Well now, didn’t the Archdhimmi of Canterbury cause quite the media firestorm which his shilling for Sharia? It’s been good to see the near universal condemnation he has attracted, proving that the majority of people here aren’t prepared to see Islamic law given any form of equivalence with our own. But I note that the BBC leads with a piece in which Williams gets to “defend” his ineptness. Apparently on his website, Mullah Williams does his je ne regrette rien routine. He’s shocked, yes shocked, at the vehemence of criticism send his way. Good. I reckon the BBC is shocked as well.
But there were a couple of weasel lines inserted into this piece by the BBC. Consider this; “Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.” Sorry, but Sharia law may be legal in downtown Tehran where they hang the homosexuals and stone the adulterers but it sure as heck ain’t legal here. It is tolerated within the scope of English law, wrongly in my view. There is a big difference between something being tolerated and it being legal. Also, the author implies it is only we in the West that have an issue with Sharia. Really? I guess those tens of thousands of Somalians that flee their land to escape the Sharia Courts didn’t get that memo. As for the “controversial” aspect to it, isn’t that a tad of an understatement? Further, if only “some” of its punishments are extreme in nature, do we assume that the writer of this article thinks others form of Sharia punishment are OK? Also note how the Muslim Council of Britain – that vipers nest much loved by Al Beeb- rush to defend Mullah Williams. Why is this unrepresentative group given the chance to pose as the voice of British Muslims, when in fact many British Muslims want nothing to do with it?
The BBC article concludes with the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, saying that in Williams… “We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation.” And on that note, the BBC items concludes. I’m in tears, aren’t you? Oh the injustice of it all. The Beeb must be so upset that their pal Williams has taken such a pasting in the past few days and it’s nice to see them doing their level best for him. Always fair and balanced, right?
Knacker;
If the thought of direct democratic action makes some here uncomfortable, jolly good, go eat crow.
Would it be OK if I ate it in a nice curry?
.
Isn’t there something hypocritical about someone as simple as the ABC to take it for granted that he should be allowed to speak freely about the place of Sharia law in British society, which many of us finds an insulting prospect, but he, at the same time wants to outlaw free speech which he deems to offend religion?
“Archbishop of Canterbury calls for new law to punish ‘thoughtless or cruel’ words”:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3272730.ece
Barry – welcome to the blog and thanks for your articulate and thoughtful comments.
Just a few quick points:
1)
This issue doesn’t seem to be a typical left vs right political philosophy debate to me. I would suggest that people from all political perspectives would legitimately have a range of views. In practice, we have some evidence that almost everyone is against the A of C, but that does not change the underlying ideology.
(To be more specific, if left and right are boiled down to their modern simplified meanings of economic ‘large vs small govt’, then this it’s hard to say where the A of C’s opinions fit.)
2)
You ask if we want the BBC to report
“only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?”
I’d like all relevant facts please, simple as that. ‘Worst’ implies a value judgement which in a perfect world the BBC should not be making.
… and finally…
3)
Bias is bias. As a pretty active member of a political party, I simply don’t want the BBC to show any bias, even if it’s toward my point of view. It’s not right, it’s not fair and it’s not legal under their charter.
Again, thanks for participating and I look forward to your informed comments.
“Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?”
Beeboid-Barry | 10.02.08 – 10:05 am |
That doesn`t make sense, you can`t ONLY report something AS WELL as something else.
How about this?,just report the facts.
I think that the jury is still out as to whether the BBC is biased regarding the issue of Sharia. I have seen quite a range of reporting on the issue from the BBC.
On a whole bunch of other issues well documented on this site, however, the bias is undeniable and the only debatable point is the extent of the bias.
“Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?”
Actually Beeboid_Harry, an awful lot of us don’t want to be ‘licence payers’ in the first place.
Imagine what the implementation of Sharia law actually would mean for a large number of Beeboids. People like Nigel Wrench for example. I don’t think they’d enjoy it that much.
