"BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. "

I would pay them a one-way tix to iran.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 27, 2006 3:20 PM

Dealing with the Islamization problem is going to bring another long-brewing conflict into sharp focus: the ongoing cultural and media assualt on Christian institutions, ideas and expression in the west.

It's no secret that homosexual activists have targeted Christianity for expulsion from public life, and been a dominant faction in upper level management within major media companies. Astoundingly, these folks seem willing to embrace an even more virulent strain of homophobia (Islam) if it will help them marginalize the hated bible-toters.

You'd be hard pressed, however, to hear a sunday morning preacher issuing an edict making it "OK" to kill gays.

Posted by: Clive at October 27, 2006 3:29 PM

I think I'll stick to the Shire Network News. They are biased in a non-PC way.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at October 27, 2006 3:30 PM

Homosexuals?
Nah their fucken sissys

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 27, 2006 3:32 PM

well maybe some of the homosexuals will open their eyes and see they have been playing into the hands of those who want them dead.

One can only hope at some point these idiots will see that their own way of life is at stake in their own country; that there only hope of long term survival may rest in honest reporting.

Niv

Posted by: niv at October 27, 2006 3:35 PM

There are natural consequences to reaping and sowing. What has and is still the UK sowing ? They will indeed reap the whirlwind. When the swords fly let them cry out to the Christian God for help and mercy, they will find none. They wanted Him out, He will honor that. God often uses a countries enemies to judge them....judgement has already fallen on the UK and will only get worse. And to think from the heights from which she has fallen...

Posted by: TheRegulator at October 27, 2006 3:38 PM

Islam will dominate homosexuals!

Posted by: hasan salami at October 27, 2006 3:43 PM

It seems the PC movement was championed by Gay Rights persons in the united states as well. I think that in theory this is a good thing, but PC tolerance only works among opponents, not with enemies. That is the twist that Muslim mentality brings to the PC dominated media. The media doesn't understand the difference between opponents and enemies. They fail to see that certain assumptions fail when the world is divided into the Camp of islam and the Camp of War...

Perhaps the gays need to be reminded that they would be first among those killed in the new vanguard.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 27, 2006 3:44 PM

If we could convince gays and lesbians that Islam means their demise we would have formidable allies in the struggle against allah's cause.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 27, 2006 3:50 PM

Faggotfascism is rooted deeply in the European news agencies. Last month, here in Holland the all-round hero Geert Wilders was portrait as a criminal while he asked questions about a visit of a Muslim-extremist. A complete and utter upside-down world can be found in Europe regarding the media.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at October 27, 2006 3:52 PM

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians.

Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

____________________

I've known this for a while now. Even so-called "children's shows" have taken a blatant pro-homosexual stance and it's a shame that this BBC, had the current leadership existed during W.W.II, probably would have been afraid of offending the Nazis, and more than willing to offer an interview to Adolf Hitler to explain his views as well.

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 27, 2006 4:19 PM

Hmm, now that one Al-Jazeera's Western arms has been exposed I wonder if others will be too?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 27, 2006 4:26 PM

No big surprise here, anybody with a functioning brain knows what a load of bull the BEZeera is. But that gays are heavily involved in it is a surprise, homosexuals are to exterminated according to Islam, so their pro-Islamic stance is puzzling. One would hope they would pull their head out of their ass and recognize who their real enemies are.

But then, many Jews support the Left even though it's fully on the side of the Palestinians and against Israel. A lot of people need to grow a brain and figure out who's really on their side and who their enemies are.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at October 27, 2006 4:34 PM

Laurence Auster says it well

You’ve probably seen the news about the BBC admitting its left-wing bias. Unfortunately, to describe the BBC as biased is a huge understatement. The sheer cold malevolence toward Israel, toward America, toward traditional Britain, toward the West, toward God, toward existence itself that emanates from the BBC newsreaders and reporters is like nothing I’ve ever seen. It chills the soul. Soviet newscasters were mere grumpy apparatchiks by comparison.

When it comes to Israel, BBC bile seems to pour out of each presenter. It is manifest even in the way they speak of Israel. The contemptuous manner in which they address senior Israeli politicians, contrast with the obsequousness on display when they interview terrorists, such as Arafat and his henchmen.

Yet in never strikes these BBC journalists that Israel is the only genuine liberal democracy in that region, has 20% Muslim Arab population living freely and well, with Arab Muslim representation in parliament. All this, while suffering continuous Islamic terrorist attacks on a scale, if translated to Britain, would lead to the immediate expulsion of Muslims from the UK. The hypocrisy of the BBC is mind boggling.

And ofcourse the BBC know nothing of Islam, and the truth about Mophammed.

Posted by: DP111 at October 27, 2006 4:46 PM

About damn time they admitted it.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 27, 2006 4:51 PM

BBC gets a Muslim to ask: were Jesus's miracles for real?

The BBC is placing Christianity at the heart of primetime entertainment for the first time, with programmes examining faith and spirituality set to replace copycat “lifestyle” shows.
However, the first fruits of the born-again fervour could prove controversial. Rageh Omaar, the former Iraq war correspondent who wrote a book on his experiences as a British Muslim, will conduct a three-part examination of Jesus’s miracles.

The series asks if the banquet of loaves and fishes was an act of mass delusion and if the crucified body of Jesus was thrown to dogs in a rubbish dump.

The BBC has said that it is committed to presenting all faiths equally. Last year Omaar presented his Islamic History of Europe and a new BBC series will examine the impact of the British Empire on the development of Islam.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2271202.html

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 27, 2006 4:53 PM

What happened to film " Obsession:Radical Islam's war against he West"?

it was on Google Video Website for while then was taken off.

Any way to put it back on a secure website?

Posted by: Not_philip_Pullman at October 27, 2006 5:03 PM

BBC internal memo admits anti-Christian, pro-Muslim bias

Duh!

Posted by: Pelayo at October 27, 2006 5:05 PM

Will the BBC correct this pro-Muslim bias after this embarrassing admission, or will they continue to behave like humiliated, despised dhimmis?

Obviously, that's a rhetorical question.

Posted by: US_infidel at October 27, 2006 5:22 PM

Well I suppose its progress that at least the bastards admit it now, at least among themselves.

Posted by: templar at October 27, 2006 5:23 PM

So BBC is the propaganda wing of Al-Jihad against it's home country. That is treason.

BBC should be shut down for treason, by their own admission.

Posted by: Alert at October 27, 2006 5:30 PM

I am not sure they admitted it, I think they have flaunted it.

