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.
The BBC,defender of the worlds great despots;
In pictures: Inside North Korea
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/asia_pac_inside_north_korea/html/1.stm
Who ever said the camera never lies didn’t have the BBC to contend with.
The BBC, defender of the worlds[sic] great despots;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6572615.stm
Quite agree. Oh yeah, ‘who ever’ is actually one word.
Did anyone else watch Waterloo Road this week? A subplot of the episode was an investment in the school by a huge American corporation, run by a zealot with a southern accent (Texan, perhaps) who, on arrival at the school, immediately starts distributing creationist texts to pupils.
This all seemed to me to be completely far fetched (even for an admittedly over -the-top programme as this), involving one of the BBC’s long-standing stereotypes of the US.
An interesting site on head scarves or not. Muslim Matrimonial billing itself as World’s No 1 Islamic Matrimonial Portal. Check out in the Search page how many of the young ladies don’t cover their hair!
A little off topic but an amazing quote:
“Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor…”
Spam this cut ‘n’ paste troll everywhere!
” Ultralove | 21.04.07 – 1:55 am”
yeah. thats a good description of socialism.
the first VT copycat shooting…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6578167.stm
i dunno if any of you caught american talk radio on the podcasts but they are furious over the NBC broadcast. NBC is in a hell of a lot of trouble right now..
the cops have stopped another shooting where the potential culprit said in an email that he wanted to beat the bodycount of VT and wanted to aim for 100.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070419-2329-ca-schoolthreat.html
http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1115512500
gee – thanks NBC. you just gave every nutjob out there a reason to do another massacre – instant fame and world headlines.
Re: Inside North Korea
Does anyone remember Andy Kershaw’s disgraceful Radio 3 “world music documentary” on the glories of this sad land? If you didn’t catch it when it was first broadcast years ago, the Beeb has preserved it for all time. Listen to the whole show as Andy – the “useful idiot” – praises the regime by what he does and doesn’t say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/worldmusic/onlocation/northkorea.shtml
pounce | 21.04.07 – 12:04 am
The BBC,defender of the worlds great despots;
“The hidden gulag”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050515/news_mz1e15howard.html
.
korova wrote;
“Quite agree. Oh yeah, ‘who ever’ is actually one word.”
Thank you for your ever so subtle character assassination on my post at how the BBC defends one of your ideological masters. Tell you what mate. You don’t tell off me about my English and I won’t tell you off about defending terrorists on your blog.
(Yes I’ve had a butchers and I get the impression you bark at the moon)
But otherwise thanks for correcting me.
See if this one makes it on to Al-Beeb…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_child_executioner
Last week the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) endorsed a motion to encourage its members to boycott Israeli goods.
Condemnation of the motion has been nearly universal, and NUJ members are beginning to organise against the boycott.
Engage is supporting these members by providing a ‘rallying point’
for the campaign. NUJ members should sign up at
http://www.mailmylist.co.uk/nuj/
Engage’s coverage of the NUJ boycott can be found on our blog at
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/
If you have a blog or an email list, please help us reach as many interested NUJ members as possible by passing around the sign-up link
above.
vigilant freedom – uk chapter
Can you imagine if this was secret video from Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay? Oh but it’s from a Moslem country so move along, nothing to see… http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1176984256
Thank you for your ever so subtle character assassination on my post at how the BBC defends one of your ideological masters.
North Korea hardly represents my ideological viewpoint. It is hardly a country with a radical anarchist idelogy, is it? Unless, of course, you fail to grasp the subtle differences within both the left and the right.
on “Framed and Unframed pictures” comment thread, John Reith informs us that in 2005 Mark Byford Deputy DG of the BBC stated:
“This year the BBC has introduced a major reform programme in the way that it handles editorial complaints…
The BBC now begins with the presumption the licence payer is right. After all, the licence payers are the public that fund and own the BBC here in the UK… ”
Fine words, JR. But what’s the reality behind them?
I suspect that I’ve made several more complaints to the BBC since May 2005 than you have. My experience has been quite the opposite to the one Byford anticipated.
I’ve encountered instances of incompetence – the complaint failing to be sent to the correct member of staff.