As for me, a married, monogamous, hetero-sexual, non-drinker (I’m clean shaven but I can always grow a beard) I might be less likely to face a flogging, but I detest Sharia. Yet al-Beeb posts these Dominic Cascani whitewashing pieces about Sharia and generally downplays things about the Religion of Pieces.
Anonymous: Yet al-Beeb posts these Dominic Cascani whitewashing pieces about Sharia and generally downplays things about the Religion of Pieces.
Correct, Anon.
This piece is more to the point than the misogynist BBC’s whitewash:
[S Telegraph]
Sharia law is abhorrent not just to most Christians, but to anyone who is committed to human rights – a group that includes many Muslims. In the countries where it operates, sharia law is brutal, cruel, discriminatory, and viciously oppressive of women, whose testimony is worth only half that of a man, and who are disadvantaged, relative to men, in marriage law, in disputes on the custody of children in divorce cases, and in inheritance law.
Dr Williams said he did not want to be interpreted as endorsing the practices of sharia law countries such as Saudi Arabia, which punish rape victims with imprisonment and lashes on the grounds that they have committed “fornication”, which chop off the hands of those convicted of theft and behead or stone women convicted of adultery. But that kind of “law” is precisely what some of the more extreme Islamic fundamentalists mean when they say they want to apply sharia to their own communities.
David Vance – take your obsessive islamophobia elsewhere and let this blog get back to concentrating on genuine examples of BBC bias – of which there are many!
Herb | 09.02.08 – 3:53 pm | #
But the fact is that the BBC is biased towards islam, and this is the equivalent of supporting a doctrine which is incompatible with the British way of life, culture and traditions.
For a muslim, sharia law is based on the koran and hadith – respectively, the absolute immutable word of (the moon-) god, and the way of life of their prophet. The BBC should give us infidels some background about the way of life of ‘the prophet’, but that would be a bit risky. Wasn’t muhammad a mass-murdering paedophile rapist, hence the nature of islam?
Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?”
No, I don’t think so, and I haven’t seen anyone on this site, other than your good self suggesting it. This is called a stawman argument.
What I want, and I suspect others do as well, is an even handed approach by the BBC to Islam in the UK. Report both good and bad but don’t work on the current assumption that Muslims are always victims and are never in the wrong. It sometimes seems to me that the only person that the BBC always assumes is wrong is a white Englishman.
Ha ha ha! You duckwit!
“‘Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code’…Sorry, but Sharia law may be legal in downtown Tehran where they hang the homosexuals and stone the adulterers but it sure as heck ain’t legal here. It is tolerated within the scope of English law, wrongly in my view. There is a big difference between something being tolerated and it being legal”
This guy doesn’t even understand what ‘legal code’ means! Why is B-BBC taking contributions from someone who can’t actually read?
Beeboid Harry:
”
Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?”
Just point us to ONE instance of Al Beeb doing this Beeboid Harry.
Just ONE!
At least the BBC ‘Today’ programme briefly discussed the problem of ‘inbred’ health defects in some Muslim Pakistanis in the UK caused by their tradition of first cousin, transnational marriage; it is a particular problem in the Yorkshire constituency of Ann Cryer MP. She indicated that the Pakistani community locally was in denial about the problem.
The ‘Today’ discussion did not extend to talking about the case for restricting immigration.
There’s the inevitable reaction:
“Demands for MP to resign after he claims Muslim ‘inbreeding’ in Britain is causing massive surge in birth defects”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513520&in_page_id=1770
BBC News religious affairs correspondent, Robert Pigott appears to play down the deep unpopularity of Rowan Williams’and his remarks about accepting aspects of Sharia law. Piggot says: “the Archbishop was held in ‘deep affection and respect’ by rank and file Anglicans.” Really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237863.stm
Fora a more critical analysis of the simple ABC, see Melanie Phillips’ article:-
“The Church should have the guts to sack the Archbishop …and pick a man who TRULY treasures British values.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=513503&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256&in_check=N
Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?
Beeboid-Barry | 10.02.08 – 10:05 am |
At the risk of conviction under Godwin’s Law where the worst aspects of their religion are a clear and present threat to the safety of license fee payers the answer is yes.
