What to make of Sara Khan, anti-extremist campaigner, Asian and Muslim and a BBC favourite? How different the BBC treats this anti-Islamist campaigner to how they treat Tommy Robinson.
Khan speaks a lot of sense, she gives a balanced view of the Prevent policy at a time when it is under heavy attack from the ‘Islamists’ who get the unquestioning support of the BBC which naturally is opposed to what it believes is a policy that makes suspects of all Muslims and which it tells us also stigmatises and victimises them….the BBC not conceding that whilst not all Muslims are terrorists most terrorists these days are Muslim….so it is only natural for them to be ‘targeted’.
Khan also supports equality for women and rails against the Left’s support for the Islamists…..
Politicians and wider society must recognise these nuances as opposed to the distorted image offered by Islamist propagandists. That particularly applies to the Left, where some have got into bed with Islamist-sympathising groups that have no interest in Western Muslim integration. These groups push a constant victimhood narrative where Britain is portrayed as an inherently “Islamophobic” society that seeks to destroy Islam and deny Muslims the freedom to practise their faith. This conspiratorial view is being pushed aggressively, and it is vital that public institutions work with Muslim groups trying to counter this toxic narrative. Whether in communities, in universities or on social media, it is vital we counter the arguments of Islamists, otherwise an uncontested space is left open and their message will be taken as truth not just by Muslims but well-intentioned young activists who oppose racism and prejudice.
Hmmm…isn’t that a perfect description of the BBC’s narrative? The BBC that pushes the line that Muslims are victims of Islamophobia and that anyone who speaks against Islamism is a racist?
Vital we counter the Islamists’ narrative? Instead the BBC peddles their narrative…of Islam under attack, of a Western foreign policy that targets Muslims, that the Islamist cause is about fighting Western oppression and imperialism.
As said many times on this site the BBC is dangerous, it supports the terrorist narrative as well as the one peddled by the non-violent Islamists in Britain who use the media, the law and weak politicians to further their aims of Islamising Britain.
Khan herself, whilst speaking against these violent extremists is still Muslim, she promotes Islam, disingenuously claiming there is such a thing as ‘British Islam’….there is no such thing…there is only Islam. She states that ISIS promotes a puritanical and literalist version of Islam, which she calls a false version…trouble is that version is the real Islam, the Koran is the word of God and is an instruction manual, it is designed to be followed ‘literally’….Historian Tom Holland tells us that what ISIS does is pretty much what Muhammed did as he blitzed the Middle East in his own time….bar some of the exotic methods used to kill people. Khan seems to want to pick and choose what she wants to from the Koran and Hadith…which is a way of practising religion that Islam was ‘revealed’ in order to stop….Khan doesn’t understand Islam…one God, one faith, one mosque, that means something…do not divide your religion into sects, do not rewrite the scriptures to suit yourself…it’s in black and white in the Koran. Islam was revealed because Christians and Jews corrupted their scriptures and divided themselves up into different sects….God disapproved. Khan seems to think she knows better than Allah and that she can rewrite the unchangeable Koran.
You can hear her speak on 5Live (1hr 38 mins)….what’s amusing is her attack on those who shout ‘racist’ or ‘Isalmophobe’ when anyone dares to question the ‘Islamist’ narrative….she herself was banned from speaking at some schools by ‘well meaning liberal teachers’ who accepted the Islamist’s claim that Khan herself was an Islamophobe.
We heard that they were ‘understandably afraid of being called racist’.
She then goes on to say that she’s tired of this cultural sensitivity and that we as a society need to stand for the values we want such as freedom of expression, human rights and equality for women and that if we have groups in our society who don’t want those things then we must stand up against them.
Curious then that her only reaction to Tommy Robinson is to shout him down as a racist, a bigot and an Islamophobe in this clip from 2013…
The BBC presenter is aggressively against Robinson and hardly lets him answer his critics…the audience seemingly packed with them.
End of the day Khan still promotes Islam giving us a false hope of a reformed Islam, a slippery line that we’ve long been fed by Tariq Ramadan…who gets a mention in that interview as he is, of course, in the Guardian attacking Prevent.