Posted by: Ronin at October 27, 2006 5:31 PM

This is nothing more than a post mortum review. The King is dead long live the King. I had worked this out five years ago, they are five years too late, nobody believes them anymore. The BBC is the Bullshit Broadcasting Company and they have blown it. The only part of their programs where they have any credibility, and that is really what this meeting was about is credibility, is in their science programs and perhaps there gardening programs. The rest is shit, it doesn't matter if all the executives are gay, homos, shirt lifters, brown hatters call them what you may, they have not been portraying the the news as they should have done, objective and unemotionally. They have had a political agenda. It is very simple, during the last war, this is what the BBC did. They didn't say fascist warships blew up the Hood with a lucky shot in the magazine. They said during an engagement between the German Battleship Bismark, and the Prince Eugene and the British Battle cruiser Hood and the Battleship Prince of Wales in the Denmark straits, the Battle cruiser Hood was sunk with the loss of nearly all hands. They stated the facts. Newsagences like the BBC should stick to the facts and not try and play God, to put it bluntly Reauter the News. I for one do not believe a word that is spoken on the BBC, and I am certain neither do a large percentage of the British Population. I watch the BBC but I go to other news sites to help me balance my views. The BBC have made asses of themselves over the last twenty years with their PC agenda. They have lost the trust of the Aboriginal population and they will never regain it. As an Englishman and a Brit I am disgusted.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at October 27, 2006 5:34 PM

As an Englishman and a Brit I am disgusted.
Posted by: Holger Dansker

We understand we feel the same about hollywood, when someone asks us about it, we look at our feet, sigh loudly, and walk away. If they are polite they never bring it up again.

Posted by: Ronin at October 27, 2006 5:38 PM

"BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals."

Well anyone whose seen teletubbies could have told you that.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at October 27, 2006 5:52 PM

HA!

And I wonder if their views will change now that a high ranking Imam came right out and SAID, no pussyfooting around (pun, sorry heh), that it is acceptable, indeed mandated by the Koran, to KILL ALL HOMOSEXUALS!

Of course... I know their views will never change, even in light of this interview.

And how very sad, that...

Posted by: JenBee at October 27, 2006 6:53 PM

These people deserve to hang, they really do.

What distinction can be be made between the BBC and William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw)?

Posted by: enemyofislam at October 27, 2006 7:03 PM

One wonders how much play this story is going to get in the mainstream media.

Brit Hume of Fox Cable covered the Georgetown story (the renaming of the 'Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding' after the $20 mill donation by the Saudi philanthropist and the simultaneous expulsion of evangelical groups). Is anyone aware of any other TV media coverage of this story?

Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2006 7:06 PM

"...BBC internal memo admits anti-Christian, pro-Muslim bias..."

And a tree grows in Brooklyn!

From A_Plague_on_Both_Houses:
"If we could convince gays and lesbians that Islam means their demise we would have formidable allies in the struggle against allah's cause."

Yes, if we could unite gays, animal lovers, patriots regarding of their political leaning, we'd be alright.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at October 27, 2006 7:48 PM

Why does it matter that the BBC is "dominated by homosexuals?" I wouldn't care if it were dominated by vegan transvestites, as long it reported the news responsibily and objectively, which it is clear it has not done. The problem is that the BBC has become dominated by a particular political bias, i.e. the misguided left. There are plenty of gays out there who are not on the left politically and who don't care to impose their values or lifestyles on anyone, as long as their rights are respected and their existence and basic humanity is acknowledged. Still, it shouldn't be surprising that gays tend more toward the left of the political spectrum, as left political parties have always been more supportive and protective of gay rights. Can't fault them for that. Why the number of gays at the BBC should matter is beyond me. There have always been a disproportionate number of gays in theatre, fashion, and the performance arts; it's a well-known fact, not a stereotype. Certain areas of the media, particularly the arts areas, have always drawn larger numbers of gays than in the general population. The reasons for this are complex but have very little to do with politics. The conservative lobby, anti-gay as it is and always has been, is jumping on this as an opportunity to crow about how all their usual suspects, gays, feminists, environmentalists, whatever, are in bed with the Islamofascists. No, not all of them, not even a majority of them. Enough with the faggot-bashing, and get your focus back to the issue at hand.

Posted by: angloirishslav at October 27, 2006 7:52 PM

Today the BBC, tomorrow the CBC?

Sadly, not bloody likely!

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at October 27, 2006 7:54 PM

Anybody with a television in the UK has to pay the BBC license fee even if they choose not to watch the BBC. In fact the BBC wish to extend this to anyone with a computer. Failure to pay the BBC license fee can result in a prison sentence not just a large fine. Without this source of funding the BBC would be forced to change or die the death it deserves.

Posted by: SleepyCat at October 27, 2006 7:58 PM

As much as the marxists of the extreme left blindly believe that the muslims are "useful idiots" who one day will become classless and raceless utopians, so much the muslims have taken the homosexuals to be "useful idiots" who one day must be slaughtered to the word of allah...

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at October 27, 2006 8:19 PM

You’ve got to think about the type of people whose chosen profession is to ‘report’ on what other people do. It seems to me that those who chose to ‘do’ things have a healthier mind.

Reporters operate in the vicinity of people with money and power. Most make marginal salaries and are envious of the money and power the people they are tasked with writing about have. The media’s typical political slant makes sense when you think about it.

Throw in a government paycheck every two weeks with job security, and you’ve got the BBC or PBS. This internet will be a very powerful force as things move forward.

Posted by: limes at October 27, 2006 9:20 PM

"BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals"

Well this gay licence payer certainly wouldn't know it from the broadcast programmes. As far as the BBC is concerned gay people are next to invisible. The barbarian moslem horde get more coverage than gays, Christians, women, men and ordinary British folk put together.

The traditions and traditional events in the countries of this United Kingdom are routinely ignored by the BBC and the few, the very few, which are reported on are usually commented upon in a sarcastic or a joking manner.

The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation - well, that's a laugh. Tell me BBC, what percentage of your employees are members of the barbarian moslem invasion force? Let me tell you. One and a half percent of the British population is barbarian moslem but 36.7% of the Corporations workforce are! Staggeringly, a further seventeen percent aren't even British citizens! In other words, over half of the BBC's employees have no loyalty to the UK at all!

Don't worry about homosexuals (since when did sexual orientation dictate what one's politics are) - worry about the takeover of the BBC by non-British people bent only and obviously upon our destruction.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 27, 2006 10:36 PM

This is a perfect example of what we are up against. Homosexuals, as a political body, and they are a political body, are Left of center. Left of center groups have an animosity toward white, western, Christian, heterosexual civilization.

So, in their minds, they must make an alliance with what is opposed to this white, western, Christian, heterosexual civilization - namely Islam. The old saw about An Enemy of An Enemy Is a Friend of Mine, is never so apt. If earth was under attack by Martians, the Left would be friendly to their cause, too, regardess of the cause of the Martians.