Dismissal – every concern I raised at the initial stage was dismissed out of hand by the programme makers and I’ve had to go to the ECU when I’ve felt that an issue was so serious that it needed to be taken further.
Ignorance – in the now notorious affair of the ‘Protocols post’, the young woman I spoke to in Editorial Complaints didn’t know what ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ was.
Arrogance – the documentary evidence which I sent to support one complaint last year (later upheld) was not checked out by the Programme’s Editor, who simply assumed that their Jerusalem correspondent (a) knew what she was talking about or (b) wouldn’t knowingly allow misleading information to enter her news item.
And as for the results of complaints being made available to the publis promptly – rubbish!
It was 3 months before the findings of my complaint were published on the website.
In fact the BBC has a POLICY of publishing the findings of enquiries in a different medium from those in which they were disseminated rather than issuing corrections to the audience which was misled. So audiences have no way of knowing that a complaint has even been made about a programme, let alone upheld!
Byford’s high-sounding words, therefore, turn out to be hot air.
He might be quite sincere, of course, in his wish to make the BBC more accountable. But the reality on the ground is different.
A bit like the British Mandate in Palestine, really. All the high falutin talk, all the resolutions from the League of Nations about facilitating a home for the Jewish People in a small part of Palestine were made in San Remo as the nations in the Middle East were being formed.
http://www.jewishnetwork.com/w/jewishnetwork_com/israel/020522_sanremo.asp
But all the resolutions, all the talk, couldn’t stop some British die hard anti-semites from obstructing and trying to thwart the changes that world leaders had decreed ….
Thus it is with the BBC.
Byford can spout all he likes. But at the editorial desks – it’s business as usual.
Anyone harbouring doubts about the parlous state of higher education in this country need go no further than visit this for confirmation:
http://www.maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/
As for ‘failing to grasp the subtle differences’…. straight out of the pseudo intellectual handbook.
Unless, of course, you fail to grasp the subtle differences within both the left and the right.
korova | Homepage | 21.04.07 – 9:31 am
It is difficult to grasp when people like you say you’re on the left.
Biodegradable | 21.04.07 – 11:25 am |
They are organised anarchists, bless.
The Fat Contractor | 21.04.07 – 11:59 am
Pardon my irognance! 😉
Utrecht riots? nah. not covered by Al Beeb. Those riots in Gare Du Nord , Paris – nah.
or on a lighter note, coverage of the Karnival in Cologne.. nah. not interesting to beeboids. Or maybe the Rio Carnival? nah. not interesting.
but they’ll scour the headlines to find a , shudder, “discrimination” story aimed at “muslims”…
“speak dutch says belgian company”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6573369.stm
“Half of the non-Belgian workers at the company are Turkish and have complained to politicians and the union that the rule is aimed at them.”
more evidence of the growing irrelevance of the EU and America removing its defence umbrella.
breaking on Drudge.
http://www.drudgereport.com
“PENTAGON INVITES KREMLIN TO LINK MISSILE SYSTEMS: invitation to begin linking some U.S. and Russian anti-missile systems; cooperate on developing defense technology and to share intelligence about common threats, as well as to permit Russian officials to inspect the future missile bases… MORE… “
Golly gosh, Korova – you’ve certainly raised the bar for strictly correct english useage here.
As well as denouncing Pounce for his extra space in “whoever”, you spotted Melanie P had omitted a letter “c” from “once” in her article.
Are you a linguistics professor as well as a moonbat?
Maybe not since, on your hilarious website, you clearly confuse the useage of “cites” (verb = “quotes from”) and “sites” (“plural noun = places”).
Ah well – back to another GCSE english resit for you I guess.
“…The meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen one [sic] again injects some much-needed sanity • and scientific rationalism • into the global warming frenzy in an article in Newsweek.
She repeatedly sites Lindzen as a figure of authority on global warming”
I was chicking at the way Korova starts his criticism of pounce with “Oh yeah…” That sort of nasty slang is best resenved for songs by popular leat combos, I was taught.
Make that ‘chuckling’ and ‘popular Beat combos’.
(Better correct it myself before the Moonbat Dave Spart Professor of English gets in)
“Utrecht riots? nah. not covered by Al Beeb. Those riots in Gare Du Nord , Paris – nah.”