Could you imagine BBC reporting the 1930’s rise of fascism under the same rules as they seem to be applying to 2000’s rise of Islamofascism?
• Avoiding mention of criminal suspects’ ties to the Blackshirts as a possible explanation for offences?
• Describing someone accused of crimes as plumber living in Liverpool without mentioning his latest trip to Hitler Youth camps in his hometown of Munich.
• Not mentioning ethnic background because the majority of Austrians were quiet and hard-working (if not exactly sorry about the Anschluss)?
• Failing to mention cries of ‘Sieg Heil’ from gangs burning cars or their deliberate avoiding of damage to cars with prominent swastikas?
• Balancing Herr Hitler’s policy of genocide against the cleanliness of Brownshirt/Blackshirt uniforms?
• Disproportionately interviewing supports of terrorism against Jewish targets and ignoring opponents?
• Calling same terrorism as activism and its practitioners militants?
• Reporting the best aspects of British Fascism – order and efficiency and proudly British, disproportionately to the best aspects of other competing ideologies with similar membership?
Calling a spade a spade is always a problem of balance for honest journalists and editors. Referring to it as a sturdy digging tool having a thick handle and a heavy, flat blade that can be pressed into the ground with the foot, can be as misleading as referring to it as a ‘bloody’ shovel.
deegee:
Could you imagine BBC reporting the 1930’s rise of fascism under the same rules as they seem to be applying to 2000’s rise of Islamofascism?
Nail on head, there, nail on head.
If there’s one thing that we need to understand it’s that a centuries-old worldwide religion has so much in common with a political system which in barely 20 years slaughtered 6 million, invaded all of its neighbouring states and imposed a eugenicist nightmare on most of Western Europe.
And who can remember the unique strength of the fragrant Melanie Phillips’s spiritual home, the Daily Mail, is standing up to, er, Herr Hitler?
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 10.02.08 – 8:17 pm |
This guy doesn’t even understand what ‘legal code’ means! Why is B-BBC taking contributions from someone who can’t actually read?
No, I think you have misunderstood. A ‘legal code’ can exist without jurisdiction in which case it is not ‘legal’. Part of the ‘legal code’ may become ‘illegal’ if it runs contrary to the legal code with jurisdiction and then only that part would be ‘illegal’ not all of the code. HTH 😉
I have to say that I think the BBC has been pretty good on this issue.
Maybe they were shocked by the 24000 people who contacted HYS. Whatever, they need to find some people who can properly articulate what many people feel about the way Islam pushes its weight around in this country. I think they may now be trying to do this.
The issue is about much more than whatever it was the foolish Archbishop said. It is about the future of our country.
People are waking up to what the Religion of Peace is all about, realising that they have grown powerful and that we now have a really huge problem in this country. It is a frightening thought. Maybe the BBC is starting to understand that they cannot ignore poor old whitey’s veiws any more.
My own veiw? A very large number of Muslims in this country want to impose their will on the rest of us. Even though there is currently 2 million of them here which is not yet enough to take over they are certainly making their presence felt.
Muslims rub up against all others wherever they are in the world. They want to bring their fight right to your door.
Unlike many of my friends and despite having all the points I need, I have decided not to join many of my friends and emigrate down under. I will stay and raise my family here.
When the time comes I will fight the Islamists for the country of my forefathers. It will be love rather than hate that motivates me.
“It is tolerated within the scope of English law, wrongly in my view.”
I’m failing to see how an arbitration procedure agreed on by consenting adults which gives an outcome legal under British law (which can subsequently be challenged under British law at the option of either of the participants) can be anything other than ‘tolerated’. How do you propose to detolerate this??
Surely the point worrying grown ups is that beardy seems to imply that decisions by what is essentially a fake court should have some force in British law, either legally enabling unlawful outcomes or preventing participants from having subsequent redress under British law if they don’t like the outcome.
“And who can remember the unique strength of the fragrant Melanie Phillips’s spiritual home, the Daily Mail, is standing up to, er, Herr Hitler?”
