Quick warning/heads up that I may well be on Sunday Morning Live tomorrow discussing whether poppy protests should be banned. If you have any thoughts on this, post them here.
SUNDAY MORNING LIVE
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Nov 15, 03:05
Midweek 13th November 2024
This sums up the Left perfectly. They are constantly watching GB News just looking for any chance to complain or… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:27
Midweek 13th November 2024
Quick bit of info from GBnews.. “Musk has retweeted GBnews twice in the last 24 hours” One tweet was about… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
The Alison Pearson case The police are now saying she was wrong to say it was a non-crime hate incident… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:17
Midweek 13th November 2024
Police breaking the law again. They cleared someone 2 months ago But only decided to tell her tonight Yes #TheProcessIsThePunishment… - JohnC Nov 14, 23:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
University cash crisis to get worse despite tuition fee rise, BBC told https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14lv7e61d3o [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/c006/live/66b8a290-a27e-11ef-9881-317cd05de9c4.jpg.webp[/img] By one of the BBC’s own… - Guest Who Nov 14, 22:28
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://order-order.com/2024/11/14/guardians-self-deplatforming-post-420-times-more-popular-than-average-tweet/? - non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Of course they should not be banned, no protest should. However the protesters should be challenged and shown that they are a very, very small minority. The ingrates.
If the planned marches of the EDL are rerouted by the Police to avoid Muslim areas, then why can’t the Islamo-fascists have theirs rerouted to avoid any Remembrance Day commemorations?
How about rerouting them through Dover?
I think that muslims should be banned from our country. They should either convert to Christianity or move elsewhere.
If the protests are intended to simply anger the public then yes they should be banned.
You might want to ask why they even give these beared twats airtime, also why the BBC insist all thier staff wear the poppy when 99% of them are scum who hate the armed forces.
Or, how about instead of banning them, let them take place and make them the first item on every news broadcast, website, etc?
Perhaps some sort of interactive system could display poppy protests the country over? Maybe showing a breakdown of the different ideological reasons behind each protest?
With lots of interviews of all the attendees spouting their bigoted, intolerant ‘hate speech’ for all to hear?
Followed by the ‘moderates’ from within the ‘communities’ that these protests emanate from, condemning them in the strongest possible terms, and praising the efforts of our Armed Forces past and present.
No?
There is a difference between protest and provacation.
But it’s subjective; that’s the problem.
To some muslims, our existence is provocation.
The Islamic jihadist supporters should not be allowed to demonstrate against British troops in Britain, nor at sensitive sites such as at war memorials.
Can we infidels go to demonstrate outside British mosques shouting ‘down with Islam’? Of course not. There is no reciprocity in Islam. Islam is a one-way street of supremacy.
Of course some Islamic jihadists who are British citizens now choose to go to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban and try to kill British troops there; and Muslim groups in Britain exhort them to do so.
And now:
‘Jihadwatch’ on ANJEM CHOUDARY (unreported by INBBC)
“UK jihadist threatens to murder those who support mag firebombed for Muhammad satire”
[Extract]:
“What do British authorities think that Britain is gaining by having this bloodthirsty jihadist running around breathing threats and murder against free people?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/uk-jihadist-threatens-to-murder-those-who-support-mag-firebombed-for-muhammad-satire.html#comments
Ideally, no protest which simply involves stating a contrary opinion should be banned. For me, a few caveats however:
1. The extent to which a group has the right to rain on somebody else’s parade is questionable. If you don’t approve of the military, save your protest for some other time.
2. If you don’t approve of our well established traditions, perhaps the UK is not the place for you.
3. There seems to be a serious imbalance. Protests against Islam are likely to be discouraged by the BBC and the Government at best, and criminalised at worst. The Royal British Legion and Remembrance Day enjoy no similar protection. This should be corrected at once, preferably by removing the spurious legal protection that Islam enjoys.
David, they’re not protests, they’re enemy actions at time of war to cause maximum offence to undermine our morale. They should be sent off to our version of Guantanamo in the Orkneys or somewhere.
Also, you can draw parallels with the Westboro Church, deliberately causing offence at the funerals of fallen servicemen. The Supreme Court has ruled they have the right of free speech to do this apparently, but to my mind this is an insane judgement. Noone should have the right to mock people’s grief at a funeral.