Ramadan naturally voices his opposition to violent Islamism and yet, as do so many Muslim leaders and speakers, still supports the narrative of Muslims under attack…he suggests that allowing Muslims to express that same narrative will lead to a rejection of violence……and yet it is that very narrative, not countered but in fact reinforced by the BBC, that leads to Jihadism…..
The possibility that anyone can express their dissatisfaction, frustration and disagreement without becoming immediately suspected or stigmatised is, in itself, a powerful protective measure against those who call for violence. Those Muslims who are critical of government policies while rejecting violence are perhaps best placed to influence young people attracted to extremist acts.
Total rubbish…..it still sets Muslims against ‘The West’, Britain and government policy…it’s still telling Muslims to be ‘angry’, that they are victims of the West.
Ramadan is the slipperiest of slippery Islamists pretending to fight Islamism but in reality promoting it and the spread of Islamic influence across Europe and the world. In the end Khan is little different, she fights against the violent extremists and yet still promotes an ideology that is opposed to nearly all that Western liberal, progressive society stands for….she knows full well that it cannot, and never will be ‘reformed’. She peddles the lie of a ‘British Islam’, an Islam somehow different from the norm and Islam tolerant of other religions, equality for women and open to criticism and freedom of expression.
When she herself is barred from British schools by British liberals how does she think she can possibly persuade conservative Muslims to give up their beliefs if she can’t persuade those British liberals ot back her?
Magnificent Alan! If there was just one of your articles I could get everyone in the UK to read, it would be that one! Up there with the very best….anywhere!
Thank you so much for the time and effort you give to this website. Great work. Great detail. You are a genuine British patriot doing everything they can to help save our beautiful, special Country. It truly is appreciated
FACTS are “racist”, therefore FACTS are ignored, banned and buried.
An ‘Islamophobe’ is just someone who knows more about Islam than he is supposed to.
She will be on someones death list if she’s not careful.
He shouldn’t waste his time in that environment better to go on unbiased radio stations. You could shout to your blue in the face with that crowd. Painful viewing
During the Tommy Robinson interview at 3m04s, when he is called a racist, even the presenter claps. Nice to see an impartial presenter!
Akala (real name Kingslee James Daley), a man who rails against ‘the establishment’ in his lyrics, yet fails to question why the establishment’s loyal broadcasting corporation has supported both he and his sister’s music from their back bedroom days.
A man who fails to question why he, a person with zero intellectual achievements has been invited to give lectures at multiple universities across the UK and the Oxford Union.
A man who uses references to the works of George Orwell, yet fails to recognise the orwellian institution which acts as a pedestal for his career. He once said, “I hate to say it, but this country is not comfortable with the idea of young, intelligent black people” – he surely can’t be speaking of himself.
As you say Alan, this woman is foremost a Muslim and as such follows the teachings of Islam, and as such will countenance no lesser degree of their aim which is to destroy Europe/UK. Through the duplicitous actions of the BBC who promote mass immigration, Islam is becoming far too a powerful voice in this United Kingdom. The Muslim female is producing 5 children to the average White Western female of 2-3 children. Estimated by some to result in they becoming a majority in 20 yrs.
“disingenuously claiming there is such a thing as ‘British Islam’….there is no such thing… there is only Islam”
I’ve no idea if there’s such a thing as British Islam but I don’t agree that you can say there’s only Islam.
It might seem illogical but there are Muslims (the ones I’ve known well enough to talk to about this anyway) do ‘pick and choose’ what they want to take from the Koran – although I’m sure they would just consider it being rational. Apparently the Koran also says(and I have no idea where to find this or even it’s true, what matters to me is that people I’ve known believe this) to be humble, to treat everyone with respect and leave the punishment side of things to Allah.
