Why is the article about accepting a role for Sharia in UK law given more prominence (with picture) on the BBC World News page than on the BBC UK page (where there is no picture, and it appears in the “other top stories” section. Oh, and the main story is something or other about a badger cull)?
Update: Great link here from George R for those who wish to explore further. Looks like one to bookmark.
i note that John Humphries fabled “attack dog” mode did not happen when he was interviewing somebody about this sharia proposal this morning on Today. he merely cooed , rolled over, and was tickled on the tummy , like a good doggy that he is.
but if a Tory DARE suggest “tax cuts” , then by god will the attack dog come out.
“Anonymous | 04.07.08 – 9:55 pm |”
and there is you and me hiding behind anonymous names – and yet Mel isnt afraid.
we’re wimps. she’s a rock. end of story.
i fear that the end result of this game will be that Mel flees to Israel.
hmm…. thinking about it.. maybe we should “stand with mel”.
but we might lose our jobs.
(why is 1933 coming into my head again and again…?)
Wow. After I read the learned (sic) M’Luds comments the only warm glow I got was that he was saying that, as long as it did not contradict English Law, then there was reason why two parties could not make an agreement that was legally binding (under English law) that was based on Sharia Law.
Is this a complex problem? I was under the impression that that is exactly the case under English Law right now. T’wit, as long as a contract does not contradict English Law it is binding under English Law.
There is no need for Jihadwatch.bnp to get concerned, the law is in place right now and was in place long before mooslims came here in more than ones and twos.
You know, sometimes it is necessary for the BBC to think before it sanctions reports like this. All it does is get the frothers hot under the collar and give the PC brigade a great big hard on at the thought of bending over to a minority. And the irony is not lost on me there.
What is of more concern is the number of members of ‘The Society of Labour Lawyers’ who seem to have become judges in the last 10 years. New Labour stacking the Judicary with its placemen? Surely not?
Albert,
Sorry to split hairs with you but Nicholas Addison Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers is Lord Chief Justice. Her Maj is head of the CofE, Williams is the Archbishop.This is the very top of the establishment.
It only need a senior politician and it is Ace,King, Queen.
OK, point taken about Phillips. Williams does not necessarily have religious jurisdiction over Methodists,for example
The BBC will no doubt be playing its part in bludgeoning the British people into accepting aspects of Shiria law into their own country.
We all know the familiar routine by now. We can look forward to a glut of documentaries about the wonders of Shiria law, chat shows playing the Muslim victimhood card, guilt tripping anyone opposed to it.
Propaganda for the State? It’s what we do.
Perhaps any of our betters could explain to us how the authorities intend to police Shiria, when they cannot, or will not uphold the current laws of the land in Muslim areas (see bigamy and forced marriages)?
Boy Blue,
yep – we’re being softened up. Our rulers think they’re being clever by drawing the teeth of the violent elements and we’re being cajoled into accepting it.
Anonymous – whatever the details may be, the reality is that we’re deep in the shit.
This is so depressing.
What the hell can we do?
On second thoughts – it’s not just a detail that Phillips is our most senior legal officer.
Read the Mel Phillips Spectator piece.
I don’t think a change of government will help the situation as our governmental and judicial system has now become rotten.
We might have two choices one day: Leave the country or turn to violence.
Does anybody else have any other thoughts?
Am I making a setting up a false choice here?
“muslims feel like the jews of europe”
so says shahid malik mp.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7489392.stm
possibly the most confusing racial analogy ever.
given the increasing attacks by muslim on jews in europe arguably the jews must feel like the jews of europe, no ?
or pehaps christians in pakistan feel like the jews of europe. anyway shahid has something to say so the dhimmis at al beeb decree it must be given special prominence
whatever, al beeb chooses to mark 7/7 with documentary about the so called backlash (where , when?) against the muslim community.
i can hear the sound of barrels being scraped
Albert,
Exactly,and it isn’t just a detail that the highest ranking churchman in the national Church of England,of which the Queen is head, has also caved.
The LCJ and the Archbishop are both liberals beloved of Labour.It is all part of the great project to deconstruct British society.I recommend you look at Antonio Gramsci,most instructive.
It is not an accident that the BBC,our national broadcaster, is in on the act either.
Yeah – I’m familiar with Gramsci and his concept of revolution from within. I know I keep saying it, but it’s so fucking depressing.
Our choices are being closed down.
