You will recall that we discussed the story the other day of how an Anglican priest was viciously attacked by “asian youths” in Tower Hamlets in London. The BBC apologists that frequent this space immediately took issue with my suggestion that the “asian youths” were, in all likelihood, Muslims. They also cheered the BBC’s refusal to suggest that there may have been any Muslim involvement. But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”! Abdul Qayum, imam of the East London Mosque, also said: “Our congregation is united in condemnation. The imam described the attack as “cowardly and despicable.” Now naturally all condemnation of such brutality is welcome but isn’t it odd that whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to suggest that Muslims may have been the perpetrators of this violence, it provides a soap-box for Muslims to make clear that they oppose all such attacks. The thing is that this same East London Mosque hosted Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who refers to Jews as monkeys and pigs and in 2004 was denied entry into Canada. It also has Muhammad Abdul Bari, the guy who believes the UK should adopt Islamic arranged marriages, as chairman. Moderation incarnate.
THOSE MYSTERIOUS YOUTHS – UPDATE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Nothing there confirming the youths were muslim, only people of faith gathering around and supporting each other and condemning these attacks.
I note when Paul Quinn was murdered, you were on tv condemning it, we saw your video linked here? Same with Harry Holland in west Belfast, you were on Nolan condemning it?
Why aren’t you condemning/blogging/mentioning the latest attack, where a man is lying in hospital after being beaten about the head with a pickaxe and then had a tv dropped on it? He’s on life support.
Wait: Don’t tell me. This guys an ex-prisoner – so maybe you think he had it coming? Silence speaks.
On another note, I see Labour is also saying the BBC are guilty of Bias,
bbc labour bias
Of course they weren’t Muslim – this crime has Worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster written all over it.
On another note, I see Labour is also saying the BBC are guilty of Bias.
Of course they are.
would you expect anything else?
Imagine `Labour accuse bbc of leftist bias`
The country is showing a distinct lean to the right, labour are reminding the bbc which side it`s bread is buttered.
HSLD, maybe they were may be they weren’t, but here is the two issues.
1) Where does it say so or confirm in the link that the youths are muslim.
2) Why condemn this attack, the attack on two previous men on bbc television and radio, and overlook this man, who was hit on the head, according to police and hospital staff at least sixty times about the head, in which a pick axe handle was used.
Now DV knows the significance of a pick axe handle, don’t you DV. so what is the difference between one victim of a pick axe handle and another? Answer: you stay quiet about one but not the other which you spoke about on the bbc. Now if that is not bias and opportunistic then what is it?
HSLD:
Of course they weren’t Muslim – this crime has Worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster written all over it.
HSLD |
Bloody pastaphobe!
Typhoo
So thats all right then is it?
Labour think the BBC is crap. Tories think the BBC is crap. So the BBC must be doing a great job.
This may sound logical to you and the BBC. But to me it is clearly the logic of the mad house.
I have a solution for this problem, but I am sure you are not going to like it.
CLOSE THE FUCKING BBC DOWN TOMORROW and deregulate the entire broadcast system. Then maybe just maybe one bright sunny day the people may start getting the truth from its broadcasters.
Instead of what they do get. Which is no information at all, disinformation, half truths, or perfect lies. Dressed up as honest impartially, which is impossible at the best of times.
In an uncensored deregulated market place politicians would have to start being honest for a change. A habit they cant even manage post internet.
However if any broadcaster however badly funded was allowed to say and more importantly SHOW anything they wanted that did not conflict with common law. We would be free and our current corrupt party political system would fall apart overnight.
Which of course is the reason why the above will never happen, under any circumstances I can imagine.
I forgot, maybe you even got paid for condeming one but not the other.
Why so quiet about it since its been in the news nearly two days, 15 miles from your front door.
I await your answer.
Mr Orange:
I agree. Very disappointing that the local mosque issued a forthright condemnation of the attack on the Christian clergyman. And that the BBC reported it, too.
I took a slight peek at your preferred script.
It started with a Hamas flag flying in the light of a burning police car. All around, the East London yoot is wearing bomb belts and chanting “Death to the C of E infidels. Oh and the same to Israel, too. And to the Orange Lodge. Infidels, all”
Much more comforting.
Biased BBC: You Know Where You Can Stuff Your Condemnation
Atlas close the bbc down, save me a few quid, no skin off my nose. Along with closing it down, close down bloggers who opportunistically condemn attacks and murders simply because it gives them a platform.