I’m not trying to say there isn’t a huge problem with Islam, obviously not every Muslim sees Islam in this way and I have no idea how representative the Muslims I’ve known are of the greater Mulim population. I’m just pointing out that in my experience there are Muslims who don’t go along with the parts of the Koran that so many of us find objectionable. If the Islam of some people considers murdering in the name of religion to be evil and the Islam of other people considers it holy then I think it’s reasonable to say there are two types of Islam, regardless of whether a logical reading of the Koran suggests that the more moderate Muslims are disobeying Allah’s will.
___
And for what it’s worth I didn’t write all of that so that I can look in the mirror and tell myself what a nice, un-rascist fellow I am, what worries me about ‘there is only one way to be a Muslim’ type sentiments is it leads lot’s of people who feel that it’s incorrect to see legitimate criticism of Islam as ‘hate-crime’ nonsense and go and read the BBC instead. (I hope that doesn’t sound like I’m talking about self-censorship, I’m trying to argue that the reasons for the sentiment are wrong, not that you shouldn’t write it if your opinion differs from mine).
“It might seem illogical but there are Muslims (the ones I’ve known well enough to talk to about this anyway) do ‘pick and choose’ what they want to take from the Koran – although I’m sure they would just consider it being rational.”
The point he’s making is that Islam is about total submission to the will of Allah. There is no room for “picking and choosing” in the ideology since the individual is refused any autonomy from the will of Allah. So-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are not Muslims because they do not submit to the word of Allah totally. The word Islam means submission. There are no gradations in submission, either one submits or they do not.
The majority of people who claim to be Muslims are not Muslims.
You’re right, thanks for pointing that out. I think I got a bee in my bonnet after reading the start of that paragraph and didn’t pay enough attention to the rest of it.
The majority of people who claim to be Muslims are not Muslims.
I have known for sometime, that there will come a time when the pressure on Muslims, and their continued survival in the West, will come under inspection. That moment seems to be dawning. Some Muslim thinkers will think it politic to change tack, as the present one is leading to disaster for the Western branch of the Ummah.
Let us consider the hypothetical situation that Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the Ummah, while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West, via a high birth rate, and family re-unification .
Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging, and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam, that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress (Taqqiya). That future generation of Muslims in the Western world, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.
Therefore, from a practical viewpoint, a “reformed Islam” or “moderate” Muslims, are meaningless as far as our survival as historic Western nations is concerned.
As always, a superb post NCBBC.
‘a “reformed Islam” or “moderate” Muslims, are meaningless as far as our survival as historic Western nations is concerned.’ And meaningless as far as leading Muslims are concerned, too:
These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, quoted in Milliyet [a Turkish newspaper, published daily in Istanbul], 21 August 2007
… and Turkey is supposed to be a “moderate” Islamic state. If that’s moderate, what’s the extreme?
Thank you Tothepoint.
NCBBC, Totally agree. It is absolutely delusional to even consider there is such a thing as a ‘moderate’ supporter of Islam. We will all, (if I am still alive) witness the transformation when critical mass is reached. They it will be far, far too late.
Like Archipelago Islam/Islam Nusantara as practised in the largest Muslim country in the world.
MNB
The problems with “moderate” Muslims is twofold.
#1 Do you trust them to tell you the truth? Do you trust them to tell the truth to
opinion pollsters trying (maybe) to establish how many Muslims condemn terrorist
attacks? Because I do not trust them, maybe one of the items they have cherry
picked from the Koran is that bit about the duty of lying to infidels, and they
“forgot” to tell you. Strange the contrast between the c60% of Muslims who “most
strongly” condemn Islamic terror attacks and the 0.0001% of Muslims who attend
demonstrations. against such attacks. They get 1000X times more “moderate”
Muslims demonstrating when a Jack Russell terrier leaves his pawprint on a page
of the “most holy” pile of childish nonsense ever written.
#2 The “moderate” Muslims do exactly as the extremist Muslims tell them to.
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan . . .
Two questions that are never put to moslem contributors on the BBC – or any broadcast media for that matter…
What is the definition of taqiyya?
Are ISIS doing anything that isn’t espoused in the Quran?
Great post SR.
