I have now watched the Panorama programme, The Battle For British Islam,  and I will admit to having been astonished.  The programme could have been written by this site and is an utter condemnation of the BBC’s approach to Islam and how they report it day in day out….most notably over the last few days.

There are many points to note…one that Muslims who don’t toe the conservative Muslim line face one of those infamous ‘backlashes’, a serious and intemperate backlash, but from other Muslims…..on the making of a music video based on the song ‘Happy’ the makers were told that they are the perpetrators of a bad PR stunt to promote integration…which of course they were really…the intention behind it was quite obvious.  What Panorama didn’t mention was that similar videos from the same production team were made around the world….well intentioned propaganda organised by someone intent on persuading non-Muslims that Muslims are carefree and fun.

That aside we get to the really serious stuff….we are told that the extreme Islamic views, once on the fringe (allegedly), are now becoming mainstream.  Panorama even points the finger at the MCB which it points out thought that extremist views were merely ‘conservative Islam’ in action.

We heard that the MCB would label any criticism of that conservative narrative as Islamophobic…which one Muslim said she found ‘very troubling’.

Then we had various voices of ‘conservative Islam’ highlighted…..one from the Muslim Association of Britain, which is, unmentioned by Panorama, part of the Muslim Brotherhood (and has close ties to the SNP).  He had no problem with killing apostates or any other Islamically sanctioned punishment however draconian.

We also heard that they would use democracy in order to undermine democracy and forge a path for theocracy to be imposed.  Which is an echo of the famous comment by Turkey’s islamist leader Recep Erdogan who said that democracy was a bus that he would ride until he got to his destination….an Islamic state.

Later we got to the real meat of the matter…the Muslim grievance industry…the grievance narrative that Muslims are oppressed by the West and foreign policy is anti-Muslim.

This grievance narrative we were told, again by a Muslim, was false and very unhelpful.  It feeds into the narrative of those who want to create a them and us society.

It is dangerous and dishonest to blame foreign policy!

The narrative of Muslims under siege, Muslims oppressed, of Islamophobia demonising Muslims was rubbished as a cause of radicalisation.

And the problem is not foreign policy but a puritanical Islam.

The programme ends on a question….will events in France be the trigger for some soul searching amongst Muslims leading to reform?

The last comment didn’t sound too hopeful and gave the probability that such a conclusion would only come at the cost of much bloodshed and over the course of many years, decades, hundreds of years possibly.

All very powerful and iconoclastic….it totally undermines the BBC’s own ‘mainstream’ narrative of the Muslim grievance industry, Islamophobia and the effect of foreign policy as the cause of radicalisation…..The real problem is ‘puritanical Islam’.

Good luck with sorting that out….then again look what Cameron did to the ‘nasty party’……completely emasculated it in no time.

So the question now is what will the BBC do next…will we see a counter narrative to that grievance industry and tackle Islamic extremism or will the BBC dodge that and resume its lazy, convenient narrative of oppression and foreign policy?

Craig at Is the BBC Biased has watched Panorama and is praising it for its honesty in discussing Islam in the UK….

Panorama: The Battle for British Islam

Credit where credit’s due.

Tonight’s Panorama by John Ware was an outstanding piece of reporting.

It fully faced up to the fact that Islam is the problem, and that a radical reformation of Islam is needed

 

I haven’t watched it yet but I will take Craig’s word for it that John Ware, usually reliable on this subject, has done the business.  Let’s hope I don’t appear on tomorrow’s Today programme ala Fox News and Birmingham for relying on other people’s research.

From the BBC blurb:

John Ware hears from Muslims facing an angry backlash for trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values. They believe that the way Islam has been practised here has more in common with extremist ideologies than some police officers, politicians or Muslim leaders have been prepared to admit.

 

An extreme but non-violent form of Islam pushes Muslims into the arms of the extremists…a version of Islam that can’t exist with core British values…and one that is growing.

Here’s the issue though…all very well a specialist BBC programme making these waves and digging into the subject to unearth the truth…but as always how does that translate into the everyday presentation of these events when it is filtered through the likes of Nicky Campbell, Peter Allen and Adrian Chiles?

Kind of suspect, as long experience tells me, that it will be completely ignored and the ideas and information within that programme will not get disseminated to other programme makers.