Remembrance Day is the most hallowed day in our national life. We owe it to our Fallen to defend their memory from unmitigated scum like these.
They’re the enemy.
All the best tomorrow DV!
Wrong.
The freedom of speech has to be absolute. You might not like it, but if you have to ban something you are admitting you cannot defeat it.
The Westboro Church ruling is indicative of such freedom. It is legally and morally correct.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
“But not forever. For a while.
“And then, if there is no sign of any real reciprocity, and if, further, there is a recognition on your part that such reciprocity is impossible, then for your own sanity and survival, do unto others as they have been doing to you.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/35469
muslims keep telling us that they love death, well for all I care, martyr the ba*t**ds.
You are walking into a massive trap if you argue to ban them. The obvious question is: who should judge what should be allowed and what should not – you?
And before you get the enemy/wartime analogy you’ve got to accept that the discourse is simply not in that place (yet).
The best strategy is to expose these people for what they are and defeat them in the open. Banning them is hypocritical, and more importantly, will not work.
Let them go ahead. Then ask them on camera if they (the Poppy-burners) believe they are entitled to “free speech”, but not us to publish the Mohammed cartoons? Or is freedom of speech a one way street, for them but not us? Do they support the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo?
London Calling: It’s a one way street all right, that’s a large part of the problem.
IMO they should be pursued relentlessly by the BBC (fat chance), protesters, satirists, comedians, interviewers, journalists (fat chance again), cartoonists, you name it. Any violent reponse should be put down with the clear message that we have certain ways of doing things and we will not compromise.
One of the reasons we are facing this problem is that we are wet from top to bottom.
I wholeheartedly agree but you’ll not see the likes of the BBC and its clowns pursuing these monsters any time soon. Its far easier to piss on the memory of dead soldiers and poke fun at recently departed DJs than it is to risk beheading at the hands of sociopaths.
The only way to shut these buggers up is to let them have their say and then to let them take the consequences.
They don’t like it up ’em indeed.
INBBC is frightened of Islamic interests, and will not initiate independent criticism of tenets of Islam, as it does of other beliefs.
INBBC, like many non-liberal ‘liberals’ in the West will only report criticism of Islamic activity, if initiated by Muslims, it seems.
INBBC seems to have adopted a position described by Ibn Warraq:
“One must get away from this absurd thought that only an Islamist can criticize Islamism. It leads to an absurd situation, where only a Fascist can criticize Fascism. Of course, Islamists are the first to criticize, for example, Christianity. So we must not fall into this power scheme. We must look at the evidence and weigh the validity of the arguments. This is, in effect, throwing out charges of Islamophobia. Anytime that anyone criticizes Islam, he is considered an Islamophobe. This is just a way of silencing criticism. We must keep on criticizing.”
Above quote from Ibn Warraq is from near end of:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/transcript0715.html
‘To every rule there is an exception’.
Is there an exception to this one?
No – and that’s the exception.
The freedom of speech that these protesters enjoy are precisely because of the sacrifice of those that the poppies commemorate. Therefore this is one protest that they shouldn’t be making.
The UK is the aggressor and has invaded a number of countries around the world, how would you react if a foreign nation invaded England?
The concerns and the protests are legitimate.
Everyone has the freedom to protest.
how would you react if a foreign nation invaded England?
The same way those who the poppy commemorates reacted. If you can’t understand the difference, get somebody to explain it to you.
“Everyone has the freedom to protest.”
Try it outside a mosque and see how far you get. And I’m not even talking about the Middle East.
Just the Middle East End, Barry. I’d like to see a large counter-demonstration outside Regents Park mosque by people disgusted at the butchering of Christians throughout Islamic lands. I can guarantee it would be met by violence. The hypocritic nerve of Islam would be struck within seconds & the ranting intolerance of its followers exposed, once more, for all to admire.