Interestingly enough, the BBC did mention those riots.
The BBC talked about riots in a ‘Paris station’ (not naming it) as somehow protesting against the policies of Nicholas Sarkozy.
A few days later (the day after the TGV speed record) there was a minor commuter train accident in the Gare de l’Est (the ‘how can a country which has trains like the TVG allow things like this to happen’ meme).
Lest you think the Gare de l’Est is just some ‘Paris station’, the BBC noted the proximity of the Gare de l’Est to the ‘Eurostar Terminal’, the Gare du Nord!
For the BBC, riots in an International Travel Nexus which required tear-gas and baton charges (I love french police violence – it’s so stylish) appear to be of no consequence.
Yet the same rail hub ‘gets its dance card marked’ when there is a minor accident at a station that just happens to be nearby.
Somebody increase their medication
I was having a look at korovas site, when right at the bottom is a link that took me to this
http://thumbsnap.com/v/czAzENra.jpg
says it all really.
In the end, the BBC has to recognise public opinion, even on IMMIGRATION.
There is a new lengthy pamphlet on immigration by David Conway of Civitas.
Of course, IMMIGRATION is one of the words which the BBC has trouble with still. In its web headline about this pamphlet it misleadingly uses the word ‘MIGRATION’ instead of the word ‘IMMIGRATION’:
“Migration ‘tipping point reached'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/default.stm
In its first paragraph, the BBC does refer back to the author’s main thrust, which is about immigration, not migration:
“Immigration may lead to the political break-up of Britain, according to right-wing think-tank, Civitas.”
Of course, the BBC cannot resist the epithet, ‘right-wing’ here, although it seems to avoid labelling certain other think-tanks as ‘Left-wing’.
In contrast, ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has a more accurate description of the Civitas report in its headline:
“Immigration threat to Britain as single nation”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
(go to News).
The ‘Telegraph’ describes Civitas as a “social policy think-tank”.
Quoting from the Civitas 100 page booklet, the ‘Telegraph’ says:
“Those for whom this country has been a model of tolerance and freedom cannot but have cause for deep concern about the seemingly reckless pace and scale on which immigration has recently been allowed to proceed.”
Incidentally, Civitas has a good section on ‘Immigration’ on its website, but this latest pamphlet is not up there just yet:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/
Chuffer:
Make that ‘chuckling’ and ‘popular Beat combos’.
(Better correct it myself before the Moonbat Dave Spart Professor of English gets in)
Chuffer | 21.04.07 – 1:47 pm |
Shouldn’t that have been popular bleat.
Fran 21.04.07 10:45 am
This is the very same Mark Byford who is described thus:
One of the BBC’s most senior executives has defended the corporation against accusations that it is “crammed full of soft liberals” obsessed with pushing a politically correct agenda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/29/ncannon129.xml
And the very same one who refused to rule out the possibility that a Muslim woman could read the news wearing a veil.
And who was proud of the BBC’s decision to include an interview with the Taliban in an item about the conflict in Afghanistan.
The man is evidently PC from his head to his toes, always taking the line of least resistance.
I recall that he was interviewed on Newswatch around the end of last year so I typed Newswatch interview with Mark Byford into the BBC search, fully expecting it to yield the usual blank – but though I didn’t find the interview I wanted, I found quite a few useful pages:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=Newswatch+interview+with+Mark+Byford&go=Search
Byford was promising to “do better” regarding complaints as far back as November 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3950000/newsid_3959100/3959141.stm
He appears to represent the worst of the BBC’s unaccountable, PC stance.
Um, make that ….as far back as October 2004.
Block 813:
See if this one makes it on to Al-Beeb…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070…ild_executioner
Block 813 | 21.04.07 – 7:16 am
There’s a minimal mention here:
Taleban uses boy to behead ‘spy’
By saying it is the Taleban ‘using’ the boy it sort of absolves the young murderer of blame.