The irony that no civilization is as anti-gay as islam, means not one whit to them. Why? Because they don't actually expect islam to win. They are using islam as a happy tool with which to bring down the West a few notches, while still finding life and liberty within the west - truly, I say, the ultimate traitors. Worse than Haw-Haw. At least Joyce was willing to live under Nazism and be happy. The gays are not willing to live under Islam, but promote it anyway - out of malice.

Like the multiculturalists, the black political body, the immigration advocacy groups, the intellectuals, the media, the entertainment world, the trade unions, the marxists, the universities and teacher unions, the gays are doing their part to bring down the hegemony of their "oppressers" by lifting up the enemy.

To us, it's a battle for survival. But to them, it's just a cynical game. They play with the fate of the world, just to satisfy a petty grudge.

But why? What is the basis for this grudge? Gays, as individuals, practically run our society. They are statistically over-represented in every influential position in the West, from publishing to entertainment, to politics, to the media. Not only is homosexuality legal, but accepted as normal by our PC society. Even gay marriage is becoming a fact.

Yet, to them, these are merely concessions made by an oppressor. Their goal is to shackle the oppressor and turn the tables. So they wage a guerilla war against the west from the inside, as part of the Left, they are part of the underground - a concerted effort to undermine our Christian-based society. For them, Christianity is hostile to homosexuality. And that is what motivates them to shill for islam today. The fact that islam is deadly for gays, matters not in this context. They resent Christianity and any society predominately Christian. Thus, they are part of this Leftist "underground resistence movement". At least, that is how they see it in their eyes. We are the Nazis, and they are the French resistence.

Posted by: August22 at October 27, 2006 10:41 PM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses,

Excellent insight. Very few people in Dar-ul-Harb are aware about the way they are perceived by Muslims.
If they would just for a few seconds, it would make them wince.
There is no folly greater than the wishful thinking of assuming that Muslims are as liberal as one is.

Posted by: rocky at October 27, 2006 11:05 PM

Does Dean Esmay work for them?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 27, 2006 11:06 PM

Speaking of Media matters...

FoxNews had a teaser promo for a show which will air tomorrow (Sat) at 2pm EST entitled "Why We Fight" which is supposed to be a frank examination of radical Islam and its works around the world.

The host will be the smart and beautiful Jaime Colby and there is also to be discussion about the movie "Obsession" which could beilluminating.

Let's hope against hope that this one will be brave.

Posted by: alexon at October 27, 2006 11:09 PM

August22; I don’t think you understand the program. Stop talking and watch TV, you’ve got to go to work tomorrow. {sarcasm off}

The well is not endless. And if anyone can explain how the social safety net can be transformed from its unsustainable condition to something responsible, with an electorate who is becoming increasingly addicted to it, I’m all ears. The BBC or PBS sure isn't going to ask the question.

Posted by: limes at October 27, 2006 11:13 PM

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians.
that could be because chritians dont riot and blow things up or gasp decapiate you and one thing the brainless blowhard cowards aka the bbc is knowen for is cowardence as for the gays in charge there
Will ye commit abomination knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.--27:54-55

1. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) 7:80-8126:165 What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males
26:166 And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
7:54 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly ? But he "saved those who believed."
27:55 Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
Male homosexuals commit abominations and act senselessly.
27:56 But the answer of his folk was naught save that they said: Expel the household of Lot from your township, for they (forsooth) are folk who would keep clean!nd Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. Male homosexual activities are condemned as unnatural.
29:29 For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!

they might read the koran
Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

# War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
its clear tht the gays will be killed and anyone else who will not convert or pay jizha and live as dhimmi

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 27, 2006 11:19 PM

You have to have a close familiarity with Muslim personal names to realise that there is a religious dimension to several of the rapes, murders, corruption scandals and police raids that are reported by the BBC. It's amazing how systematically defendents and suspects are referred to as youths or Asians - only when you hear their names are you able to supply your own M word.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 27, 2006 11:29 PM

August22/

"Homosexuals, as a political body, and they are a political body, are Left of center. Left of center groups have an animosity toward white, western, Christian, heterosexual civilization"

Rubbish - total, unmitagated rubbish. Gay people are not one unified political body - if we were we would have gained our freedoms much, much sooner. Sexual orientation does not, and never will, dictate political belief. I am acquainted with many, many gay people and I can safely say that my acquaintances range across the entire political spectrum. That they have an animosity towards our civilisation is a complete and utterly stupid statement. They, like me, have heterosexual mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, cousins, uncles, aunts, Christian friends (sixty+ percent of gay people in the UK identify as Christian, by-the-way) and non-Christian friends. Gay people in the UK are broadly supportive of the UK - the country which has finally given them freedoms and rights equal (almost) to the the straights.

"...to them, it's just a cynical game. They play with the fate of the world, just to satisfy a petty grudge" Again, rubbish. We have no grudge against a society which has finally given us our freedoms and our rights under law.

"...they must make an alliance with what is opposed to this white, western, Christian, heterosexual civilization - namely Islam" So, civilisation is the exclusive prerogative of "white, western, Christian, heterosexual[s}". I think not. Gay people have contributed enormously over the millenia to civilisation - in the sciences, the arts, the technologies and the medical professions, to name but a few fields of human endeavour, and we cannot easily be airbrushed out of history to suit your convenience simply because you assert, on no evidence at all, that we are in bed with our enemies.

"They are statistically over-represented in every influential position in the West, from publishing to entertainment, to politics, to the media" How, exactly, do you know this? Do you, alone, have access to some privileged data dase which lists all homosexuals and their occupations? Or is this just another one of your wild and prejudiced assertions?

"Gays, as individuals, practically run our society" I wish! Prove it!

"They resent Christianity and any society predominately Christian" Rubbish. As I said, above, in this post - sixty plus percent of gays in Britain identify as Christian. The Christian Churches could not exist without their selfless gay priests, ministers and pastors. We have had, in the past, a great deal to fear from Christianity but, in the west, those days are over and we know it.

"The fact that islam is deadly for gays, matters not in this context ... Thus, they are part of this Leftist "underground resistence [sic] movement". At least, that is how they see it in their eyes. We are the Nazis, and they are the French resistence [sic]" The fact is, had you ever joined me and mine in conversation, you would know that we are all well aware of the threat posed to our freedoms by the barbarian hordes of islam (amongst, it has to be said, others). As for all of us being part of a Leftist "underground resistence [sic] movement" and viewing all straight people as "Nazis" please, please, just take a reality check here. Much more of your homophobic drivel and I'm going to throw up!