Not to mention CND’s immediate ancestor, the Peace Pledge Union.
Mullah Williams may have been just noodling with an idea, as he calims, but I doubt it. He has form in this area which presents a pattern that suggests he either a knave or a fool, either way he is unfit for the job.
Strange how the BBc in its endless sympathetic backgrounders does not mention Willaims past outbursts, remember:
In an interview in the Muslim magazine Emel, he said lambasted the USA as a violent imperialist and said that “Our modern Western defination of humanity is not working well” and that Western moderfnity eats away at the soul.” The Muslim world by contrast was to be praised for its devotions to prayer but that perhaps some islamic “Political solutions were not the most impressive.”
Illcunt: suppose Nazism had survived fourteen centuries, would that place it beyond criticism? And do you even have any idea of how, exactly, Islam was spread? Read up on Muhammed himself, or Timur Lang, or Bayezid. Well, no, never mind. This being you, you would probably read something by Karen Armstrong or Juan Cole and insist it had any authority.
Angry Young Alex | 09.02.08 – 10:08 pm |
And yes, I stand by my ‘mildly controversial’. He said certain parts of Sharia law should be included, not the hand-chopping or the rape-victim-stoning, just a few items of family and civil law to be settled by religious courts should all parties consent, for which there is already adequate provision in British law and a privilege which is extended to Talmidic law.
While I don’t think there was any bias in the BBC’s initial report on the ArchB’s blathering, there certainly is bias in the way they discuss Shariah in general. You seem to share a similar bias. You think that His Agnostic Grace is suggesting that Shariah get equal respect under the law to Jewish law. I think you are wrong, because the ArchB’s own website has it that he was really suggesting, among other things, “exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.” Presumably he means only in certain situations, i.e. the ones without those controversial punishments, but that’s not really what would happen.
He makes the same comparison to Jewish law, and makes the same grave error, even though he seems to have been prompted by a foolish Jewish law maven.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581
In any case, this is where it goes tragically, horribly wrong. Jews already have their own “court system” for things that require religious supervision, like marriage and divorce, conversion and personal disputes. But even with these, a Jewish couple still has to get married in the British legal system in order for the state to recognize it. A Jewish man may have an easy time divorcing his wife under Jewish law, but he is still married to her under UK law unless he goes through the proper legal channels of the state. The ArchB is not admitting that what he is suggesting – and in fact what promoters of Shariah law want – is that Muslims will somehow have Islamic law replace the state in certain situations. Big difference.
Cockney @ 11.02.08 – 12:38 pm is closer to the mark:
Surely the point worrying grown ups is that beardy seems to imply that decisions by what is essentially a fake court should have some force in British law, either legally enabling unlawful outcomes or preventing participants from having subsequent redress under British law if they don’t like the outcome.
Worse, who is going to decide which situations fall under Islam law and which will be under British law? If Islamic courts are given jurisdiction over certain legal matters, will they be required to follow the same civil rights requirements as British law? Will Islamic courts be required to keep the same amount of records and documentation? Who is going to pay for all that infrastructure? The hapless taxpayer, of course.
And here’s where it gets really delusional, or maybe just disingenuous:
Do you or Dr. Williams or any other critics here really expect that you can grant Islamic courts legal status under British law and still dictate to them what punishments you all are comfortable with? I’d like to see you try that one.
pounce:
Don’t forget the slaughter of 4 million jews would have been downplayed by the BBC who would instead have been reporting all the German soldiers slaughtered for merely protecting their ‘homeland’.
And in the BBC eyes, the SS would have been referred to as “A small minority engaging in anti-Germanic activity”.
Yes, the BBC is one gigantic Lord Haw-Haw broadcasting freely on behalf of the murderous cult of Islam, paid for by the very people Islam seeks to destroy.
The BBC must go!
“A ‘legal code’ can exist without jurisdiction in which case it is not ‘legal’. Part of the ‘legal code’ may become ‘illegal’ if it runs contrary to the legal code with jurisdiction and then only that part would be ‘illegal’ not all of the code.”