“For the BBC, riots in an International Travel Nexus which required tear-gas and baton charges (I love french police violence – it’s so stylish) appear to be of no consequence.”
paulc | 21.04.07 – 2:20 pm
ha ha. that made me laugh. i had the pleasure of seeing the CRS in action a few years back, at Gard Du Nord. the strategy appeared to be one of a massive swoop, carting off social miscreats and misfits (or anyone that looked like one!) out of the station and into waiting paddy wagons outside.
very stylishly done i must admit. and i learned pretty fast (by observing) that one does NOT mess with the CRS.
Bias by omission, or as pounce likes to say, “the BBC and half the story”:
BBC:
Gaza international school bombed
The school, located at the northern end of Gaza City, was attacked by the unknown militants at about 0500 (0200 GMT) on Saturday.
Haaretz (left-wing Israeli press):
Masked gunmen blow up part of American school in Gaza
The gunmen identified themselves as an al Qaeda organization operating in Gaza, Salem said. There have been a rash of attacks in Gaza in recent months attributed to Islamist groups that claim to be followers of al Qaeda.
Korova: ‘Unless, of course, you fail to grasp the subtle differences within both the left and the right.’
I would be interested to know where you, as a self-professed ‘anarchist’ stand on the political spectrum, Korova, if in a basic sense left = large government and right = small government.
Remember the incredible stink when Chirac let off nukes in French Polynesia?
Well, Caroline Wyatt doesn’t appear to remember it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6578581.stm
iain dale goes off on one about the irish voting in Britain:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/04/irish-should-not-be-able-to-vote-in-uk.html
bizarre. and it just shows just out of touch some Tories really are.
archduke
Think you’ll find the problem Dale and others are complaining about is that they can and do affect the political map of some areas. There are Labour buffoons like Labour MP John McDonnell who support Sinn Fein and refuse to condemn the IRA who rely on the Irish vote in their area to get elected. And of course there are other areas where ethnic groups can affect the election with the result that Labour win many seats in England only so long as these groups are catered for and kept sweet with investment in their areas. Hence the fact that 75% of new hospitals etc are built in Labour areas!
I often find myself wishing for the Starship Troopers model – two years service either civilian or military to the community before you are allowed to vote or be elected.
I understand that Brits can’t vote in France yet the French can vote here. Is this right?
PS Has anyone noticed how very very quiet the BBC have gone about the problems at the World Bank now that it is becoming clear that the rules WERE followed and that Paul W was NOT trying to do everything the BBC accused him of?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009965
Good quote:
“Many staffers have also reacted to Mr. Wolfowitz’s insistence on accountability in Bank operations in the manner of Dracula being exposed to a cross. Without staff accountability for results, however, there is little hope that the poor will be helped by the Bank.”
If I were him I’d sue but then WE would pay the damages not the BBC ‘reporters’ personally. Perhaps it is time for them to be really accountable rather than make wild accusations knowing that the BBC with our money will pay it out on their behalf if they are wrong again.
Joseph and the amazing BBC ‘advert’ row
Andrew Lloyd Webber and the BBC were yesterday accused of breaching the corporation’s strict advertising and product-placement guidelines with the television show Any Dream Will Do.
Foxgoose – thanks awfully for the pointer. Much appreciated.
Montag – that is a very basic sense. There is a huge difference between the anarchist left and the authoritarian left. The anarchist left believes in voluntary collectivism not authoritarianism beloved of Stalin et al.
Yeah, and I believe in sending anarchists to a colony on Mars. How about that? Your blog reminds me why I consider people like you to be enemies. Not sure how many anarchists work at Al Beeb though… they’ve probably got more muslims on their payroll.
The Now Show is going to be off the air for a while. Whatever are the BBC going to do to make sure we all get a weekly dose of sneering socialism/pacifism anti americanism, anti royalism, anti… you get the drift-all the issues beloved by the BBC and liberal left ?
dave t said: “I understand that Brits can’t vote in France yet the French can vote here. Is this right?”
According to the Electoral Commision.
“To vote in parliamentary elections in the UK you must be a British citizen, a citizen of another Commonwealth country or of the Irish Republic, as well as being resident in the UK, aged 18 or over, included in the register of electors for the constituency and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote.”
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/Parliament/DG_4003194
It looks as if the French cannot vote in a UK election but 52 other countries can (as long as they are resident in the country, not the same thing as a British National).
disillusioned_german – I’m deeply touched.
korova writes:
“disillusioned_german – I’m deeply touched.”