"Even gay marriage is becoming a fact" Yes, it is. And what, precisely, is wrong with that. A bigger compliment to the institution of marriage I can scarcely imagine. Our parents are married, our brothers amd sisters get married, our aunts and uncles do it too. We gay people are brought up, just like you, to see marriage as a fine thing - as it is. Are you surprised that we want it too?

You are no better than the reporter who tossed the phrase "BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals" into the report at the the head of this thread in the hope of arousing the ire of all correct-thinking (hard of thinking?) people. He, and you, simply want to evoke some sort of 'gay conspiracy' idea. Well tough on you. We fight back and we've learnt that we don't have to take such hate-filled b****hit from people like you.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 27, 2006 11:44 PM

This means that the BBC will support the beheading of homosexuals when the muslim takeover of the UK is complete. There must be an easier way to commit suicide.

Posted by: Dsinc at October 27, 2006 11:50 PM

islamakapigeaters/

Exactly. Thank-you for the references.

Dominic.

...........................................................................................

wallyUK/

How true. I, too, have noticed that over the last several years.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 27, 2006 11:52 PM

August22, you really show your true colours: "Gays, as individuals, practically run our society. They are statistically over-represented in every influential position in the West, from publishing to entertainment, to politics, to the media. Not only is homosexuality legal, but accepted as normal by our PC society. Even gay marriage is becoming a fact."

Clearly you (and your Old Testament-quoting compadre) would prefer this not to be the case. So join up with your Islamofascist brethren in putting those uppity faggots back in their place.

Dominic - good point. The whole gay issue is totally irrelevant. Get over it, homophobes.

BTW, I highly recommend Bruce Bawer's uncompromising book about the rise of political Islam in Europe, While Europe Slept. Bawer is an American gay man and a Christian. He doesn't pull any punches about the damage being wrought by the Islamofascists in Europe, but nor does he cozy up to the reactionary right (it would be entirely self-defeating, because if those people had their way people like him would still be classified as mentally ill and considered criminals every time they had sex.) We need more like him now.

Posted by: angloirishslav at October 27, 2006 11:55 PM

... if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

I think Osama has been more than clear enough. To wit, nobody was mixed up on Sept. 12, 2001. At least not until a week or so afterwards, enough time for the benighted media to work its black magic on the public consciousness on behalf of dear Osama.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 27, 2006 11:57 PM

Sorry Dom, but you are in denial about the extent of the homosexual political body and their view of Christian society.

You say rubbish this, rubbish that. Good for you. Of course you will deny this. As an anti-jihad fighter, and a homosexual, you are obligated to deny this connection.

Gays are a fundamental part of the Left, and do act as a political body. Your anecdotal stories of some gay friends, notwithstanding.

The BBC is rife with homosexual Leftists. Just a coincidence?

I suggest a test: Go to a gay event, a rally, a march, whatever. Hold up a sign saying, DOWN WITH ISLAM - MUSLIMS OUT. The gays in attendance will now be your enemy. If gays were violent, they would beat you to a bloody pulp. I suggested the same test to feminists and to blacks with respect to their peers. The Left is the Left. The fact that you are gay, and on our side, does not abrogate what the gay body politics thinks and says.

People like you and Nariz and others, people on the political left, have to take a stand. Sooner or later you are going to have to separate yourselves from your Leftist views, your Leftist cohorts, and forsake every last bit of that ideology if you are REALLY to be on the side of civilization in winning this war.

Posted by: August22 at October 28, 2006 12:00 AM

angloirishslav/

I'd forgotten Bruce Bawer's uncompromising book about the rise of political Islam in Europe, 'While Europe Slept'. It's sitting on my shelf in front of me only half-read. I shall take it up to bed with me together with my hot toast and milky cocoa and continue reading. Thank-you for reminding me.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 12:01 AM

August22/

I have been to several Pride marches and marched under just such a banner as you suggest - four times this year alone. All the gays I met were in compleat agreement with that point of view - regrettably, on three occasions, the Police were not. That's another story.

I'm sorry for you. I truly am. You just don't know what you are speaking about. You're simply letting your anti-gay predjudices hang out for all to see. Go take them off to a hate site where others of your ilk will, no doubt, cheer you on.

You have been misled, I make no doubt, by the stupid noises of those gays who manage to shout louder than all the others. They do not represent the gay community any more than cheerleaders represent academe. Like all people who make a loud noise and parade their hatreds in public (ring any bells?) they are the ones whom the media reports. The rest of us honest to goodness gay citizens just don't get a look in. But then, such a rational assessment of the gay situation probably runs counter to everything that you 'know' as a gay-bashing freeper.

I'm gay. Some others on this site are. Do you think that we are 'over-represented' or could you possibly bring yourself to believe that we gays recognise the calm good sense of Mr. Spencer and the others at JW/DW - recognise the threat posed by islam to our freedoms?. Ah, no, of course: in your world we are over-represented and some sort of threat, aren't we?

Now be a good boy and go and play with the other children and leave us adults to get on with the important matter of the anti-jihad and gathering allies of all political hues (and others across the sexual spectrum, too). If you can't accept the first-hand evidence of a gay Brit exactly what are you going to accept? Ah yes, I forgot, only the evidence which suits your predjudices.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 12:21 AM

Oh Dom, thanks for feeling sorry for me, and all the other JWers who know that this story about the BBC is right on the money. Yes, you are like the muslims who get offended when someone suggest that there is a connection between islam and terror. Like you, they say, in their PC outrage, "How dare you disparage us, like that! You are a rascist, (homophobe) Go away. It is only a tiny minority that give the rest of us a bad name!"

We have heard it all before. The same PC denials. The usual charges of hate. The classic assertions that those that disagree with your PC views simply don't understand.

You are speaking like a true PC leftist, which is what you are. You are a leftist with an anti-jihad twist of lemon. But still a Leftist at heart with the same PC mentality, language, and talking point.

The difference between you and the rest here, is that your homosexuality is what motivates you. Your focus is very narrow and self-centered. I am willing to assert, that if homosexual persecution was not a part of the tenets of islam, you would not be here at all. What if islam was gay friendly? Would you denounce it? I wonder.

Me, and most of the rest of us, are here because we want to save civilization from destruction, which also happens to include under that umbrella, your right, as a gay, to continue to breath. We are not here for any narrow-focused reason of self-interest. No, jihadwatch and the machinations of those like me, exist to save the planet, not just to save my particular special interest group from islam's wrath.

Posted by: August22 at October 28, 2006 12:39 AM

Here's a joke for you all- a section of the 1996 BBC Charter:

"3.2 The requirements referred to in subclause 3.1 are that the Home Services -
...
(c) contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world to support fair
and informed debate at local, regional and national levels;"

'Impartial'?? 'Comprehensive'???
They take the Mickey out of us.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 12:49 AM

Don't kid yourself, Dominic. It was homosexuals who saw to the promulgation of the "hate law" statutes and these Constitutional perversions having been upheld in a ridiculous decision by a Supreme Court that included at least 3 homosexuals at the time of the decision.