That’s rather a long-winded explanation. A legal code is a code established, if not necessarily applied, for legal purposes, in simpler terms, a ‘code of laws’. In this case the word ‘legal’ refers to function, not status within existing laws, and serves to distinguish a legal code such as Sharia or British Law from a non-legal code such as Morse code.
Did I mention there are no laws against Morse code? I know I sometimes have to put these things in simple terms.
I have praised the BBC’s coverage of the furore caused by Archbishop Williams, however, I note that on this evenings edition of Newsnight they have dropped any mention to the Archbishops comments and the ongoing debate caused by his choice of words…instead, and this is what I find totally amazing they have deemed that the 6 alleged terrorists who the US wish to put on trial are more newsworthy????.
I cannot defend the BBC on this idiotic behaviour, Newsnight should be reporting the news, and the main news is how the Archbishop has managed to upset both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, instead we are going to be treated to a debate on how the US wishes to interrogate these 6 men.
Come on BBC get a grip, Newsnight is not supposed to cater for a tiny group of people who appear to reside in either Islington or Broadcasting House, it is supposed to cater for everyone.
You have posted this 2 hours and 53 minutes before today’s “Newsnight” is broadcast. Some other programme?
So the BBC have decided to draw a line under the matter:
Archbishop guilty of innocence
Analysis
By Alex Kirby
BBC News
…All that said, though, the damage he has caused is minuscule by comparison both with what his critics are doing and with the good he himself has done.
What “good” would that have been Alex?
You have posted this 2 hours and 53 minutes before today’s “Newsnight” is broadcast. Some other programme?
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 11.02.08 – 8:01 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Actually Roland, I was commenting on the fact that Newsnights prospects for tonights show had the Archbishop as the lead item, at the time I posted the Archbishop was not even scheduled to be discussed.
And I have just rechecked and the 6 alleged terrorists are the main item for tonight.
Perhaps Roland you would like to comment on why Newsnight have decided to ignore the Archbishop?.
If not why don’t you bugger off.
Joe (The Netherlands) | 11.02.08 – 9:24 pm
Roland Thompson-Gunner has a talent for missing the point. He also objects to non-licence payers having an opinion on the BBC.
Your point on Newsnight reminds me of World Have Your Say, broadcast nightly on the World Service. During President Bush’s visit to Israel, WHYS felt it was far more important to discuss primaries for the distant US election than the extremely important visit. Not only that, they totally ignored the Republican primary. I was amazed to discover later that people were actually voting for Republicans as well. I thought it must be on another day.
So here we had the impartial BBC deciding it was more important to discuss a Democratic contest for a distant nomination for president than a vital visit to the world’s major hot spot by a current Republican president.
Of course what the little darlings at the BBC were doing in effect was snubbing Bush by giving his visit as little prominence as possible.
When the BBC tells us that it represents the broad public, it is bullsh*tting. It represents itself and its clique of like-minded hangers-on.
I have just had a conversation with my Mauritian Hindu brother-in-law.
In his relatively developing country between 15-20% of the population are Muslim, 45% Hindu, 15% Christian and the rest Chinese and other, many of them very religious.
There is sometimes small degrees of racial and religious conflict, but as a whole the people have little problems getting on and living side by side in reasonable harmony.
He tells me that there are no Sharia laws and NO talk of introducing any, not even small ones. All people are treated the same under their British based law and judicial system. The laws are very straight forward logical, conservative in nature, and easy to understand.
( The only time they are not is if the accused has enough money to bribe a police man a politician or a judge. As we now know very much like here. )
However in Briton we have a tiny 2% Muslim population yet we talk about these issues now on a daily basis. Thanks in no small way to our masonic Druid ABofC and our ‘favorite’ New World Order broadcaster, The BBC.
Why? you may ask.
IMO
It is because, like the people that helped appoint and promote the lunatic, ( ie this government, The BBC, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair, along with the EU, The CFR, The UN, and other very rich powerful incredibly influential forces of the revolutionary fascist far left, including almost the entire worlds banking system ) are determined to enforce a NEW WORLD ORDER along with a new ONE WORLD RELIGION.