If you don’t watch the programme, and how many do watch Panorama now?, you will be left the unsuspecting victim of a tidal wave of pro-Islam programming that talks about the threat from the Far Right and makes Muslims the victims of that mythical backlash.

The BBC has long treated us to Muslim propaganda programming designed to make us love Muslims and Islam….Friday we had yet another…Hip in a Hijab. 

Listen and groan…it’s pure propaganda…listen to how free and powerful Muslim women are…how the hijab empowers them and is a symbol of freedom and feminism….however the idea that Muslim women can wear alluring and eyecatching Hijabs and Burkhas is ridiculous…it defeats the purpose of those devices which is to cover their modesty and stop them attracting unwanted (by their husband/father/brother) male attention.

The BBC has been repeatedly inviting the same guests onto its programmes….notably ones who voice opinions that are diametrically opposed to the narrative that supports ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and free expression.

Naturally any such dissenting voices should be heard…but what if they are making claims that are just plain wrong and are doing so in an attempt to possibly justify the killing of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo?

Their narrative should at least be challenged.  But it never is, in fact, it is nodded along to by BBC types who have the same feelings and frequently, if more subtly,  express them themselves…ala Tim Wilcox.

Nabila Ramdani seems to be an ever present goto voice for the BBC….shouting of the racism and Islamophobia of Charlie Hebdo whilst demanding respect for Islam and freedom of religion….another popular Muslim to haunt the BBC corridors is Myriam Francois-Cerrah who writes at the New Statesman.  She can, without thinking, rattle off the mantra about Muslims being marginalised, disenfranchised, victims of racism and the ‘multiple levels of aleination that foster terror’.   She is an apologist for terror….unemployed or alienated by cartoons of your Prophet then kill someone seems to be her thinking.   It’s the same line peddled by so many BBC reporters though.

She even claimed that ‘I am Charlie’ is alienating Muslims as they cannot, will not, adopt that theme of defending free speech and expressing outrage that cartoonists should be killed for a drawing.

She uttered these ‘truths’ in a BBC interview (12:25)..naturally the interviewer, Peter Allen, didn’t object…in fact he fed her the lines himself.

She, like Mehdi Hasan, is a fan of the alternative hashtag #JeSuisAhmed in this tweet which  subtly cheers the terrorists actions:

Writer and activist Dyab Abou Jahjah initiated #JeSuisAhmed with:

I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

— Dyab Abou Jahjah (@Aboujahjah) January 8, 2015

Just so we know…Dyab Abou Jahjah…Muslim activist and opponent of ‘integration’ who stated after 9/11:

“Most of us … felt that day something that can not be described as joy, or as happiness, but rather as that sweet revenge feeling. We all had – except that small minority- a “what goes around comes around’” attitude”

Any chance he still feels like that?…despite now claiming he doesn’t.

There are of course many others who like to portray Charlie Hebdo as racist or Islamophobic….by doing so they are trying to demonise the publication…and in doing so reduce the outrage at the killings…the cartoonists were racist and Islamophobic so perhaps, in a way, they got what was coming.

Another proponent of the lie that Charlie Hebdo was racist is Glenn Greenwald, once of the Guardian.

Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens

Greenwald then goes on to publish several cartoons that for some reason are mostly anti-Semitic….a curious choice…is he suggesting that all this fuss about a few cartoonists is orchestrated by the Jewish Lobby?

Here comparing Israel to ISIS…whereas the closest comparison might be the mass murderers and religious fanatics of Hamas…..

The problem is of course that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were based upon genuine concerns about Islam, and other issues, but many cartoons about Israel are usually based purely upon racial stereotypes and intended to be nothing else but insulting rather than some satirical comment.

Greenwald includes a joke about the Holocaust:

…but the two subjects are entirely different…the Holocaust was the mass extermination of 6 million people…joke about that if you want…but satirical comment about an ideology is just  critical comment on the tenets of an ideology in a humorous form.  The fact that millions of people like that ideology is neither here nor there, millions followed Hitler and his creed….should we not make jokes about Nazism?