I predict that hate law statutes will grease the skids towards implementation of Sharia across the United Staets. When that happens, homosexuals will be forced to flee the chic inner city enclaves they now inhabit, and to seek refuge in the heavily armed suburbs who never treated homosexuals badly in the first place.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 28, 2006 12:59 AM

Substitute "hate crime" for "hate law" statute. Sorry.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 28, 2006 1:05 AM

Hrrmmmmmmm... Damn, attacking the foundations upon which British society is built... That's nice... I did like Top of the Pops, though.

About the Gay political view: I wouldn't really know about what they think. However, there has been quite a bit of discrimination of them in the name of Leviticus, and so I wouldn't be surprised if their was an anti-Christian lean behind them. However, Dom says 60% of Gays in Britain are also Christian, so I don't know.

Time will tell.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at October 28, 2006 1:14 AM

August22/

So, I now have 'PC views' as well as being the gay object of hate. Well done! So mature!

"What if islam was gay friendly? Would you denounce it? I wonder" Wonder no longer. Of course we would. We have mothers and sisters and co-communicants amongst our Christian brethren whom we would support. We have friends amongst the Hindus and some of us, well, me, anyway, have Jewish relatives whom we would also support. But then, you have already tarred us with the brush of treason so you will not believe that, will you?

You start with an irrational hatred of gay people and then project onto us everything which you find undesirable about the societies in which we live.

"Me, and most of the rest of us, are here because we want to save civilization from destruction, which also happens to include under that umbrella, your right, as a gay, to continue to breath. We are not here for any narrow-focused reason of self-interest. No, jihadwatch and the machinations of those like me, exist to save the planet, not just to save my particular special interest group from islam's wrath" Well, you could have fooled me. The way you write makes me believe that all you want to do is deal with islam then deal with us. If you really are committed to a free society where gay people can live their lives without fear then stop with the characterisation of the millions of gays across the world as all being against you and your values.

I've said it once and I'll say it again - sexual orientation does not dictate political persuasion. If, and it is a big if, a huge, more than any rational human could swallow, if, all the many millions of gays on this planet are left leaning proto-Marxists then ask yourself this - whose actions led the gay people to adopt, according to you, the mores of the left? Oh no! Never! Not you and yours! You would never have done such a thing! You would never have been so hateful as to drive poor gays into the socialist camp!

C**p. You would if you could and you know it. Pity for you that we are NOT all socialists. Pity for you that we are NOT all heterosexual hating camp faggots. Pity for you that we do NOT all conform to your view of us. Pity for you that we are just people who happen to have a different sexual orientation from you but still manage to exhibit the compleat and diverse range of political and social opinions that every other definable group in our societies does.

You may choose, erroneously, to believe that gay people are some sort of huge, homologous threat to your freedom. Some people choose to believe that about black people. Some choose to believe that about Jewish people. Some, ridiculously, choose to believe that about about pagans, or Hindus, of Confucians, or Buddhists, or Taoists, or Christians - or any other group that takes their fancy as 'the devil of the moment'. Recognise yourself yet?

"Me, and most of the rest of us, are here because we want to save civilization from destruction, which also happens to include under that umbrella, your right, as a gay, to continue to breath. We are not here for any narrow-focused reason of self-interest. No, jihadwatch and the machinations of those like me, exist to save the planet, not just to save my particular special interest group from islam's wrath" Good, that applies to all the gay people who are here as well. We've come on board not just to save our skins but also to save the very society to which we belong and which has given us, after much and prolonged asking, our freedoms and rights. But then, you'll never believe that for you have pre-judged us.

According to you we are all selfish little faggots and only you heterosexuals exhibit pure anti-jihad. Oh, for heaven's sake, grow up. You're not the only one to have been born of a woman and to belong to a family and to be able to act altruisticaly. Every gay person alive is the result of a union between a man and a woman and many, many of us have siblings and aunts and uncles and .. oh, in general, an extended family to whom we are close. But no, you and yours, will never grant a single good motive to gay people. Such great logic! Such powerful reasoning! Such utter c**p!

Dominic.

.......................................................................

Alarmed Pig Farmer/

"It was homosexuals who saw to the promulgation of the "hate law" statutes and these Constitutional perversions having been upheld in a ridiculous decision by a Supreme Court that included at least 3 homosexuals at the time of the decision"

How do you know that? Cite chapter and verse. What homosexuals, when and where? Who are the three homosexuals on the Supreme Court - prove it?

By-the-way, I'm British. What are the 'hate laws' to which you refer and which you blame on us?

You're just using gay peoiple as a convenient whipping boy because you think that we won't fight back. Tough on you! We do fight back!

Oh, and by-the-way, looks like we run ABC and CNN as well. Perhaps we run the UN and the EU and OAS and Nato as well. Heavens, we probably run WallMart and MacDonalds. I wish!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 1:57 AM

Dominic, my friend... I still feel bad about the Mr. Garrison comment in August.

But haven't you stated that you are a moderate Muslim? Those statements kind of work against your premise...

Posted by: limes at October 28, 2006 2:15 AM

limes/

Me! A moderate moslem! I presume you are being witty in a way that I have failed to see.

I am gay, British and Christian from a very old British family. My full name is Anthony Dominic James Tabrar-Synge. I believe, but I don't know, that we were originally Flemings or some such. But moslems, moderate or otherwise?. Oh please, never, thank God.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 2:24 AM

Dominic; I owe you an apology. I had remembered your first expression of the above-mentioned stuff. And (I guess in keeping with your premise) an assumption, brought on by statements about an in-law and efforts within the religion. Google has corrected me.

Sorry for the statement.

Regards;

Posted by: limes at October 28, 2006 2:54 AM

It didn't take long for this thread to degenerate into homophobia, taking one line unrelated to Islam and making it the focus.

There is no expectation that everyone here accept gays (or lefties, or righties, or women, or Europeans, or pro-choice people, or pro-lifers, etc.) But this is Jihadwatch, so Biblical quotes condemning homosexuality seem a little off-topic.

Dominic (necessitasnonhabetlegem) said

One and a half percent of the British population is barbarian moslem but 36.7% of the Corporations workforce are!

Kudos to you and angloirishslav for trying to get things back on topic. This was an interesting article, but the comments? Not so much.

Posted by: special_guest at October 28, 2006 2:54 AM

limes/

Sorry. You confused me compleately. Easily done, of course, since I'm not the brightest shilling in the purse.

Dominic.

............................................................................

special_guest/

Thank-you. You have made one of my points, exactly.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 3:49 AM

Dominic...