Albert the Cat | 04.07.08 – 11.40 pm
And we can’t even defend ourselves properly! I found this article by Larry Elder fascinating: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2008/07/03/why_do_we_keep_and_bear_arms_part_1
James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” stated that tyrants were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” and lauded “the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
George Mason said, “To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Disillusioned German,
maybe that’s true. But being an Englishman I was brought up to believe in our natural freedom and the protection of the common law.
It’s a tragedy that the possible use of violence can even cross some of our minds.
It might cross you mind,but it shouldn’t cross the ether.
True. I’d sooner just leave the country.
Anyway, one cheery thought is Anthony Jay’s work – from the Centre for Policy Studies, I think, that was published today.
The Bearded Tit. These people take themselves very seriously,laughter is the best weapon.
Yeah, I looked at that one earlier this evening.
Peter Brookes, was it?
Bloody funny!
That’s the second pop he’s had at Williams. The first one he did of Williams was after the Shariah speech – Williams as a bird only able to fly around in circles, eventually disappearing up his own fundament.
I wasn’t suggesting anyone should resort to violence but at some stage we may have to defend ourselves and how do you do that if only the criminals / terrorists are in possession of weapons.
We are in desperate need of some truly conservative politicians who actually deserve that label. Problem is – I can’t see any… The brainwashing by the Al Beebs of this world has been successful. I get the feeling people might want sharia law (and not just the muslims)
Sir Anthony Jay, biased BBC.
This should cheer you up Albert.One of the most talented of the BBC “old guard”.
Goodnight all – three cheers to Sir Anthony!
Another horse-haired halfwit proclaims that sharia law is “inevitable”…this time it’s “leading lawyer” Stephen Hockman QC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032080/Former-chair-Bar-Council-calls-sharia-rules-English-law.html
“Stephen Hockman QC said legal reforms to incorporate Islamic principles are inevitable. He warned that ‘otherwise we will find there is a very significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results. ‘”
So all Muslims have to do to change the legal system of Britain is to “feel alienated”. I simply cannot believe what is happening, it’s like a nightmare. Years ago I took a coach to the Lake District and the driver kept falling asleep at the wheel. I feel exactly the same horror now as I did then.
It was disgraceful of the BBC not to have a dissenting voice on sharia law. The obvious voice would be Melanie Phillips – theycould contact her in an instant, and she would give a coherent and combative opposing view.
The BBC simply does not want opposing views. They just want to give a platform to Islam and its fellow-travellers. A travesty of proper journalism.
OT – I don’t see much sign that the BBC is reporting the umpteen flip-flops on policy that their pretty-boy Barack Obama is making. A man of change – yes, change his policy positions depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Albert the Cat | 04.07.08 – 7:42 pm |
“Sue, am I right?”
Albert, thank you for that generous compliment. I’m very flattered but no, I’m not a writer. I’d better stop now before you take it all back.
Why is the BBC so reluctant to feature this?:
“Schoolboys disciplined for refusing to pray to Allah”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-%27refusing-to-pray-to-Allah%27.html
Does the revolt of some non-Muslim English people, in effect, against the enforced indoctination of a particular pro-Islamic ‘multiculturalism’, conflict with the BBC’s (and Labour’s) mission?
Well done to the two schoolboys. They should be given prizes. Perhaps a suitable prize for each boy would be this book by Giles Milton: “White Gold: the extraordinary story of Thomas Pellow and North Africa’s One Million European Slaves”(2004)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1016
More counter-education here:
“Citizens against Sharia: Resources
for further study of Sharia, Islam and Jihad”
http://citizensagainstsharia.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/resources-for-further-study-of-sharia-islam-and-jihad/
Sue, it was not mere flattery. Your recent comparison of Hazel Blears to an Action Man you once had was hilarious – it was real LOL job.
Now I will stop; I don’t want to be fawning.
This is a typical establishment tactic,rather than having people outside the tent pissing in they have them inside the tent pissing out.Remember all the sneering rebel lefties of yore all with fortunes and honours.That is the way the establishment has worked in the past,they see no reason why it will not work again.
One thing is certain,until the establishment learns to fear the British working class,we will get sold out every time.
Don’t know if anyone saw Dick Morris on O’Reilly (Fox News). Interesting link to theSociety of Professional Jornalists. Just read the bit about Diversity and the guidlines. Here’s a little clip
“…— Avoid using word combinations such as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim extremist” that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include “Al Qaeda terrorists” or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, “political Islamists.” Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate…”
http://www.spj.org/divguidelines.asp
This appears to be a US organistaion, but I wonder if Beeboids have something similar?