Curiously Greenwald also fails to make his point because the cartoons he has chosen could all be justified in the usual cut and thrust of the very nasty world of real politik….to suggest a ‘Jewish Lobby’ is controlling US policy may be wrong in reality but there is an obvious suspicion for many that it might be true…and therefore I see no problem in making a satirical cartoon raising that possibility.

Just suggesting that there is a ‘Jewish Lobby’ is not anti-Semitic because of course there are Jewish groups who lobby on behalf of Jewish interests…just as the MCB is a Muslim lobby group…or any Union you might choose to name etc etc.

This cartoon is the only one that might give one serious pause for thought…it is a rag bag of mixed images intended to protray the Jews as the killers of Christ (an old anti-Semitic trope) as well as siphoning off money from the corpse of America which has been crucfied by the Jews:

So all the old anti-Semitic stereotypes there, the killers of Christ, the money grabbing Jews and the new one of course…that of America being the victim of the Jews.

Note though that little cartoon in the corner of Judas, the betrayer, and in a way the ultimate killer of Christ, hanging from a tree with the words…‘What Judas ought to do’.

A clear message that the untrustworthy Jews should die for the ‘wrongs’ they commit.

Not satire but pure hatred and an incitement to violence.

But what of those claims about racism in Charlie Hebdo mentioned at the start of this post?

Greenwald doesn’t like this cartoon….

The caption reads…

“BOKO HARAM’S SEX SLAVES ARE ANGRY
DON’T TOUCH OUR BENEFITS!”

Greenwald has no idea what the cartoon is about, he just supposes it is racist and mocking the unfortunate girls captured by Boko Haram because they are black….they are drawn black because…em…they are black….it’s not racism to draw them that way.   He has no idea of, or concern for, the context of the cartoon….

This cartoon was published at the time of two news events:

1.  Following the kidnapping of school-girls by Boko Haram, it was reported that many of the victims were likely to end up as sex slaves in Nigeria.

2.  A proposed policy in France to decrease welfare allocation (benefits).

It is a cartoon that tries to highlight the absurd nature of the claims for welfare made by ‘welfare queens’ in France who make a living by claiming large amounts for their ever growing numbers of offspring. The cartoon uses the completely absurd comparison of the sex slaves claiming welfare to highlight the ridiculous nature of many welfare claims in France….ridiculous to suggest that women in the position of the  sex slaves would claim welfare…and ridiculous for many of these ‘welfare queens’ to do so.

Another favourite cartoon of the pro-Islamist lobby  that apparently demonstrates Charlie Hebdo’s ‘racism’ is this one….

The cartoon was published after a National Front politician Facebook-shared a photoshop of Justice Taubira, drawn as a monkey, and then said on French television the she should be “in a tree swinging from the branches rather than in government”:

 

The title is “RACIST BLUE UNION”

The cartoon is styled as a political poster, calling on all far-right “Marine” racists to unify, under this racist imagery they have chosen. Ultimately, the cartoon is criticising the far-right’s appeal to racism to gain supporters.

The cartoon was drawn by Charb. He participated in anti-racism activities, and notably illustrated the poster for MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples), an anti-racist NGO.

He was a Communist, and his girlfriend’s parents were North African. A funny kind of racist.

The cartoon is literally saying the National Front are racists.

Here is Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon of Marine Le Pen:

It is a satirical and no doubt sceptical comment on Le Pen claiming to be deradicalisng the NF…by shaving the Hitler moustache.

So from the explanations and context of the cartoons it is clear Charlie Hebdo was not racist…the opposite in fact.  Greenwald, and the rest, have no idea, and aren’t too bothered with the truth, of  what the cartoons really mean.

They want to demonise Charlie Hebdo in order to lessen the horrendous impact the killings have had on people’s perceptions of Islam and its followers.

They have taken the shamelessly lazy and dishonest path of attacking and blaming the victim rather than dealing with the real issue…the attempts, violent and non-violent to spread Islam across Europe.

One last cartoon says so much about the true message from Charlie Hebdo regarding Islam:

The title is:

“Muhammad overwhelmed by the fundamentalists
[in speech bubble] It’s tough being loved by idiots”

Is that insulting Muhammed or questioning those who claim to be his followers and their extremist message?

Shame the BBC just accepts the word of people like Greenwald, Ramdani and Francois-Cerrah without any questions….their narrative is somewhat dangerous in that it gives the suggestion that violence is acceptable for anything you might find the slightest bit objectionable.