Rather than calling for a ban on the poppy-burners, a small, dignified counter-protest should be organised. A few well-dressed, amiable, burly Brits, should be permitted to present Mr Choudary with a large Union Jack fire-extinguisher, just in case his little conflagration gets out of hand. Other protesters could hold banners proclaiming, ‘BURN A POPPY! WIN AN IMAM!’ Or, ‘ISLAM’S GOT TALENT!’ Hit Islam where it hurts – right in its humourless, grim, totalitarian, retarded little heart.
I shall be selling poppies next week. In the quieter moments, I shall keep my spirits up by singing, sotto voce, of course, ‘Anjem has only got one ball, the other is in the Albert Hall!’ Laughter in the dark.
“how would you react if a foreign nation invaded England?”
In the not too distant past, this was a very real prospect. Many thousands died preventing that invasion. It is they, and others, that we commemorate and pay respect to at this time of year.
Even if we were to concede that they have a legitimate grievance, they ought to protest in a respectful manner at such a solemn national occasion, or preferably at a different time and place. It is the disrespectful nature and timing of their protest that is considered so offensive, hurtful and petulantly spiteful by many.
There should be no ban, however. We should all be able to see them for what they are, and judge them by their disgusting behaviour. The more we see of these kinds of people, the less acceptable it will be for those that might still support them to do so in the future. Most decent people already know of the repulsive nature of these protesters and need no further convincing, but some still need to see and learn.
With sincere respect to all those currently serving, and those who have served in the past,
Tim Reed.
Darius,
What has the UK’s presence in Iraq or Afghanistan got to do with WW1 or WW2 ?
If people want to protest, they should protest outside one of Blair’s many houses. Or protest to the politicians.
Instead they are spoiling an occasion dedicatedto the very people who risked their lives and died for their freedom to protest.
I wouldn’t ban it, but the protestors are still ungrateful scum who have no place in a free democracy.
They’re the enemy. We’re at war. QED.
Are you telling me that those protesting are not “British”?That seems to be the implication – protesting because we have invaded their countries? Yes, reasonable I suppose if they are foreign nationals. they are of course but in enriched britain stating that is tantamount to a full ‘hate crime’.
My point is that you can protest about Britain invading foreign countries, certainly, but the motivation of these poppy burners is an emnity and loathing of Britain itself because their primary loyalty resides overseas. Despite the facile multicaultural dogma they have explicitly set themselves aside from Britain and have chosen to pick the one remaining national event that the left permits (and that only because of the war poet “class” mythology sponsored by modernists in the 30’s – you know the horror of WW1 was caused by the’ruling class’and only the poor suffered) Remeberance day really does symbolise ‘Britain’ a perfect target to attack.
This is fundamentally offensive at a visceral level to all of us and displays their utter contempt for their hosts. Luckily I will not be rushing off to whip up crowds of loons to burn books, stone people and kill as many as I can who do not believe as I do as a result of their crass and insulting behaviour.
Do you recall the (idiotic fellow traveller) teacher who just escaped with her life from the Sudan after naming a teddy bear “Muhammad”? I can be offended, but I can also give offence. perhaps we should remember that. It is quite reasonable for me to mock somones’ beliefs and not expect to be killed/fire-bombed/fatwahed etc
As someone indicated earlier Darius, does that mean you defend the right to publish the Mohammed cartoons?
Protest is fine free speech is fine but when that becomes an act that offends then all bets are off !
David V, they should not be banned. I know you know that, but you need to tell your Beeboid host that even suggesting it is an insult to decent people like yourself, as if they’re trying to get the audience to believe that anyone who disagrees with the poppy-burners is an extremist.
Tell the BBC and the audience that the entire proposition is offensive, because it’s meant not to open a debate about the poppy burners but to demonize those who criticize them and call them out for what they really are.
I think you may be right there, David. There may be an attempt to portray those who are offended by these nasty protesters as the REAL intolerants. It’s always best to confound them and not give them what they want.
I agree with David P , Reed and others who are against a ban. The media should give the poppy-burners full publicity to expose them for the Fascists that they are.
If we take the view that the poppy burners are excercising their right to protest, then surely one must be of the view that the inmates of Guantanamo are held in illegal detention?
We’re either at war or we’re not. Would we have tolerated Nazi’s demonstrating against British Government policy in the streets in WWII?
Thanks all – I appreciate the feedback.