Unfortunately this masonic based plan involves the almost complete destruction of this nation and the US, as we thought we knew them.
Quite frankly I now longer care. Because I now disown this country and its great history. From now on I will spit when using this hell holes name.
Enjoy, what will seem like everlasting pain, leading to your ultimate demise British people. You deserve everything you will now get.
The main thrust of the BBC’s ‘multiculturalism’ (and that of R.Williams), regarding Islam, can be better understood in this context:-
“The only true ‘moderate’ Muslims are ex-Muslims”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009908.html
It is a shocking shame that there is no what a wonderful place the BBC is site, still hillhunt, aussie bystander and typhoo clearly think that is what this blog should be.
Or failing that a Vance is biased site.
Forget it being a biased bbc site just because thats what its called and thats what it aims to be.
Atlas Shrugged:
“Enjoy, what will seem like everlasting pain, leading to your ultimate demise British people. You deserve everything you will now get.”
I’ll drink to that. When I’m on a slow boat out of here.
It will be interesting to watch Islam gradually envelope the UK from faraway shores, as all it’s people just sit and take it with no more rebellion than a slightly hushed tut.
I agree with Atlas Shrugged. They deserve all they get.
Apparently, the BBC in all its appeasing ‘multiculturalism’ is giving R.Williams a quiet time now in view of his non-clarification and non-commitment to oppose the introduction of elements of Islamic law (sharia) in the UK:-
“Dr. Rowan Williams’s words were understood”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/12/dl1201.xml
Memo for BBC and R.Williams: position of Christians in Islamic Egypt (video reports):-
‘Life for Christians under Muslim Rule’
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/12939
I’m glad to see that B-BBC is back in fighting form. I’d totally given up on the blog after the ridiculous censorship began (and continued).
It is good to see that debate has returned.
[Joe Netherlands wrote:
Actually Roland, I was commenting on the fact that Newsnights prospects for tonights show had the Archbishop as the lead item, at the time I posted the Archbishop was not even scheduled to be discussed.
And I have just rechecked and the 6 alleged terrorists are the main item for tonight.
Perhaps Roland you would like to comment on why Newsnight have decided to ignore the Archbishop?.
If not why don’t you bugger off.]
a) don’t demean yourself witn silly insults.
b) you weren’t in fact commenting on what was on Newsnight, but a preview. You got caught out. An intelligent, non-bigoted reader of this blog would/should take with a very large pinch of salt criticism of a programme by someone who appears not even to know what time it is broadcast.
Bryan’s claim that I object to comments from people who aren’t forced to pay the licence is incorrect.
But I do think it’s germane for people who aren’t to disclose this in all their postings – as you do – if they don’t want to be seen as intellectually dishonest by those who do have to fund the BBC.
I’d expect the same reaction if I was posting on any similar websites dealing with public broadcasters in your country or Bryan’s.
“But I do think it’s germane for people who aren’t to disclose this in all their postings
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 12.02.08 – 5:04 pm”
And on the same basis for the BBC employees to all out themselves too.
Absolutely.
The BBC’s subsidised ‘multiculturalism’ converges with that of R.Williams in his dabble into aspects of Sharia for the UK, deserting his role as defender of Christianity; and the complicit Labour government avoids/doesn’t understand the ideological issues, but understands the electoral one: the Muslim vote.
American Daniel Pipes puts the recent Islamising developments in the UK into perspective:
“Britain’s Encounter with Islamic Law”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=814D88E3-96C9-4BB0-9F9F-79C25A4E3826
Bryan’s claim that I object to comments from people who aren’t forced to pay the licence is incorrect.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 12.02.08 – 5:04 pm
You objected, all right. You accused me of deliberately hiding the fact that I don’t live in Britain.
It’s the internet age. People from all over the world comment on anything and everything and nobody is obliged to reveal their life history here. It’s not “intellectually dishonest.” It’s just communication.