You had mentioned something earlier that no one else has focused on...

You wrote:
The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation - well, that's a laugh. Tell me BBC, what percentage of your employees are members of the barbarian moslem invasion force? Let me tell you. One and a half percent of the British population is barbarian moslem but 36.7% of the Corporations workforce are! Staggeringly, a further seventeen percent aren't even British citizens! In other words, over half of the BBC's employees have no loyalty to the UK at all!

Could these facts have more to do with the anti-christian, anti-Israel pro-muslim bias more than anything else?

Posted by: Suz at October 28, 2006 5:09 AM

There was a report within the last year that the BBC had been told to employ even more "minority" staff, in particular presenters and reporters. Even Lodovic Kennedy their most famous retired anchor man and life long liberal protested.

Any confirmation/details anyone?

Posted by: Fred at October 28, 2006 5:27 AM

Awe, finally. I have been working so hard with getting the bias reporting to stop on BBC. I felt so alone and angry for so many years that I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to give up but I kept writing BBC about their bias reporting. I never got one answer back from them...Not one. They have blamed everyone except the muslim society for things going wrong in this country.

I have to pay a tax for television...It honestly felt like a jyzia tax to the muslims in our country. I am so ashamed of BBC...I do hope they change their ways.

Posted by: herself at October 28, 2006 6:44 AM

"... the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians."

No shit... In today's headlines regarding South-Pacific, they mention that it is almost one year since the Cronulla riots "that were started by whites against middle easterners" (no mention that the riots were themselves an answer to systematic abuse by lebanese gangs against ordinary beach goers), and the "DhimmiC" also questions in todays edition "Should women cover more" (this one is because of the "women who don't wear headcarves are inviting rape").

We have lots of lobbies and corruption in my country, but what happens inside the BBC is unbelievable, it goes way beyond high-treason. Some of their reports are nothing more than propaganda.

Posted by: cruzado at October 28, 2006 6:45 AM

Here's the attempt at damage limitation by BBC concerning the original Daily Mail article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/helen_boaden/

Posted by: Saatanan Islam at October 28, 2006 7:42 AM

If we could convince gays and lesbians that Islam means their demise we would have formidable allies in the struggle against allah's cause.

Complete BS.

These groups pursue the Leninist dictum you take your bayonet and probe. If you encounter mush
you advance. If you encounter steel you retreat.

In The West people are a pushover, howl and squeal and people give in for an easy life. If someone stands up and says NO - the Left will squeal but eventually back down. They fear the intransigence of Islam and count on the compromising pushover of Western Christians who basically have a "live and let live" version of Christianity which has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

The Westerners are Cultural Christians rather than Believing Christians and so see no problem in retreating if any position causes offence to anyone who wants to take it. If you find a place that says Welcome in big letters wipe your feet on it !

Posted by: Voyager at October 28, 2006 8:07 AM

Voyager,

I'm the person who originally said what you quoted:

If we could convince gays and lesbians that Islam means their demise we would have formidable allies in the struggle against allah's cause.

What I mean is that in this war of civilization, of culture and of ideas we need to enlist the efforts of all who benefit from Western civilization. Who better than groups which are marginal in both cultures, but which flourish in only ours? If we could get the PETA freaks, and the gay and lesbians to see the threat to their beliefs and ways of life we'd have some serious activists to further the anti-jihad effort. The battle that's most important is in the free world nations. It's getting the majority to see the imminent, lethal threat that the Islamic belief system poses on ALL of us. Who better to press the case than those who would be killed first?

Our problem lies in the abstraction. It's very improbable and seemingly alarmist to argue that nations like the United States are threatened. The Netherlands may have to fall and we'll have to see the footage of gays and lesbians being hung from cranes in Amsterdam before enough people 'get it'.

I'm not proposing that gays be armed and formed into butt-boy brigades to march out and do military battle with Jihadists. The main battlefront of this war will be in the world of ideas. That's why we need all threatened groups to recognize and spread the word. We need an activist effort like those of AIDS awareness and breast cancer awareness. Who better to lead this metaphorical charge than those who would be killed for their sexual orientation? No one is more vulnerable!!!!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 28, 2006 9:31 AM

The BBC is also notoriously anti-Hindu
The entire south asia section is staffed by muslims

Posted by: Shyamsunder at October 28, 2006 10:35 AM

On the subject of BBC censorship and bias, the BBC are ignoring current racial/religious disturbances in Bristol:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145365&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145191&contentPK=15788877&folderPk=83726&pNodeId=144922
A poor white kid is in hospital after being attacked by the Somalians. (The Somalians are a black African Muslim group.)
The BBC hardly ever report these type of riots and attacks, and if they give them a tiny mention they play then down and do not report the religious/racial aspect.
Really we shouldn't be paying our licence fees.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 12:39 PM

"Mrs Webber, 40, said: "Andrew didn't want to come home to me because he didn't want me to see the state he was in.""

His poor mother.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 12:43 PM

"Avon and Somerset police are investigating the attack but have not yet been able to interview Andrew because he is too ill. Andrew was attacked on Tuesday, the second night of violence at the retail and leisure park. On Monday around 100 people were involved in clashes between gangs of Somalian men and black and white youths. Last night police had riot vans at Avonmeads to deter gangs from going on the rampage.

Avon and Somerset police spokesman Darren Bane said: "We are keen to hear from anyone who can help us identify those responsible for the attack on Andrew. We are aware of the rising tensions in that area and last night we maintained a high-profile presence and had the helicopter up. This appears to have had a deterrent effect and there were no reports of disorder. We are having talks with local community groups.""

'Talks with local community groups'-yeh, cause that always works.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 12:44 PM

"Even gay marriage is becoming a fact" Yes, it is. And what, precisely, is wrong with that. A bigger compliment to the institution of marriage I can scarcely imagine. Our parents are married, our brothers amd sisters get married, our aunts and uncles do it too. We gay people are brought up, just like you, to see marriage as a fine thing - as it is. Are you surprised that we want it too?

Posted by Dominic

Dominic:

For two reasons, considerable lack of time these days, and certainty that this is not the proper forum for a debate about such things, I would have preferred to stay out of the argument between yourself and August22 about homosexuality and political ideology, but having read and ponderred the above statement I find that it is just too much.