We know that the traitorous vermin that attend Al Beebistan mosque/HQ are spineless cowards who are nothing more than modern day Judus’….because the answers to your questions are there for everyone to see, in an unchangeable doctrine for 1400 years! The reason they never ask those questions is because they cannot be answered without revealing the true meaning of Islam.
Let’s actually take a step back for a second and look at what Islam means to the believer’s….
Islam was created because it’s the final word of God…..Just take a moment to understand what that means…The final instruction for mankind to follow until the day of reckoning. No more words. No more prophets. To not follow these instructions is to turn your back on God and accept eternal damnation. All men are beneath God and all must utterly submit to his will. The instruction in the Koran is pure… Unmolested by corruptible man… It can never be altered… It can never be changed……..
There is only one Islam. It is a Muslims duty to submit to it’s every instruction. Jihad is central to Islam as it is a Muslims duty to protect Islam… The purpose of Islam… It’s unchangeable purity…
If anyone believes that Islam can undertake some kind of reformation they are deluded. If they expect it to go through enlightenment they are deluded. The mechanisms put in place by Muhammad for this very eventuality are causing the escalation in Islams eternal war on the infidels. It’s either Islam or no Islam at all… We had all better start choosing which side we are on
Tothepoint wrote: It’s either Islam or no Islam at all… We had all better start choosing which side we are on.
This is the choice that Muslims too have. As Muslims, in effect, they have no choice- whether moderate or ISIS member. Thus we can never ever trust a Muslim, given Taqiyya.
It also follows, that allowing Muslims into positions of power, is effectively handing them tools to behead our society.
Not good.
How can we tell that an explanation of Taqiyya for gullible Westerners, is itself not Taqiyya.
Something about tangled web comes to mind.
And, importantly SR, if any reply is given, ‘is that taqiyya?’
This is a process of what can only be termed “communalism”. Only members of some “communities” can criticise those same “some communities”.
So we hear Trevor Philips take on multiculturalism, Sara Khan on Islam, Peter Tatchell on gay matters, and the BBC feels protected from complaints of racism or various phobias.
Of course that`s where the bias kicks in….anyone can criticise Christians or White people, or the conservative party but only members of the favoured groups can comment on their groups. Tommy Robinson has to be suppressed because he is white, working class and articulate without needing his views to be filtered by a beeboid…Kryptonite to the BBC.
“Only members of some “communities” can criticise those same “some communities”.”
Or, in certain limited circumstances, can criticise communities deemed to be lesser victims. The Muslim attitude to gays and women been prime examples. White women, of course, are worthless.
Whites, as you say, must keep their mouths shut.
(This was supposed to come up as a “reply”.)
End of the day Khan still promotes Islam giving us a false hope of a reformed Islam, a slippery line that we’ve long been fed by Tariq Ramadan…who gets a mention in that interview as he is, of course, in the Guardian attacking Prevent.
Ramadan naturally voices his opposition to violent Islamism and yet, as do so many Muslim leaders and speakers, still supports the narrative of Muslims under attack…he suggests that allowing Muslims to express that same narrative will lead to a rejection of violence……and yet it is that very narrative, not countered but in fact reinforced by the BBC, that leads to Jihadism…..
Exactly right.
Of course Tariq Ramadan is entitled to spout whatever BS he wants, as long as it’s Tariq Ramadan’s BS. The BBC has to stay neutral, but of course …
Remember the “terrorist house” story that the BBC ran with? The following is from the Wikepedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
In JANUARY 2016, stories originating from the BBC alleged that the Lancashire Constabulary had taken a young Muslim child away for questioning on anti-terrorism charges after he accidentally spelled “terraced house” as “terrorist house”; this story was widely reported in the British[207][208][209][210] and international[211] media.[212] The police force in question criticised the BBC’s coverage of the story, saying that it was “untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake”,[213] adding that “[the incident] was not responded to as a terror incident and the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story”, adding that “the media needs to take more responsibility when sensationalising issues to make stories much bigger than they are and to realise the impact they can have on local communities”.[212] A statement from the police and local council also said that it was “untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake. The school and the police have acted responsibly and proportionately in looking into a number of potential concerns using a low-key, local approach.”[212] Other pieces of work by the student, including one where the child wrote about his uncle beating him, were allegedly other reasons for the police questioning over the safety of the child.