Martin, of course al-Beeb would have something similar. All publishing organisations have something called a ‘style book’; basically a set of protocols covering everything from spelling and grammar to what words are or are not used.
So for instance, Grauniad will print the word ‘fuck’ and the Daily Mail won’t.
It’s not sinister in itself, unless of course house style is used to modify the way we think about things. Which is what is happening all the time and especially within al-Beeb, of course.
@ Albert the Cat (and others)
Here is a suggested scenario from “El Ingles” on the Gates of Vienna website on how the spread of Islam in the UK could pan out:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal-ball-for-britain-part-1.html#readfurther
“What can we do?” How about joining the CVF/910 group – link on the Gates of Vienna site or go to:
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910group.html
“The Sharia debate: we can’t all be equal under different laws” (by Matthew Parris):
[Extract]:
“Sneakily, Britain’s first Muslim Minister, Shahid Malik, has ducked the critics that he will enrage in an interview to be broadcast on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on Monday.
“Knowing that the phrase he uses to describe the situation of British Muslims – ‘the Jews of Europe’ – will make the headlines, he has put it in the mouths of others. ‘If you ask Muslims today what do they feel like,’ he says, ‘they feel like the Jews of Europe.’ He does not say if he thinks that they are right.
“I’ll respond in the Malik method. If you asked most non-Muslims what they feel about the suggestion, they would say that it was disgraceful, outrageous and insulting.”(Matthew Parris.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4272421.ece
JohnA | 05.07.08 – 9:35 am |
OT – I don’t see much sign that the BBC is reporting the umpteen flip-flops on policy that their pretty-boy Barack Obama is making. A man of change – yes, change his policy positions depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Not even Matt Frei will talk about that on his low-budget propaganda show in the US. Instead it’s features on how George Bush has made life difficult for the people of Culpepper and they’re probably going to vote Democrat.
They’ve been in the tank for the Dems from the very first broadcast last year, and Obamessiah must not be criticized.
BBC America is a joint venture between BBC World and Discovery Communications in the US. It is also partially funded through a grant from the Foreign Office. So even though there is US joint-ownership on paper, I’d say international law is being violated.
Anybody here a lawyer, or have one in the family?
This is the sort of anti-Malik critique which the BBC could never achieve:
“Muslims are not the New Jews – Infidels (but especiallly Jews) are the New Jews” (by Hugh Fitzgerald):-
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/15734
A correction to my post above @ 3:38pm:
The BBC does talk about Obama’s policy dancing, but only in a special context:
US candidates practise their U-turns
The BBC even has to dredge stuff up from two years ago, and misrepresent McCain’s positions on Guantanamo to make their weak case. Obamessiah, meanwhile, is given full BBC support:
His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he said.
“Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.”
Is there anything remotely similar to this little paragraph, plus self-defense quotes for McCain? Of course not. Bias on display for all to see.
All BBC coverage of the US election from now until November is suspect. Trust none of it.
More intelligent opinion dissenting from bland BBC reporting on Lord Phillips and sharia law:
1.)already briefly referred to by above commenters –
“What part of Theocracy do you not understand?”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/816511/what-part-of-theocracy-does-this-man-not-understand.thtml
2.)’Cranmer’
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/07/lord-chief-justice-british-muslims.html
“anton | 05.07.08 – 12:20 pm ”
thanks for that link – a fascinating read, and entirely realistic too.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal-ball-for-britain-part-1.html#readfurther
the british do have a tendency of “muddling through”, and somehow fixing problems – problems that elsewhere fester, grow and turn into utter disasters.
front page of bbc politics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
muslims “under siege like jews”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7489392.stm
David Preiser (USA):I read that as well. I’ve also been reading and watching about his u-turn on Iraq. looks like Obama might have to think again over his troop withdrawl. I was also reading the left are not happy with his double talk.
AS you say, the BBC igonre all this.
I still maintain HE won’t be President. Even though McCain is running a crap campaign, the fact Obama is not 20 points ahead says a lot.
I detest McCain – mainly for his stance on illegal immigration. I honestly wonder where the main difference between him and Obama lies. I guess I’m with Ann Coulter on this one.
One reason to vote for McCain would be his potential choice(s) for Supreme Court judges. Problem is – with a Democratic Senate can he actually appoint really conservative justices?
These are worrying times and the two presidential candidates are a joke. God help us.