. Only when the truth started to come out after the perestroika and Glasnot policies, did the Soviet Union collapse.
Little Bulldogs | Homepage | 06.10.06 – 1:42 pm
Apparently a Muslim taxi driver working for the BBC refused to carry an “unclean” guide dog:
[deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
ha ha ha gordon-bennett 🙂
nice
😆
G-B could be right there [deleted] BTW, has there been any reporting on the BBC’s main news of events in Paris and Belgium involving the ‘youth’ wing of the RoP? Flemings get to place their votes on October 8th and these ‘events’ are assisting Vlaams Belang (nationalist flanders) for some reason.
Edited By Siteowner
Natalie,
Thanks for that post.The damage that the far-reaching BBC does all over the world is exactly what’s in the back of my mind whenever John Reith makes the claim that an outsider’s perspective is less valid since he or she doesn’t pay the license fee.
With its global reach, the BBC should not only expect and accept criticism but take it seriously and act on it.
Well, we can dream.
Anon: wrote;
Bryan
John Reith was one of the few people who actually picked apart your arguments, notably with the ludicrous claims by pounce that BBC were stupid not to know that Iceland had a military when they quite clearly and even officially do not.
Actually you are wrong. I happen to have a very good memory and knew what I wrote this for those of you who don’t remember. Here is what I wrote;
Oh by the way BBC Iceland has a Iceland Defence Force while not an army in first world or third world terms I’m sure it would put up more of a fight than the Saddam did in 2003.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115933829585186782/#309171
Please note Anon I wrote “Defence Force” and not military. I think the line;
“while not an army in first world or third world terms “
Kind of points to the direction I was aiming at.
Please feel free to reply.
(I will post this on the current board in case you don’t come back here)
The BBC and balanced reporting.
A Muslim woman’s veil was snatched from her by a man who shouted racist abuse at a bus stop in Liverpool.
The 49-year-old, from Toxteth, was at the junction of Kensington and Holt Road when her veil was snatched by a tall white man in his 60s. Insp Saied Mostaghel, of Merseyside Police, said: “This was a despicable attack, which has left the victim feeling extremely shocked and upset.”
He added that police would not tolerate hate crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5414704.stm
now contrast that with this story;
When the home secretary described 9/11, 7/7 in London and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as battles between modern and fanatical values in Islam, it provoked some of the 30-strong audience. Abu Izzadeen, in white flowing robes, interrupted him: “How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1877406,00.html
Had to use the Guardian link as I cannot find the BBC repeating what Mr Izzadeen said..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5362052.stm
Now if a white Person had said to Mr Izzadeen;
“”How dare you come to a White area when over 50 Brits were killed on the 7th July?”
The BBC would have no problem quoting it and calling it a racist crime. So why not when it happens to a non Muslim BBC?
If John Reith comes back he’ll be happy to know that some of my money did indeed end up in the BBC’s pocket when I had cable TV and BBC World was part of the package.
In fact I had the great misfortune to have to pay for what is probably the single most vile piece of anti-Israel (anti-Semitic) propaganda the BBC has ever produced. I refer to Israel’s Secret Weapon, a “documentary” on Mordechai Vanunu and the Bomb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2837671.stm
Note the dramatic photo meant to represent Vanunu’s enforced silence.
“Israel’s Secret Weapon” was broadcast on BBC Two on Monday, 17 March, 2003 at 2320 GMT. I tried to access the video of it, but failed – probably because I don’t live in the UK.
It led to the Israeli government stopping cooperation with the BBC.
I want my money back, Mr. Reith.
bbc news at 10 mention that they were getting “one email per second” on the jack straw stuff with the “overwhelming majority” in favour of what he said.
seems to me as if Jack Straw has actually done us all a favour.
what the BBC thought was the centre ground of impartiality was actually well off to the far-left wing.
Anybody else think that the BBC is going all OTT with this Jack Straw thing?