I am surprized, and saddened, to hear you equate homosexual unions with marriage. Coming from a good Catholic boy like you, assuming you are the same Dominic who has posted elsewhere and not someone who has assumed his on-line nickname/motto, I find this really strange. You've worn your Catholic piety on your sleeve in this forum and vigourously defended Pope Benedict XVI, both of which actions I approve and have found greatly edifying, so I'm amazed that you have overlooked or ignored the fact that your position is at total odds with that of the Church in this matter. Defending gays from violence and coercion is one thing, and quite proper at that, but your stance in favour of extending the right to assume the priveleged word "marriage" with all that this should rightly entail to a type of relationship that provides no corresponding social good or benefit and therefore has no basis for such a claim, is part of the very relativism that is killing Western society and reducing its defences against threats such as Islamic violence. The biological end of heterosexual relations recognized in Catholic doctrine - the generation and nurturing of new human life - as something that that intimate relationship is uniquely suited for is one of two realities that provide the state/society an interest in the regulation and legitimation of heterosexual relationships that it can never rightly have in other types of relationships, the other being the need to define and protect the specific rights of the partners themselves in the face of biological factors - related of course to the partners' reproductive capacities - that can lead to inequality and conflict between them. The need of the wider society to assume, on the basis of these considerations, a role in regulating and legitimizing that otherwise private relationship is the basis of marriage as an institution, one that predates Christianity nearly to the dawn of recorded history.

Among many other evils that it arguably introduces, the advent of "homosexual marriage" throws the role of the state in these matters, and its whole moral and socio-political basis, into confusion and doubt, and this will have major implications in the long run in terms of the ability of the state to provide assistance to its citizens in their domestic affairs as a means of managing its population policy as, for example, by means of financial and other incentives it could offer to induce greater fertility. Thus, a tool for reversing the demographic decline of indigenous populations in Europe that is leading to the continent's Islamization, is lost or at least gravely weakened.

I apologize in advance that, owing to considerations of time, I will probably be unable to answer any response you make at present, but hopefully we can, if need be, continue this dialogue elsewhere in future. For now I would urge you to reconsider your position on the definition of marriage in light of the Catholic faith you profess so clearly and eloquently in so many places, as well as other rational considerations. We, regardless of what religions or ideologies we profess, need to be clear and consistent in our principles if we are to maintain the moral fibre that our Western societies need in order to defeat whatever threats, Islamic or otherwise, that they face.

Templar

Posted by: patriarchmichaelcerularius at October 28, 2006 1:18 PM

Dominic:

One further thought. I said above: "We, regardless of what religions or ideologies we profess, need to be clear and consistent in our principles if we are to maintain the moral fibre that our Western societies need in order to defeat whatever threats, Islamic or otherwise, that they face".

That could have read "...REBUILD the moral fibre ...". Far too much has been lost already, paving the way for the stupidity of the Left, something that I think you, I and August22 would likely all three agree has largely lead us to where we are today, to advance even further.

Posted by: patriarchmichaelcerularius at October 28, 2006 1:25 PM

Perhaps the BBC is admitting this now to soften the shock when it may be forced at come clean about other things.

According to the 'Daily Telegraph':
The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers’ money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.

The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism.

The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.

The court case will have far reaching implications for the future working of the Act and the BBC. If the corporation loses, it will have to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.

Like all public bodies, the BBC is obliged to release information about itself under the Act. However, along with Channel 4, Britain’s other public service broadcaster, it is allowed to hold back material that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism.

In Britain, anyone with a television must pay an involuntary tax — the “license fee” — in order to fund the BBC and other outlets. It’s too bad the BBC doesn’t think those taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent.

Posted by: Elephant at October 28, 2006 1:33 PM

You're just using gay peoiple as a convenient whipping boy because you think that we won't fight back. Tough on you! We do fight back!
--- Dominic

I don't give a damn what anybody does with their genitals, so long as they're not commiting pedophilia or chopping off clits. So enough with the victimism, you almost seem Moslem when you do that.

Btw, ain’t seen any gay activists on the TV declaiming the Sharia Wave washing over our politics & culture. Have you? If you’re British then you would certainly have a scientifically significant sample, what with the BBC and all.

Prove it!

http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

… looks like we run ABC and CNN as well. Perhaps we run the UN and the EU and OAS and Nato as well. Heavens, we probably run WallMart and MacDonalds. I wish!

I never said that homosexuals run anything. Prove it! Quote me chapter and verse where I asserted that homosexuals run any industry or institution.

Others have asserted that they run the BBC, and this bib overall wearing swine agronomist certainly ain’t gonna argue that painfully obvious point. Probably they run the fashion industry, I’ll go that far. Who cares.

What I do care about is the homosexual community --- along with the feminists, enertainers, and socialists --- are so eager to destroy freedom and liberty in pursuit of their respective agendas.

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is that these groups are not only unwilling to resist Islam, they’re abeting it.

These groups don’t fight back; they sell out.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 28, 2006 1:52 PM

Dominic:

Its come to my attention that I've misidentified you. On a break from some other work I've been doing I checked a much earlier thread hoping to get some insight into how things manage to get so OT as they have in this thread (this, I note, is not the first time you and August22 have locked horns on issues not specifically Jihad-related) and I noticed there that you identified yourself as an Anglican.

I overlooked that comment before because of the need to read in too much haste. Given your defence of various ancient Papal pronouncements, and some of your other more general comments, it was any easy mistake to make, so I hope you won't take any offence.

Nonetheless, as I noted earlier, fidelity to traditional Christian doctrine precludes the notion of referrring to homosexual relationships as "marriages", and assuming that that is true, it is just as incumbent on you as a traditional Anglican, maintaining close proximity to Roman Catholicism, as it is on me.

Again though, my apologies for this mistake.

Posted by: patriarchmichaelcerularius at October 28, 2006 4:33 PM

Today's Telegraph, a suspected racially motivated murder of a white man by Asians (read Muslim Asians) and yet nothing on the BBC:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/28/umanchester.xml

BBC censorship

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 4:44 PM

The victim in Manchester was named as David James Lees 23 years of age. Let us all pray for him. And for the victim in Bristol this week who is still alive but very poorly in hospital.
R.I.P. David James Lees.
Add his name to the list of others. The Kriss Donald murder trial is still going on, not that you'd notice here in England.
R.I.P. Kriss Donald.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 5:53 PM

The BBC have put a little item on thier website for the killing of David Lees in Manchester:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6093746.stm
Imagine the mass media hysteria if the victim and alleged killers were the other way round.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 6:00 PM

Dominic,
What wories me is, that having worked among Muslims for a long time, I can distinguish (by and large) between a Mohammedan and, say, a Sikh or Hindu name. By constantly using the term 'youths' or 'Asians' the BBC is helping fuel a generalised xenophobia in stead of drawing people's attention to the fact that Islam is the fly in the multiculuralist ointment.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 28, 2006 8:52 PM

patriarchmichaelcerularius/

I was merely speaking about the secular institution of marriage, not the type of marriage that the Church solemnises. I was also using the word loosely as its legal alternative 'civil partnership' is more cumbersome to type. Most people living in the UK today would, I hope, have understood that and that I was offering no comment on Holy Mother Church's position.