Wasn’t that the point he was making?
disillusioned_german – I’m deeply touched.
You certainly are.
re : irish voting
No taxation without representation is a fair principal.
But what about business rates.
FYI business rate are set at about 40% of the rent for commercial properties.
“I understand that Brits can’t vote in France yet the French can vote here. Is this right?”
My wife is Swedish, and she can vote. We just got our polling cards for the local elections. She can’t even vote in Sweden anymore because she married me, and if I moved over there I wouldn’t be able to vote in swedish elections until I naturalised. I don’t know about general elections yet but I suspect she’ll get a card for that too.
For the record she is not yet a naturalised British citizen and is only here legally under the schengen treaty. We’re working on that one…
archduke
I’m anglo-irish myself … but when you get P****s like
TheMuslimWeekly (sorry, I cant find link)
Labour and British Muslims:
Can we dream the same dream?
by Mike O`Brien MP
Are some Muslims about to vote against the best friend they have ever had in government? Can people really claim that the Labour Government is a friend of Muslims after Iraq? The answer may surprise you.
Understandably, many Muslims are very angry about the war. Traditionally they have supported Labour but some are now switching to the Liberal Democrats, Respect or even the Tories. But the real question is whether there is a danger that anger may be causing Muslims to vote against their own long-term interests?
Putting a cross on a ballot paper is much more than just about expressing anger; a General Election is not some kind of referendum on the Governments` record on one issue. It is about making a balanced political judgment between political parties and deciding which of them should have a majority in a Parliament. It is about the kind of country you want to live in. It is about considering what a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government has done and will do in the future for Muslims. I suggest that a vote, which weighs in the balance the long-term implications for Muslims, is the right approach.
We all know the importance of Iraq. Indeed, some people will try to convince you that it is the only issue that matters. Most however, will look beyond Iraq to also consider other issues such as the fate of the Palestinians. Despite the many setbacks over the last few years, the creation of a Palestinian state is a cause that the Prime Minister has repeatedly raised with great conviction and never abandoned. He has even declared it to be his personal priority. It is the key to peace in the Middle East. He has long advocated a two state solution, Palestine and Israel, side by side, both at peace. The reality is that the only way a Palestinian state will be created is if Israel is prepared to concede land it currently occupies on the West Bank and Gaza. Whether we in Britain like it or not, the reality of the modern world is that only the Americans can influence Israel. And it seems only Tony Blair has any influence with the Americans. Can anyone seriously imagine that Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy would be able to significantly influence George W. Bush? If they do, then they need to join the real world. The Prime Minister who has the most political clout to help the Palestinians is Tony Blair.
No one claims that the creation of a Palestinian state is going to be an easy ride for Tony Blair or for the Labour government but we are willing to stay the distance, no matter how difficult it gets. The Labour government and the Prime Minister have a record of arguing strongly that the creation of a Palestinian state is essential to peace and justice, and that any settlement must be based upon land being given for peace in line with UN Resolution 242. When the Americans and Israelis refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair promptly sent myself as the Foreign Office Minister, to visit Yasser Arafat in the Muquata in Ramallah to convey the message that we had not abandoned him. Tony Blair’s message was clear: we will work with the elected leader of the Palestinians, even if the Americans will not. On the issue of the assassination of the leaders of Hamas, Jack Straw as the Foreign Secretary was the first Western politician to condemn Israel’s actions.
Soon after the recent US elections, Tony Blair travelled to Washington to make it very clear that he wanted to see the road map to a Palestinian state opened up. If we are to have a Palestinian state in the next five years, then a key player in creating it will be the British Prime Minister, who will need to have world influence. In practice, only Tony Blair has the required credentials and track record. The reality remains that with George W. Bush in the White House, neither Charles Kennedy nor Michael Howard has the clout to deliver.
Are you still unconvinced that the Muslims need or should want a Labour Prime Minister in Downing Street? Well, let‚s compare Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. He is the first Prime Minister to have ever read the Qur‚an, to quote from it and to talk about it. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher or John Major doing the same? Whilst in opposition, Tony Blair had developed a genuine dialogue and relationship with a number of Muslims and Islamic organisations, based not just on getting votes but also on his interest in assisting Muslims achieve their rightful place in British life.