Not disappointing,
confirming maybe?
Typhoo, I’ve drawn attention to the fact that in a previous incident in Wales in which an imam was the victim, the BBC were happy to speculate about the motives of the attackers without any stronger evidence than was available in the Tower Hamlets incident.
They were happy to carry quotes from two Muslim community leaders echoing their opinion about the motives. The BBC even headlined their article
“‘Race’ attack on imam near mosque.” This despite the fact that the police did not attribute a motive to the crime.
In the Welsh case we are told “Police expressed disgust, but said it was “random” and not a “targeted attack on the Muslim community”.
However a bit later in the same story
the BBC is happy to carry quotes from an imam and later the secretary of the Islamic centre who says “It’s very worrying. We have very good relations with the community in Rhyl and other religions.
“We have been trying to build bridges, especially since (last year’s London bombings on) 7 July, but we feel this has dented our confidence.”
The inconsistency with the Tower Hamlets case is obvious. The BBC are happy to inflate the imam’s accusations with a misleading headline. Once again, how do you explain the disparity of the BBC’s attitude in these cases.
Welsh case is on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales…ast/ 5165676.stm.
Remember Judas-gate?
How interesting to read that the BBC is to screen a new drama about the final week in the life of Jesus Christ which appears to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate.
Mr Orange brought us the terrifying news that the BBC was once again dancing on the decencies of the (Christian) God-fearing as part of its dhimmitude…
A BBC spokesman said:”We are not seeking to subvert or rewrite the Gospel narrative • we are just retelling it to bring it alive for a contemporary audience.” Right, so you KNOW that that this is exactly what they are looking to do.
Really?
Here’s James Walton, from, erm, the Telegraph, the very same newspaper whose account of the (then unseen) film inflamed Mr Orange so. Unlike Mr Orange or the holy-joe rentaquotes favoured by B-BBC, Walton had actually seen the BBC version:
In advance, some Christian groups have already objected to BBC1’s The Passion. After watching the first episode, I can only assume that this is part of their strange quest to prove that, when it comes to touchiness and knee-jerk outrage, their version of Christianity can still hold its own with any of the world’s religions.
And here’s the curate of St Bride’s in that revolutionary tract, the Financial Times:
The BBC’s The Passion is respectful, even faithful, to the scriptural universality of Jesus’s mission when it has him engage with the whores outside a Jerusalem brothel, tend to the outcast sick at the Pool of Siloam and defend the temple guards from his disciples’ violence when they come to take him in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Biased BBC: Ever Been Sold A Pup?
But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”!
….
Astonishing. I see the Bishop condemned it, but doesn’t get a headline or an article. Still, in BBC Fantasyland, what’s a mere Bishop compared with a Muslim?
Re Atlas shrugged;
I think the BBC are wonderful. Infact so much so, that I feel now is the time, for myself as a “white man” to apollogise for all of the things my ancestors have brought upon the BBCs most “sainted of peoples”.
So in true and open BBC style here goes…..
To the BBCs Previously Disadvantaged and oppressed;
We are sorry that our ancestors were intelligent, advanced and daring enough to explore the wild oceans to discover new countries and develop them.
We are sorry that those who came before us took you out of the bush and taught you that there was more to life than beating drums, killing each other and chasing animals with sticks and stones.
We are sorry that they planned, funded and developed roads, towns, mines, factories, airports and harbours, all of which you now claim to be your long deprived inheritance giving you every right to change and rename these at your discretion.
We are sorry that our parents taught us the value of small but strong families, to not breed like rabbits and end up as underfed, diseased, illiterate shack dwellers living in poverty.
We are sorry that when the evil Colonials provided you with schools, you decided they’d look better without windows or in piles of ashes.
We happily gave up those bad days of getting spanked in our all white schools for doing something wrong and much prefer these days of freedom where problems can be resolved with lectures and mogodon.
We are sorry that we do not trust the government. We have no reason to be so suspicious because none of these poor hard working intellectuals have ever been involved in any form of corruption or ‘irregularities’
Now have they?.
Most of them have never had a proper job. That does not mean they’re out of touch with reality, I have no doubt they’re as streetwise as a Victorian urchin.
We are sorry that we do not trust the police force and, even though they have openly admitted that they have lost the war against crime and criminals, we should not be negative and just ignore their incompetence and carry on hoping for the best.