Peddling lies to promote an agenda, and being caught of for it, wasn’t going to deter them.
Here’s a radio programme from MARCH 2016 where they repeat the same lies, again to promote the same criticisms against Prevent:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07428ln
On Sunday March 20 the Radio 5 programme 5 live Investigates had Adrian Goldberg interviewing the boy at the centre of the “terrorist house” story, and again it was used to be critical of the Prevent Strategy.
Absolutely appalling.
Thanks QQ, I remember wondering about that story at the time, and thinking that even Plod couldn’t have been stupid enough to arrest a boy for spelling terraced house wrong. (No offence intended to any serving officers!)
Yet again you see the symptom and not the cause !
Saudi money has paid for the slew of mosque building through the Deobandi movement also insists on the teachings of Wahabism & Salafism – both violent and backwards intolerant versions of Islam.
Saudi has donated close to £1 billion to UK universities over the past 10 years, including huge amounts to the Russell group Oxford Cambridge Durham & Edinburgh. Manchester university is reportedly a particularly Saudi friendly uni.
All this money to influence young minds in formative years, and a university elite which have no moral compass other than the acquisition of money at the fastest rate possible ! (take at the LSE which had no compunction about taking money from Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and even allowed him to deliver the “Ralph Miliband lecture” (yes they have a lecture named after the Marxist father of Ed & David !) on “Libya: Past, Present, and Future.”
They allowed him considerable influence over what the ‘substantial’ amounts of money was to be used for. There is no reason to suspect that Saudi money would be treated any differently.
Until people get it into their heads that there is something behind all this they will continually be barking at the moon. Seeing the symptoms and failing to see the cause which is driving it.
Austria have got the right idea, about time we followed suit.
Its a first step.
The trouble I have with Austria’s program, is that it has accepted Islam as Austrian. Therefore, it has no policy to prevent, or turn back the Islamisation of Austria by high birth rates, family unification, and further primary immigration.
One can look at Austria as a country that has accepted Islam. In effect, Austria is finished.
“Its a first step.”
Agreed.
“One can look at Austria as a country that has accepted Islam. In effect, Austria is finished.”
By that standard, we’re all finished 🙁
Mike Hunt
Unfortunately, yes.
However, Austria has officially accepted Islam. This is really very significant and alarming. The rest of Europe haven’t – yet. I think that Austria’s leaders haven’t really caught on to what they have done.
Germany, Austria’s sister nation, was in the process of taking such a step, but Merkel’s Open Borders, has brought Islam into focus. Open Borders policy has brought the rise of AfD, and AfD takes a very dim view of Islam.
The rest of Europe, except France, is sleepwalking into the same position as Austria. As Le Pen’s National Front gets stronger, there will at least be a stop in the Islamisation of France. If there are more Nice type terror attacks, I see France taking very aggressive steps to defend the Republique. Germany with AfD will follow suit.
What of Britain? As usual, it will depend on America.
If Clinton becomes POTUS, the Muslim Brotherhood moves into the White House via Huma Obedin. The prime defender of the West, is then occupied by the MB. Britain will follow.
Best possible scenario for the West, at the moment.
1. Trump as POTUS
2. Le Pen as President of France
3. AfD as the governing party in Germany.
But all this can change, if there is another 9/11 type attack. Then its RESET button. New Game ON.
BBC will be forced to change. Its present political staff sacked, and new ones appointed.
Quote: they will continually be barking at the moon.
Surely “Crescent moon”.
its hard for people like him, Farage knows about a rigged show, Galloway too, if they turn down and invite to a show they’re damned and when they turn up they’re damned too.
it seems that the panels mics were turned up a bit too, so it was easy to shout over him
all standard practice at the beeb
it seems that the panels mics were turned up a bit too, so it was easy to shout over him
Surely not. The BBC wouldn’t do a scurrilous act of this nature.