Today leapt upon a stupid mistake in a Fox News interview (17 mins 15 secs) when a ‘terrorism expert’ claimed Birmingham was a no-go area for non-Muslims.

Following the terror attacks in France, Fox News interviewed Steve Emerson, who describes himself as a “terrorism expert”. During the interview, Mr Emerson claimed that Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and non-Muslims “simply don’t go in” to the city. This resulted in a comic backlash on Twitter, with users expressing their outrage and disbelief at Mr Emerson’s words. People began tweeting satirical comments about an Islamic Birmingham / Britain, using the hashtag #foxnewsfacts. Emerson later apologised for the gaffe.

 

Emerson said he had relied upon sources of information that proved wrong.

Of course if this had been on one of the liberal TV news stations in the US nothing would have been said.

Hilariously Naughtie told us that BBC comedian (apparently they exist) Mitch Benn, from the Fast Show, had tweeted something rather funny about this.

Trouble is, Benn is from the Now Show.

Guess everyone can get things wrong occasionally.

Islam being the religion of peace you understand, or so the BBC keeps reporting.

Jews And Muslims United Against Hate!….Well only in the BBC’s mind.

David revealed the film of BBC journo Tim Wilcox suggesting that it was perhaps OK that Jews were being killed in France because the Jews, not Israelis note, were killing Palestinians…presumably he thought the deaths were somehow equivalent…cold blooded murder of Jews compared with accidental deaths caused in battle with a huge terrorist organisation that has deliberately targeted Jewish civilians for decades...731 civlians being killed in 4 years between 2001 and 2005…Woman shot on her way to work…Teenager shot…School teacher and driver shot on the way to work…Man and his wife shot dead by Palestinian snipers…Two abducted and executed…Woman stabbed to death….Pregnant woman shot…Five teenagers shot…and so on….mostly ignored by the BBC which repeatedly lists Palestinian casualty figures.

Would Wilcox go up to the relatives of a victim of 7/7 and suggest they stop complaining as Muslims were being killed in Iraq…mostly by other Muslims?

Come to think of it that is precisely the message the BBC has been pushing these last 10 years….’blowback’.

Here is an interesting interview  (18:41) with a Jewish community representative by Tony Livesey in which, starting off wth the inevitable ‘no proof that the supermarket was deliberately targeted because it was Jewish’ comment,  he seemed less than sympathetic, or at least markedly less gushing than we get from BBC interviews with Muslims complaining of ‘Islamophobia’.

Livesey interrupts the woman’s reply as she tells us that Jews aren’t the only targets of terrorism…the French way of life, democratic values are also under attack.

Livesey suggests that ‘one of the main concerns’ is that people will look at Muslims as if they are all extremists and look at Muslims with a sense of fear when really it is a case of radicalisation…of a small percentage….thereby ignoring and dismissing non-violent ‘conservative’ Muslim attempts to impose their values on Western countries…case in point the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot….essentially a devious plot to put into action an MCB plan to Islamise schools in the UK…the MCB representing over 500 British Muslim groups…so not unrepresentative you might suggest.

Livesey then tries to say that ‘Jewishness’ or religion in this context is unimportant…why can’t the woman just say she is French?

She says she talks of ‘French Jews’ because that is who is being targeted by anti-Semites….

Jews aren’t being targeted because they are ‘French’…but because they are Jewish….curious how the BBC wants to deny the religious aspect to their identity and the reason for them being attacked.

Here’s another BBC report that tries to deny the religious aspect…but in a different way….here making out there is little difference between Jews and Muslims.

The Today programme this morning (07:44) when Matthew Price had an intriguing little report that told a big lie about ‘important issues that had to be addressed’…..it told us Jews were fleeing France because of persecution, though the BBC refrained from telling us who was doing the persecuting….they then went on to tell us Muslims were also living in fear in France….the unspoken implication being that it was the ‘Far Right’ doing the fear mongering.

Curious remark from Price about the ‘well to do’ Jews.

So there we have it…both the Jews and Muslims are living in fear….the two are the same.  United in their fear.

Only that’s not true.