After 1997 Muslim groups were welcomed into the Home Office, the Foreign Office and 10 Downing Street. For the first time ever, four Muslim peers were appointed to the Lords and the first Muslim Labour MPs were elected. Even today, no other Party has a Muslim in the Commons. Labour is also the Party that has the largest number of Muslim councillors. We are proud of this achievement, but we have not yet finished. If you ask who are the only Party running Muslims in seriously winnable seats for the next election, the only answer is Labour.
The Muslim Council of Britain has been at the forefront of lobbying the Government on issues to help Muslims. Recently Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in the middle of his speech to the Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain.
But this is not the first and only time that Labour Party has delivered for Muslims. When I was a Home Office Minister in 1997, the MCB lobbied me to introduce not only a new law which would increase sentences for racial violence and harassment but also to recognise the particular problems faced by Muslims. As a result we were able to amend the law to make religion a factor in any violence and harassment. Today, new Crime Bill, announced in the Queens Speech is coming before Parliament to toughen the laws on incitement to religious hatred. This has upset some M.P.`s such as Evan Harris MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who has said he will oppose it because it is unnecessary!
Within weeks of coming to power, people will remember that Labour also repealed the appalling Primary Purpose Rule that discriminated against people coming to join their families in Britain, from Pakistan, Bangladesh and from other Muslim countries. This law introduced by the Conservatives caused a great deal of anguish and had broken up families. Labour promised to repeal it and promptly delivered after the election.
The new Labour Government was the first British government to give state recognition and funding to Muslim schools. Previously only Christian and Jewish schools had been allowed this opportunity. The Liberal Democrats opposed Muslim schools and Labour had to push legislation through the Commons against their strong opposition. At the same time the Foreign Office adopted a new policy to provide support for the Hajj delegation, sending doctors and administrators to Saudi Arabia to help British Hajjis. We are the only Western government to do so. Thousands of Muslims who travelled to Mecca have benefited from the change. And each year in the Commons there is now an Eid celebration, often attended by the PM, as he did this year.
I also remember when the issue arose about Muslims being included in the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Tony Blair was appalled that Muslims were being excluded and changed the protocol. He insisted that at all future civic ceremonies, including for example the commemoration of September 11 at St Paul’s Cathedral, Muslims would have a prominent role.
And across a whole range of social issues, on creating jobs, reducing poverty, on welfare reform and housing policy, Muslims have benefited from Labour government policies. Take for example the Sure Start initiative, which financed the new crèche opened at the London Muslim Centre in East London. It provides childcare facilities for the predominantly Muslim women in the whole area, in a place in which they have confidence in leaving their children.
In 2000 I took through the Commons the first Race Relations laws in a quarter of a century. Labour wanted to ensure that all public services had an obligation to promote good community relations. The impact of the law will be wide ranging.
Some might say these changes are all the result of pressure from within the Labour Party rather than the personal influence of Tony Blair himself. It is certainly true that it is the Labour Party as a whole which has had the support of Muslims; it is the Party that has supported migrant communities and the Welfare State. But Tony Blair’s keen interest in Muslim issues has been a key driver of progress through the last seven years. He was keen to ensure the interests of Muslims were considered and protected when Labour introduced the Minimum Wage, the Working Families Tax Credit and community development strategies.
It was also the PM who was personally committed to the intervention in Kosovo to help the Muslims who were being murdered by the Serbs. This was an intervention entirely for humanitarian reasons, opposed by many on the liberal Left of British politics like George Galloway. Many Muslims in Kosovo owe their lives to British intervention. Likewise, British funding of the reconstruction of Bosnia has helped Bosnian Muslims slowly re-build a future. It is Tony Blair who has personally championed the entry of Turkey- a Muslim country into the EU and he has taken a personal interest in dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. One of the key policies promoted by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown h
and so on blah blah blah … you get the gist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_O'Brien_(politician)
Not to mention: Orla Guerin, Fergal Keane, Bob Geldorf .. you would wonder why the Englist are so tolerant