BBC3 facebook has a really vile propaganda piece on Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcthree/?fref=nf
It ranks with communist agitprop.
Absolutely vile. If I didn’t know that the BBC would do such a thing, I wouldn’t believe that the BBC can sink so low.
But then, what concern is it of the BBC to get involved in the US presidential election? The BBC is state funded broadcaster. As such, it needs to be careful that it doesn’t place Britain in an awkward position with the USA.
I wish the BBC was state funded. Then I could lobby my MP to do something about it. But it’s not state funded. It raises it’s own tax (license fee) but gives me no way of holding it to account.
Need a revolution to overthrow it.
“No taxation without representation”
No representation – don’t pay the tax .
Quite right. But we are forced by law to pay a license fee, so its becomes state funded.
NCBBC
The Boston Tea Party 😉
More on the BBC’s anti-Trump election propaganda
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/06/bbc-blows-tax-payer-cash-anti-donald-trump-programming-tells-mexicans-youre-welcome/
Here is the Muslim chief of the UN Human Rights commission ( I know, its a contradiction in terms, but bare with me), slagging the West, how evil Wilders, Farage, Le Pen, Trump et al, they are. That all Islamic terrorism is caused by the above.
Quote:And yet what Mr. Wilders shares in common with Mr. Trump, Mr. Orban, Mr. Zeman, Mr. Hofer, Mr. Fico, Madame Le Pen, Mr. Farage, he also shares with Da’esh.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/media.aspx?IsMediaPage=true
————————————————————–
So this UN HR chief thinks that Wilders, Farage etc, are the same as Daesh or ISIS. I must have missed all those thousands of rapes, tens of thousands of executions and crucifixions, that Le Pen, Wilders and Trump, are doing in some secret facility.
What a pile of horse shit.
Its not just terrorism, 99% of which emanates from the Religion of Peace, but every day persecution of minorities in the Muslim world.
Even in the most moderate Muslim world, persecution of Christians continues on a daily basis, with Islamic law on its side.
That is the awful truth. If the West practiced even 1% of the persecution that Muslims carry out daily on Christians in their own countries, there would be howls of anger from all sides.
Think it over. Its this BS peddler that we are financing on Western taxes.
This so called Human rights chief, is just another Muslim shill, for more and more immigration of Muslims into the West.
Frankly, we should exchange Muslims in the West for Christians in Muslim countries. Then everyone will be happy. No persecution of Muslims by “Christians” in the West, and none the other way round in Muslim countries. What could be better. No beheadings and crucifixions of Christians too, in Islamic countries.
But I dont the HR chief will be happy. He really wants more Muslims in the West.
As a Muslim he should ask why the major ‘Muslim’ counties feel they are unable to agree with the ‘Universal’ Declaration of Human Rights.
One law for Muslims, one law for the rest.
The answer to everything is ‘more muslims’
JimS,
Cm-on Brucie, “Didn’t they do well” I hear the well worn expression.
Just look at the list of 48 countries that support the UNHR Declaration!
• Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia
• Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma
• Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba
• Denmark, Dominican Republic
• Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia
• France
• Greece, Guatemala
• Haiti
• Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq
• Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg
• Mexico
• Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway
• Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines
• Siam, Sweden, Syria
• Turkey
• United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay
• Venezuela
Human Rights? China, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria et al.
It really is, as one would expect, a huge joke. Fortunately for the High Commissioners article referenced above, (last paragraph) he rounds up by saying: “Do not, my friends, be led by the deceiver.” I agree with him entirely. Problem for him and his article, he is the Deceiver!
Great response.
Obviously the presenter chairing the debate (or not in this case) wasn’t interested in challenging Saira Khan’s accusation that Tommy Robinson is a racist. Racism has nothing to do with religion and it was, in fact, racist of Saira to suggest that all Muslims are non-white when she talked about Tommy smearing all Muslims with the same racist brush.
Another good example of BBC bias.
Dont know if its been mentioned but the lady in the vid above is saira khan recent big brother participant, loose women panelist and all round gobshite. Sara Khan is a different woman altogether.