Who is the main persecutor of the Jews?  Muslims….and not just in France…the BBC is extremely reluctant to report on the pogroms in Sweden.

Who is the main persecutor of Muslims?…assuming they are being ‘persecuted’…it’s not the Jews that’s for certain.

Here’s the thing…the Jews are being persecuted, shot and killed, for being ‘Jewish’.  Jews are not terrorists roaming around France killing people who criticise their religion or who don’t believe their religion.

Muslims are being ‘persecuted’, because some Muslims, in the name of their religion and to further its interests, have launched many deadly terrorist attacks on Jews and on the very basis of the ‘West’…democracy and free speech.  And not just ‘terrorist’ attacks but increasingly political and social attacks on French society and culture pressuring France to adopt Muslim values and practises.

To make out that the persecution of the Jews and the persecution of Muslims is in any way comparable when it is Muslims persecuting the Jews is a perversion of the truth.  Attacking Muslims who are innocently going about their business is utterly contemptible but for the BBC to hide the fact that Jews are attacked by Muslims is dangerously dishonest and is a deliberate twisting of the truth for political reasons….and is indeed adopting the narrative that the Islamists, such as Tariq Ramadan, want to be used.

Note that this strategy, of making false comparisons between two groups in order to give Muslim ‘suffering’ some credibility is one used by that other ‘master of deception‘ Mehdi ‘Media’ Hasan…..

The truth is that Islamophobia and homophobia have much in common: they are both, in the words of the (gay) journalist Patrick Strudwick, “at least partly fuelled by fear. Fear of the unknown . . .” Muslims and gay people alike are victims of this fear – especially when it translates into hate speech or physical attacks. We need to stand side by side against the bigots and hate-mongers, whether of the Islamist or the far-right variety, rather than turn on one another or allow ourselves to be pitted against each other, “Muslims v gays”.

Trouble is it isn’t just the ‘Islamists’ who are ‘bigoted hatemongers’…..

0% thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable

Not a single British Muslim said homosexuality was morally acceptable, compared to 58 per cent of the general public who believed it was.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQpj7HgTKYY

No holding back from Marr asking awkward question to Miliband…Did he use the word ‘weaponise’ in relation to the NHS?

Miliband refused to answer, saying somewhat surprisingly in an interview that ‘This isn’t about the words we use…’.  I’m sure the televised debates will be fascinating without the correct words in the right place.

What’s interesting is that the BBC has been holding ‘secret’ meetings with, presumably, all the political parties….which ones we don’t know…well, we know they had one with Miliband….

Ed Miliband said he wanted to ‘weaponise’ NHS in secret meeting with BBC executives

Ed Miliband has come under pressure to admit that he plotted to “weaponise” the NHS as an election issue after it emerged he secretly briefed up to 15 executives at the BBC over his plans, The Telegraph can disclose.

On time and ready for you to complete….

Seen this? Thoughts?

Just a little tale in praise of the NHS….something the BBC doesn’t tell you about….we hear of the 7.4% who don’t get treated within 4 hours at A&E but what of the 92.6% who do?

My neighbour felt some chest pain during Friday night.  111 was called and as he was feeling relatively OK they sent paramedics only first thing in the morning.

Taken to hospital for a thorough check up he then had a more serious attack and needed an operation.  He was moved to another hospital to have that…successfully.  Amazingly he is due out and back home on Tuesday.

So even during this ‘crisis’ in the NHS they still manage to do the business and do it quickly when urgency is required.

Perhaps the BBC should stop putting so much emphasis on the relatively small things that go wrong and look at what goes right as millions of people are treated and go home happy and fit.

Birds of a feather……Jon Donnison thinks this is superb journalism from the great James O’Brien, the man who ‘masterminded’ the kangaroo court for Nigel Farage…..

Superb MT @AudreyCarville A masterclass in how to deal with people demanding Muslims apologise for #Charliehebdo http://t.co/ujJzB3csF8”

— Jon Donnison (@jondonnisonbbc) January 10, 2015

If that’s what Donnison calls a masterclass in journalism…well compared to his I guess it might be.

O’Brien is his usual smug, intolerant, incoherent and illogical self….very amusing to hear him as he preens and puffs himself up as the intellectual giant in the conversation.  Sure the other guy is lost for words but then he’s an amateur not a ‘master’ of the medium as O’Brien is, well practised in dissembling and aggressive obfuscation.