We are sorry that it is more important to you to have players of colour in our national teams than winning games and promoting patriotism.
We know that your support doesn’t depend on a team’s success, but on the “Social cohesion” and the community at large.
But where are your much vaunted Islamic sportsmen and women?.
Under veils?. In the Mosque?.
In Pakistan attending Madrassa lessons perhaps?.
Where is your Community cohesion here?.
Does it not apply to Islam?.
We are sorry that our border posts have been flung open and now left us competing for jobs against illegal immigrants from our European neighbouring countries.
All of these countries that have grown into tin pot powerhouses after inviting ín your ‘Sainted settlers’.
We are sorry that we don’t believe in witchcraft, beetroot and garlic cures, urinating on street corners, camel dung “cures all” ailments, the moons a cheese, the world is flat, virginity testing, the slaughtering of animals halal style, trading women for dowries and other barbaric practices.
Maybe we just grew up differently.
Who knows?….
We are sorry that your much loved Countries medical care, water supplies, roads, railways and electricity supplies are going down the toilet because skilled people who could have planned for and resolved these issues had to be thrown away because they were of the wrong ethnic background and now have to work in Western countries where their skills are still needed.
But I bow to your superior Beeboid minds. You must be right.
You are indeed self-rightious!.
But where will you be if OUR civil war arrives?. Due to YOUR pandering?.
Ah yes – claiming political asylum in some far off continent of your choosing.
Beeboids. – Dont you just love em….
Mr Orange:
I agree. Very disappointing that the local mosque issued a forthright condemnation of the attack on the Christian clergyman. And that the BBC reported it, too.
Trouble is Hillcnut David V. wrote that “all condemnation of such brutality is welcome”.
Hillcnut: comprehension skills not a strong point.
Hillhunt, yes you’re right about the Judas thing. It did strike me later that the original Telegraph story might just be trying to whip up controversy, particularly since other Christian groups were actually supporting it. I’m not sure what the relevance to this thread is, though.
Hugh:
I’m not sure what the relevance to this thread is, though.
Possibly an unpleasant willingness to hurl oneself onto any passing anti-BBC bandwagon, never mind how poorly-conceived: Especially ones laced with paranoia about religious motive.
Anon
Trouble is Hillcnut David V. wrote that “all condemnation of such brutality is welcome”.
Y-e-e-e-s.
And as graceless a welcome as I have seen in a while. Wouldn’t you say?
.
Lance:
Astonishing. I see the Bishop condemned it, but doesn’t get a headline or an article. Still, in BBC Fantasyland, what’s a mere Bishop compared with a Muslim?
You might have missed this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7299475.stm
.
Isn’t East London Mosque so quaint, so eclectic? I mean one moment their guest speaker is a guy who compares Jews to monkeys and pigs, another who shills for the introduction of sharia, and NEXT, why they issue their little condemnations of attacks on non-Muslims. Maybe the BBC should provide us with a little background on this mosque so we can ALL ascertain just how meaningful its words are? Still, I suppose a verbal attack on Jews, and a physical attack on a Christian churchman is proof for the NNC that multiculturalisam is really working….
Hillhunt: You’re not always charm personified yourself, you know. And I don’t think this one is poorly conceived. For whatever reason, the BBC seems to have done a fairly poor job of quickly relaying the available information. None of the reasons offered – irrelevance, confusion around legal restrictions or community cohesion considerations – are that compelling.
‘Isn’t East London Mosque so quaint, so eclectic? I mean one moment their guest speaker is a guy who compares Jews to monkeys and pigs, another who shills for the introduction of sharia, and NEXT, why they issue their little condemnations of attacks on non-Muslims. ‘
Sounds like your ex church Martyrs Memorial and Ian Paisley who wanted catholics burnt in their beds. I guess pick axe handles does the job these days.
whats with typhoo and pick axe handles?…was he frightened by one as a child?
“Atlas close the bbc down, save me a few quid, no skin off my nose. Along with closing it down, close down bloggers who opportunistically condemn attacks and murders simply because it gives them a platform.
Typhoo | Homepage | 18.03.08 – 12:53 am”
No, WRONG!
blog closed down, not closed down, cost ZERO
BBC closed down, not closed down, cost the annual compulsory poll tax licence fee
I assume you kneejerked and regret it now because you are normally a sensible poster even if I do not always agree wth you but if you can’t see the difference you have lost all credibility.