Muslim Panel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/5413352.stm
Analysis: Straw’s veil comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5411642.stm
The Islamic veil across Europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5414098.stm
Constituents divided over remarks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5414008.stm
Veil issue ‘a matter for Muslims’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5412742.stm
Straw’s veil comments spark anger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm
Why Muslim women wear the veil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5411320.stm
Straw poll: views on the veil row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5413234.stm
Straw comments stir controversy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5412182.stm
In quotes: Jack Straw on the veil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5413470.stm
Straw gets the debate he wanted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5413012.stm
Would removing veils improve community relations?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4123&&edition=1&ttl=20061006220824
Papers consider Straw’s veil view
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5411994.stm
and what should be the only entry on the subject;
Remove full veils’ urges Straw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm
Talk about flogging a dead horse BBC?
“And before you start harping on about more right-wing contributors I’ll just point out that whilst living in the UK (until 1996) I was a member of the Labour party (Real not Nu) and a shop steward for the AEWU. BBC bias is being discovered by an increasingly wider audience and I believe the rate of discovery is snowballing dramatically.”
BBC bias is more than a left/right issue. It is also more than an UK issue, because BBC reaches out to a global audience. Part of this global audience also pay a license fee (like me) and indirectly pay for BBC output.
BBC bias is a non-partisan issue, because BBC consistently downplays islamic threat to Western Civilization and consciously tries to portray islam as a ‘peaceful’ religion.
This is not a crime, of course, because criticizing islam is likely to be hazardous to your health and BBC is by no means the only media outlet to be prone to pleasing muslims. However, it is the only media outfit that promotes islam with UK licence fee payers’ money.
“As it often reminds us, the BBC is a worldwide organisation with worldwide influence”
wasnt the recent “Pope Rage” picked up by the BBC and broadcast out in several languages worldwide via the world service and their multi-lingual websites.
So, by that regard, even non-license paying foreigners certainly DO have an interest in what the BBC is broadcasting.
“Talk about flogging a dead horse BBC?
pounce |”
too right. contrast with the non-coverage of Windsor.
There wasn’t any “Pope rage” until the BBC started letting partial translations filter out into the Islamosphere!
How’s that for influence!!
“He generated a varied response amongst a small sample of people questioned in west London”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4123&&edition=1&ttl=20061006225514
Whay put this small sample on to reflect peoples views – they should just read this.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4123&&edition=1&ttl=20061006225514
This, I would say more represents peoples opinions then asking six deliberatley picked people in West London. After all London is not the UK.
Pounce – yes they are flogging dead horse. To them this “veil outrage” story is much more important than this.
“UN issues N Korea nuclear warning”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5412146.stm
Which is stuck in the corner under – “OTHER TOP STORIES”
The BBC are stoking the fire – but they do not yet realise it.
pounce did the leg work on the links. I had a look at teh articles and its about as conclusive as it gets. There is a pro-Islamic bias to the BBC’s coverage.
Have a look at the above links set out by pounce. 10 of the 14 articles put out by the BBC are pro-Islam or pro-Moslems doing as the please irrespective of the views of the community at large. The only opposing view is by the overwheling majority of the British public some 93% according to some polls and almost as much with the comments and reccomendations give to comments that are backing Straws comments. The BIAS is beyond question, so the real question is why the Bias???
1. Muslim Panel – Pro Islamic Bias
2. Analysis: Straw’s veil comments – Pro Islamic Bias
3. The Islamic veil across Europe – Pro Islamic Bias
4. Constituents divided over remarks **Neutral**
5. Veil issue ‘a matter for Muslims’ – Pro Islamic Bias
6. Straw’s veil comments spark anger – Pro Islamic Bias
7. Why Muslim women wear the veil – Pro Islamic Bias
8. Straw poll: views on the veil row – Pro Islamic Bias
9. Straw comments stir controversy – Pro Islamic Bias
10. In quotes: Jack Straw on the veil **Neutral**
11. Straw gets the debate he wanted – Pro Islamic Bias
12. Would removing veils improve community relations? – Pro Islamic Bias
13. Papers consider Straw’s veil view – Pro Islamic Bias
and what should be the only entry on the subject;
14. Remove full veils’ urges Straw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 5411954.stm
That should have been 11 out of 14. Its just beyond belief. Radical Islam doesnt get this level of subservience out of Al Jazeera!