Supposedly a journalist would be trying to encourage a caller to articulate what they mean, helping them make their point.  O’Brien in contrast thinks it is his job, if you have views he doesn’t like, to belittle you and say things of such monumental stupidity that they stun you into a confused silence as you try to work out if O’Brien is really that stupid or is just acting the prat.

The caller suggested that perhaps Muslims as a ‘community’ should apologise for the terrorism in France done in the name of their religion.

O’Brien thinks not.

O’Brien makes a bizarre comparison and asks if all Geordies should apologise for something done by a Geordie, or, as the caller is called Richard, all ‘Richards’ should apologise for the shoebomber Richard Reid.

The caller seemed flummoxed…but that didn’t make him wrong of course, just startled and tongue-tied by O’Brien’s outlandish kookiness.  O’Brien does what the BBC does all the time, ignore the ideology that the people follow and assume being a Muslim is just the same as being White  for instance…..purely a feature of your physical identity with no ideology behind it, Islam being a ‘race’.  Such a progressive intellect as O’Brien would surely recognise that skin colour cannot be used as an identifier of a person’s thoughts, actions or beliefs…such profiling is racist…but an ideology might,  just might, indicate your beliefs and thereby your actions.

Being a Muslim is of course somewhat more meaningful than having a particular skin colour…there are rules.  Don’t follow them and you’re not a Muslim.  Follow them and you are.

Which brings us to the point…should Muslims apologise?

They choose to be Muslim, they choose to follow a religion that has some very obvious and unpleasant beliefs that fly in the face of a secular, democratic, liberal, progressive society.

Do they do anything to change that religion?

If not then perhaps they should apologise for what is done in their religion’s name using commands that come from the Koran itself.

They should perhaps acknowledge the problems inherent in their religion and spell out exactly what they are doing to change it.

When so many Mosques are known to be the source of so much ‘radicalisation’, otherwise known as following the fundamentals of your religion, and do so by quoting from the Koran and Hadith, the touchstones of Islam, then there is a problem.

If everytime someone criticises Islam and Muslims set up a hue and cry declaiming about Islamophia they are defending that status quo…and so should not complain when people say hang on, you’re defending the very verses and beliefs that are being used to give divine sanction to those who terrorise us….any wonder people might argue that Muslims should feel embarrassed by their religion and might consider apologising for acts done in order to further its interests…..especially when so many of those Muslims would be happy to take advantage of the benefits that come their way as a result of the terrorism as the politicians crumble and start making concessions to their religion… politically, socially and legally?

Happy to take the benefits reaped from terror but not the responsibility for the wrongs.

Some might say.

Interesting as well that O’Brien, for the purposes of his argument, has decided that there is no such thing as an overarching ‘Muslim community’.  Funny how, when it suits, ‘Muslims’ are offended and insulted by cartoons…and ‘Muslims’ must be protected from Islamophobic attacks.

So ‘Muslims’ have no need to apologise, but ‘Muslims’ can be offended as a group?

The Metropolitan Police were labelled ‘institutionally racist’….why then is it not conceivable that Islam can be labelled ‘Institutionally’ a system of beliefs that creates the necessary mindsets that  encourage acts of terror, or anti-Semitism or homophobia or misogyny?  Not all police officers, hardly any in fact, will be racist, and yet they were so labelled.  Hardly any Muslims are terrorists and yet……O’Brien would be outraged by the suggestion that Islam is institutionally terrorist, I suspect not so outraged about the police being labelled racist.

Guess this was just another ‘job interview’ for the BBC…I think he will have passed….sure to be appearing on Newsnight once again very soon.

Apologise?  Who knows, but you could make a case for it, a better case than for not apologising….not responsible for the terrorist’s actions but responsible for upholding the teachings and beliefs that give sanction to their terrorism?  But you have the problem of the lip-service Muslims, the cultural Muslims, the semi-practising Muslims.  Just how Muslim would you have to be?

Best let sleeping dogs lie…however I profusely apologise for slavery (only practised by whitey), Christian sex abuse scandals, the potato famine, colonialism and One Direction….oh and not forgetting global warming!