Can we have a new weekly thread please someone???
Hillhunt, Typhoo
I’d be interested to know your reaction to Barry Wood’s post (1.05a.m.), which rather perfectly exemplifies the BBC’s bias.
Seeing as you are both here for intelligent and well-formed debate, you should have no problem formulating some sort of response.
We wouldn’t want people thinking that you were only on here to annoy people and launch personal attacks on David Vance would we? People have been banned for less!
‘Possibly an unpleasant willingness to hurl oneself onto any passing BBC bandwagon, never mind how poorly-conceived’
Slightly rewritten hillhunt that covers your unquestioning BBC defence pretty aptly.
hillhunt you persist in personal attacks on David Vance and petty insult all the time including the grossly offensive Mr Orange line.
He is much more tolerant than Andrew and you are playing on it.
People have been banned for far far less, if Andrew not David was chief moderating you would already have been banned.
whats with typhoo and pick axe handles?…was he frightened by one as a child?
No the BBC pay him to condemn pick axe handle murders, but he only condemns the murders he gets paid for.
Heron I’ll take a look at the link later. I’m in the middle of something. If anyone wants to ban me. Please feel free. I’m on my way to inquire about a victim of a pick axe handle, priorities you know.
Despite my little hints over the past months, you lot just don’t get it, do you?
Alright, one last try.
Last weekend the West’s leading anti-terrorism experts • including key figures from the US military and intelligence community • met in Stockholm. Roger Hardy, the BBC’s Islamic affairs commentator reported the key message the delegates agreed upon:
Above all, this new war is being fought, not just on the battlefield, but in the mind. The West and its Islamist adversaries are competing for Muslim opinion – and that means Muslim opinion in Birmingham and Jakarta, as well as Baghdad and Kabul.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7297139.stm
Now, when the authorities are trying to get ordinary UK Muslims onside in the struggle against Islamist extremism • how helpful are you being?
Normally as I go about life, my daily experience of the good sense of the British people leads me to think that groups like MPAC are exaggerating when they bang on about Islamophobia. But when I come here, I have to acknowledge that they may have a point.
Taken all together, this site comes close to incitement to hatred.
This isn’t helpful in prosecuting the ‘war on terror’ or whatever you want to call it.
BJ QC:
Slightly rewritten hillhunt that covers your unquestioning BBC defence pretty aptly.
Unquestioning, indeed.
Apart from agreeing with the majority here on the misconceived notion that was the White season.
Oh, yes, and saying that the BBC must explain the news report which claimed to have pictures of a Palestinian’s house being knocked down when it was still standing…
Seem to recall also rubbishing the HYS pages, although for different reasons than those usually found here…
Guilty as charged, my learned friend.
Heron,
Without wishing to defend the wind up merchants, the Rhyl story doesn’t speculate whether the Imam’s attackers are Christian or any other religion. It doesn’t describe the as white or make any other comment on their ethnicity.
It quotes a spokesman suggesting that the attack was anti-Muslim on the basis of some alleged dialogue at the scene, just as the Met’s view that the attack on the priest was a ‘faith hate’ crime is based on dialogue at the scene.
I can’t see the difference?
barry wood:
The BBC are happy to inflate the imam’s accusations with a misleading headline.
Barry, the word race is in quotes because it is disputed. That’s standard journalistic practice. The BBC would be misleading us if it did not include quotes.
The essential difference here is that those who run the mosque are claiming a racial motive and making a point about mutual efforts to prevent racial abuse.
Neither the priest in London, nor his wife – not even his bishop – have chosen to raise the issues of racial or religious conflict. Mrs Ainsworth went out of her way to draw attention to the support from her local mosque.
Depends whether you want the BBC to draw attention to issues which the victim, his wife and his bishop do not apparently see.
I disagree with Hugh on this. I don’t think that’s a patronising attitude. When racial tension is easy to rouse, restraint is not a bad thing to show.
Mr Orange:
Maybe the BBC should provide us with a little background on this mosque so we can ALL ascertain just how meaningful its words are?
So your welcome for the mosque’s statement was little more than skin-deep….
Is this a policy which you wish all reports about places of worship to follow?
Should all future references to Dr Paisley’s haunts remind us of the tribal hatred he lavished on fellow Christians from his pulpit?
You would, after all, be well placed to give us chapter and verse.