My own views, quickly, are as follows;
1. Our war dead gave us our current freedom and liberties.
2. The right to protest is part of our British way of life.
3. Those hate driven groups who choose Remembrance Sunday to desecrate the memory of our war dead are not protestors, they are provacteurs and is their motives we need to examine.
4. Burning poppies is desecration and incitement to hatred. We have laws for that.
5. If there are those here who so despise our British traditions, might they not be happier somewhere else? No one wants them to be unhappy after all….
“The right to protest is part of our British way of life.”
Well it used to be.
I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but a few years ago we took a Chinese friend to see the Royal Pavilion in Brighton. He was astonished that a contemporary of George IV was ‘allowed’ to create satirical cartoons about the King’s lifestyle.
Yet now we’ve thrown this freedom away because a bunch of mediaeval nutters who’ve chosen to live here happen to disapprove.
As mentioned earlier, we’re wet from top to bottom (but mainly top).
And clang goes the trap door. perhaps it was well you didn’t get on the show.
David P has it exactly right – an attack on the BBCs motives would be a far more intelligent move. It would totally wrong foot them and move the argument in a direction the desecrators would have difficult escaping from.
Sometimes it is best to keep your powder dry and use a knife instead.
Please be sure to mention the two-tier policing system that has occurred since the McPherson report. Also the dehumanisation of white working class protestors compared with the left’s passion for Islamic extremism.
Why don’t all these ‘moderate’ Muslims, along with their UAF chums, turn up in force, using violence (their usual tactics), if Choudary’s views are so distant from their own?
@Darius, do you think the natives of Australia, The Americas etc. would have allowed/encouraged the invasion and transformation of their homelands if they’d have had the superior technology and numbers to resist? I’m sure they wouldn’t have sat there and done nothing for fear of their tribal leaders accusing them of ‘racism’ or ‘fascism’.
By your logic, if somehow the identity of Jack The Ripper was discovered, then his nearest living relative should be hanged!?
An alternative view is that Muslims Against Crusades (or whichever group it is this week) are a bunch of bearded nutters hell-bent on eliciting an angry reaction from people. It is what they do.
If you ban their puny little demonstrations, threaten them with violence or treat them with anything other than complete disregard, they have won.
Anjem Choudary and his ilk are freak-shows. But they are shrewd, media-savvy animals who know how to gain public exposure – give them a platform and they will do their best to get under everyone’s skin. The media should simply ignore them – photographers and reporters should turn their backs on them and treat them as they would any far-right or extremist group.
What should concern us more are the Moazzam Beggs and Raed Salahs of this world, who are seen as noble ‘activists’ and ‘campaigners’ and thus afforded respect by their useful idiot supporters. In reality, they are nasty little Islamic supremacists with nasty little views, yet they are somehow regarded as acceptable because they are ‘fighting injustice’.
I caught a bit of the Jeremy Vine shambles this morning and needless to say he to was stamping on the graves of the M5 dead, claiming that if they were doing 80mph the crash would have been much worse.
The BBC are so predictable, we know now just how the BBC will report any story.
The Red Ed story about claiming that the St Paul’s protesters are right is yet another one the BBC are bigging up. Why has it taken Red Ed two weeks to come out in support then BBC? Why is Red Ed supporting protesters over something HE in Government helped create (the gap between rich and poor increased under Nu Liebore) and isn’t Red Ed just jumping on another bandwagon?
Not that the BBC will ask these questions of Red Ed, just report that he’s in tune with the protesters.
I did chuckle at Sky News this morning. Just as the reporter stated that “Ed Milliband largely agrees with the protester’s aims”, it cut to a shot of them waving a huge red Hammer & Sickle flag. Very appropriate!
It looks like you weren’t on after all David:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0171wnt
As an overseas resident I can’t listen to it.
Did anybody?
Yes, it looks as if David got bumped.
Choudary was on the programme though, fully enjoying the oxygen of publicity given to him by the BBC. Despite a short loss in transmission, he got exactly what he wanted out of the programme – yet more attention. The BBC should stop pandering to him.
Yes, Bio, I watched it. It was another example of how the ‘questions’ themselves are framed provocatively.