.
Biased BBC: Sorry Is The Hardest Word
JR- so ergo, it’s justified to censor any news story that might portray Muslims in a negative light. I thought that the Beeb’s job was to report the news rather than to bring “ordinary Muslims onside”. Thanks for clarifying.
As usual Hillhunt defends the ROP with the weakest of a defence. But hey what is different about how the BBC goes out of its way in which to defend the religious mores of a really odious cult. So on that note HH how about commenting on this headline. (Note I quote headline)
Ten years for ‘religious’ rapist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7301975.stm
Granted the article explains just what faith the rapist is when you open it. The problem is, most people will skip the article completely presuming it to be some Catholic priest doing what he does best. Yes HH the rapist is a Muslim. Who if he hadn’t admitted to ‘Doing it leb style’ would be, by that BBC article exonerated. I mean such a nice man couldn’t have committed such an ugly crime. I mean he was at the mosque during Ramadan and when he worked he helped little children. (Which may help explain the paedophilic pictures on his computer.) and in his spare time he helped out at the local drug counselling centre.
Funny enough when the rape was committed, the BBC reported the culprit as an Asian as well. The thing is Whitechapel has only one type of Asian living there. Guess what, they aren’t Chinese, Thai, Hindu, Sikh or Tamil. Can you guess what type of Asian lives in ‘Whitechapel’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4363320.stm
JR, I agree that the Beeb should push British foreign policy interests, and in the opinion of many experts this involves a conciliatory approach towards Islam. I can’t square this with the endless sh*t stirring on Iraq though, which surely just winds up anti-British opinion abroad and in Islamic communities here?
Aviv/JR: Yes, I have to say, if the government does have such a policy surely it can pursue it in the same way as any other PR offensive without the BBC playing an active and supportive role. I seem to recall the BBC being pretty careful to avoid becoming instrumental in the UK and US’s propaganda efforts during the Iraq war. How is this so different?
As for those who believe the best way to encourage tolerance is to promote censorship I would ask them to look at the evidence when it comes issues such as immigration. I believe in that example the major political parties now accept they need to address the topic because simply pretending it didn’t exist seemed to be benefiting the BNP.
when the authorities are trying to get ordinary UK Muslims onside in the struggle against Islamist extremism • how helpful are you being
Nice to see you returning after a long absence Mr Reith. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in your quote above. However, I believe they should be aimed at the BBC. The BBC is imposing censorship (bias) in its news output concerning Islam. This results in an output from the BBC that always puts Islam in a positive light and minimises any negative aspects of Islam. To do this it goes through considerable contortions.
Presumably the BBC is trying to be helpful, to avoid Islamophobia and to promote multicultural acceptance. Unfortunately this is likely to be counterproductive, the BBC coverage of muslim events and news stories is now seen as being risible propaganda worthy of the communist era at its height.
What is worse, however, is that because the output is seen as little more than propaganda, more incidents are seen as being related to Islam than actually happen.
Ironically enough, though, I have to disagree with Pounce’s example. I’m not sure why this story is framed so solidly on his religion. I see it’s relevant to the terrorism investigation and his alibi, but I don’t understand why the story leads with it. It reads very oddly. When it started out it was “Anti-terror inquiry snares rapist”, which seems a bit more to the point. I think I’ll give up trying to understand the BBC’s attitude on these things.
Now, when the authorities are trying to get ordinary UK Muslims onside in the struggle against Islamist extremism • how helpful are you being?
John Reith | 18.03.08 – 12:04 pm | #
Probably about as helpful as the BBC. The BBC took some ‘ordinary UK Muslims’ on a bit of a trip didn’t they ‘Don’t panic I’m Islamic’ to show us all what a nice bunch they are. Remember that. Fine bunch of ordinary UK Muslims they turned out to be. So Reith before you pontificate to anyone from your BBC ivory tower take a look in your own back yard. And most of all open your eyes to what is really going on
I think John Reith has hit the nail on the head there. Reporting that these attackers were Muslims (including doing the tiny amount of investigative work to confirm that fact, if the police refuse to say) might well be regarded in some quarters as “unhelpful.” The question of what is and is not “helpful” is in large part, a political matter. That which I find “helpful” may well be regarded as “unhelpful” by Polly Toynbee. But what is “helpful” has very little to do with running an unbiased news operation. Reporting “helpful” – to its point of view – facts is what the Daily Mail does, and very well too. But nobody claims the Daily Mail is running an unbiased news operation.
It would obviously be possible to claim that the BBC doesn’t wish to speculate unless and until the facts are known, and even then only wishes to publish facts that are relevant to the story. This is a frequent defence trotted out by the lefty media generally, not just the BBC, as to why their reports often seem to miss out bits of stories that appear elsewhere. And sometimes whole stories.
But you can only claim this honestly if you don’t publish speculations about anything. But the BBC doesn’t behave like this – large chunks of its output are awash with speculation. Balancing this very large chunk of speculation on “helpful” subjects is a very large chunk of silence about “unhelpful” subjects, including quite a lot of suppression of facts – not just speculation.
Just like the Daily Mail, in fact.
hillhunt
Your ridiculous mr orange and personal attacks and insults on David Vance MUST stop.
You disagree with him, fine, then make your case, persistent stupid name calling and constant repetition are not acceptable.
David, this has to change its making the blog too painful to bother to read.
David, this has to change its making the blog too painful to bother to read.
BaggieJonathan | 18.03.08 – 1:58 pm | #
Agree totally. I find the mr orange thing extremely insulting and tedious and the trolls humour is totally humourless. So much so that I merely scroll past it. But I vote for the troll to be barred.
BJ QC:
David, this has to change its making the blog too painful to bother to read.
I think you are confusing me with Atlas Shrugged. Making wacky conspiracy theories too boring to read is a rare feat.
But he manages it.
When Mr Orange stops importing the vile lessons he learnt from Irish sectarianism into this blog, I’ll be tempted to look elsewhere for a moniker.
Biased BBC: The Future’s Bright
But the cap does fit. Does it not?
Has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance between Craig Meehan, Shannon Matthews’ step-father, and David Vance of Biased-BBC? Could they possibly be related?
Meehan:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/david-vance-on-hearts-and-minds/4068052341
Vance:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=534349&in_page_id=1770
C**T wrote;
“When Mr Orange stops importing the vile lessons he learnt from Irish sectarianism into this blog”
I suppose the fact you love sucking c**K at the local mosque has no impact on your pro Islamic stance.
Yes we know you’d sell your soul to get raped by Mullah Omah. But the fact remains you are a troll.
Now go crying to everybody that Pounce has called you names.
Tosser.
Well if the BBC is reporting the Imam’s comments about the congregation being “united” against this racist attack they can’t be Moslems then can they? Since they are Asians that suggests either Chinese or Siberian Russians.
I don’t know if there are a lot of Russians in Tower Hamlets but we must trust our state broadcaster to be telling the truth.
John Reith 12:04 pm
Apparently, with what passes with you as journalist subtlety and accuracy, you describe all commenters here as ” you lot”, but you are very determined to try to separate out so-called ‘moderate muslims’ from Islamic jihadists.
You apparently think that the BBC site does not come close to incitement to hatred, whereas you think that this site does. On the contrary, through its dhimmitude towards Islam, and multiculturalism, the BBC does what it accuses this site of. And denigrates the British ‘white’ working-class while it’s at it.
Lee Moore 1:55 pm
Yes, the BBC has its own righteous definition of what is politically ‘helpful’, in its hidden political mission. In the meantime, most of us at this site are mere ‘kafir’, -not simply non-Muslims and unbelievers, but KAFIR:-
“The Worst Word in the Human Language”
http://www.politicalislam.com/worstWord
pants:
Now go crying to everybody that Pounce has called you names.
Not at all, chum. An honour to be dissed by someone as, um, articulate, as you.
I suppose the fact you love sucking c**K at the local mosque has no impact on your pro Islamic stance.
But I do feel you need to go easy on the gay stuff. It’s not the first time you’ve posted your vivid fantasies about inserting my wedding tackle into various mouths and bottoms. It happens every time your dander is up, and it sounds to me like a cry for help.
It’s OK. It really is.
I can’t speak for Mr O and his stern upbringing in the school of fire and brimstone sermons, but most of us are very accepting of people who make different lifestyle choices.
A secret shared is a fear destroyed.
Pounce: Bending Over Backwards To Press Home His Point
Hillhunt:
Lance:
You might have missed this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla…don/ 7299475.stm
.
Hillhunt | 18.03.08 – 8:15 am | #
————————————–
Oh. I did, I did. Only saw the initial report and the one posted here.