They’re designed to trap people into impossible positions. If you argue that Choudary & Co should be banned, that makes you against free speech, therefore ‘a fascist’. If not, it makes you insensitive to the symbolic significance of remembrance day. The whole programme was its usual annoying self. I think Susanna Reid is more or less okay as it happens.
Did anyone else find Jonathan Bartley’s eyebrows distracting? Has he had them groomed? Or would that be too materialistic and capitalist?
Remember, nobody likes a monobrow.
Ha! there was a break in transmission at a crucial moment. Susanna had just asked Anjem something pertinent which escapes me, and the screen went blank.
That hapened once or twice before during a similarly contentious episode. Conspiricy theory anyone? 🙂
The viewer poll results on this programme are often amusingly off-message. The immigration question, “Is Britain full up?”, got 94% saying ‘yes’ and 6% saying ‘no’. Jonathan Bartley wasn’t happy and wanted to look “beneath the figures”! Ha!!
did you ever try using a proxy server to get round the restriction?
should get you in ok
I have tried, but just as the BBC’s server recognises my IP address as Spanish it also “knows” when I’m using a proxy.
There is a software available, according to TrueToo, which gets around the problem, but it only works for Windows and I’m on a Mac.
I just tried a few UK proxies here and was warned that “hotlinking from proxies is forbidden”:
http://anonymizer.nntime.com/
The BBC are really bigging up Red Ed’s comments now. The BBC are a joke, they’ve erased the last 13 years of Nu Liebore, the very party that sucked the c**ks of the bankers and big business (Bernie Ecclestone anyone?) yet the BBC would like us to think it’s just all happened since those nasty Tories took power.
The poppy has become synonymous with Remembrance Sunday however they should be separated in this context. The sale of poppies and wearing of poppies indicates support of the Royal British Legion which is a charity supporting surviving members and family of our armed forces. Contributions to this charity like any other are voluntary.
Remembrance Sunday was proclaimed by King Geroge V 7 Nov 1919
His intention was “to remember the glorious dead”. This proclamation was made on behalf of the British people and supported by the Govt of the time.
This day of remembrance is apolitical and is a sign of respect to all those that have given their lives as servants of the Monarch as directed by Parliament (and therefore all of us).
One can argue the rights and wrongs of Parliamentary decisions that resulted in the deaths of these servants of the Crown. Anyone is free to protest about these decisions.
Since the poppy, de facto, in ordinary citizens minds reflects their homage to the fallen. Any act which desecrates the poppy desecrates the homage paid to the fallen and therefore to the Crown and the people of Britain. Acts which desecrate or demean the value of the the fallen are tantamount to Treason.
We have seen one young man convicted this year for desecration of a War Memorial. The demeaning of the remembrance of the War dead is no less a crime.
This is what British people are up against, but whom INBBC politically indulges:-
Anjem Choudary: religious police for UK No Go areas
(inc video).
I loved that! Having text in myself, I got a great deal of satisfaction from it. Seems the people aren’t buying BBC propaganda as they are expected to.
Not sure the name of the angry, self-righteous hypocrite who was sat in the middle, but it seems strange that someone who stands as a candidate for the ‘Green’ Party is in favour of moving limitless numbers of people from low consumption countries to our high consumption country. He was also moaning about how much of Britain is farmland and countryside, then suggested that it should be built upon!? Why did no one ask him where the food to feed all his immigrants would be grown/grazed?
What an utterly clueless moron. Why can’t the BBC organise proper one on one debates between people like him and say, Norman Tebbitt, or another real British conservative.
“Do Not Tolerate the Intolerant”
(by Diana West, 2010)
http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2010/08/26/do_not_tolerate_the_intolerant/page/2
I would do nothing and ban nothing. Let the protestors do what they like. It will harden hearts amongst the too silent English and help them make up their minds and perhaps resolve to begin to push back against those who threaten their culture and their future.
…and remember everyone (not that most on this site need reminding) – buy the RED poppies that raise money for the Royal British Legion, not the scummy white ones that raise money for a spurious peace education foundation. (Peace Pledge Union)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/5694498/On_Remembrance_Day_spare_a_thought_for_the_despicable_White_Poppy_appeal/