Jointly from the government's neutral and disinterested position of applying law equally to all its citizens and from the gay citizen's point of view what the institution is called doesn't matter. The UK government has chosen to use the term 'civil partnership' for gay people and marriage for straight people. Fine by me and many others - and it does avoid offending the current position of the Church. The two registrations although differently named confer the same responsibilities, obligations and rights upon the two individuals concerned. A rose by any other name, etc.

The Church has changed its mind on so many things over the last two thousand years - whether or not women have souls, whether or not women should or could have equal rights, whether or not slavery was in and of itself wrong, whether or not the earth is flat and at the centre of the physical universe, whether or not the first chapters of Genesis are factually correct - that it is now generally accepted by educated Christians that one's God given reason has to be applied to matters of faith; if it becomes obvious that a given part of dogma is untenable in the light of new knowledge then that part of dogma needs to be, and usually eventually is, reworked.

Our faith today may be the same as the faith of the Apostles and the teachers of the Early Church but our understanding of the dogma and the teachings is radically different from theirs - so much so that if they were to come back today they would scarcely recognise us as Christians. Such changes will go on until the last trump is sounded and that is logical, reasonable and irresistible.

Dominic.

................................................................................

Alarmed Pig Farmer/

I was attempting in my heavy-handed way to be humorous but I see that I have given offence. Please accept my apologies.

Dominic.

.................................................................................

wallyUK/

I agree.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 28, 2006 9:12 PM

One of the most sinister indications of islamic infiltration of the BBC is a documentary aired on their radio five live a few month ago: "the truth abut mohammed". The programme veered between hagiography and straightforward proselytisation on behalf of Islam. It's presenter, Cive Anderson. a satyrist and, in a former incarnation, a lawyer, was clearly just reading his script. Ayan hersi and one or two orher critics of islam were allowed 10 second soundbites before being drowned out by great swathes of apologist crap.When you want to comment at BBC websites, ou have to give your name and address. After listening to that programme I began to worry that some Muslim in the corporation wasn't recording the details of people who protested about the blatant bias of BBC broadcasts.I notice that, so ashamed of their dhimmitude were they, that the BBC does not seem to have added the documentay to their archive.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 28, 2006 9:38 PM

The BBC is also strongly anti-semitic and anti-Hindu. Muslims are always justified in carrying out their terrorist acts according to the BBC. The Canadian CBC is a similar dhimmi copycat of the BBC.

Posted by: david at October 29, 2006 1:39 AM

"Yes, if we could unite gays, animal lovers, patriots regarding of their political leaning, we'd be alright."

Surely camel-poking is a form of animal abuse. Let's let PETA loose on them!

Posted by: alexon at October 29, 2006 1:59 AM

On a more serious note... The above account of bias at the BBC is very strange. Undoubtedly they (BBC) are terribly biased, but the little half-baked anecdotes cited in it don't add up to much. A much better case could be made which doesn't have anything to do with homosexuals.

Posted by: alexon at October 29, 2006 2:09 AM

Dominic:

Thank you for the clarification you provided regarding your position on gay marriage. I find this, for the most part, quite satisfactory and, as usual, you explain your position very well. Most of what you've said is quite true, but I do note that there is really quite a deep and profound theological anthropology at the root of "Catholic" (in the sense inclusive of traditional Anglicanism) teaching on marriage that is more deeply rooted in the dogmatic tradition of the faith than you have fully appreciated, although in practical terms this need not preclude consideration being given to other types of relationship at the level of "civil effects" such as financial benefits and the like that can accrue to people in non-traditional relationships. I've never been one to deny a benefit to anyone that the state, the corporation, the employer or whoever is responsible for providing it, can afford to provide.

Like others posting on this thread, I consider the gaybashing that occured here to be wholely unjustified and uncalled-for. I am convinced that any and all who oppose Jihad violence should be equally, and mutually, welcomed in this forum, and we should never divide over other issues. While the original story from Lifesite provided the pretext for the critical remarks that some readers subsequently posted here, it seemed to me that many of these took advantage of an analysis that could be characterized as a caricature of a much more complex and subtly nuanced reality, if its even true at all, to go on an unseemly and over-the-top literary pogrom that was completely unfair and reflected very poor judgement.

Posted by: templar at October 29, 2006 2:59 AM

A few days ago, I saw another blatant example of bbc anti-Israel prejudice and deception. Someone named Johnson, reporting from Gaza, said that Israel had imposed a sea blockade on Gaza fishermen. He incorrectly claimed that this was all because of "one soldier," Gilad Shalit who was seized across the armistice line in the summer and held captive in Gaza [although we cannot be sure where he is now]. In fact, Israel has imposed restrictions on boats coming from and going to Gaza for several years ago [not soon enough], because of the smuggling of weapons into Gaza by sea, and other hostile acts. But Johnson lied as to when the blockade was first imposed and he deceived by misrepresenting the blockade as all because of "one soldier," as if that would not justify the blockade. Curiously, Johnson did mention that Israel's army was looking for tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, tunnels used for smuggling weapons, he added.

Nevertheless, a more outrageous example of bbc distortion of Israeli events came several years ago. Two Jewish women driving in a car were shot dead somewhere south of Bethlehem. The bbc reported merely that "two settlers" had been killed. The bbc did not mention that the victims were women, both mothers with 5 or 6 children each.

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 29, 2006 8:23 AM

I watched the first episode of the 'Miracles of Christ' selon Rageh Omar and was absolutely appalled to see a representation of Joshua crossing the Jordan bearing the Ark with all the extras (it was made in Morrocco) chanting quite clearly Allahu Akbar!
During the war with Hizbollah I read the Israeli newspapers on line as the BBC's bias was evident from day one.
On another note I am a Brit living in France and I get very fed up with the anti French stuff here. I am sure most of the most virulent posters do not speak or read French fluently and therefore cannot have any real idea of the situation here.After all it was Charlie Hebdo that published the Danish cartoons in their entirety whilst the craven American press muttered about not giving offence. We subscribe to Charlie and every week it has anti Islamic cartoons and there is lots of anti Muslim sentiment even among people I know who are like me on the left. We even have a political party here the MPF (albeit led by a very right wing Christian) that is dedicated to stopping the Islamisation of France. And if things get much worse people might start voting MPF in greater numbers and that will push the mainstream parties to drag their heads out of the sand

Posted by: hirschpud at October 29, 2006 12:07 PM

boxter/

Couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 30, 2006 12:00 AM

"Some of their reports are nothing more than propaganda." -- cruzado

I have to take issue with this comment. MOST of their reports are nothing more than propaganda.

Posted by: alexon at October 30, 2006 12:46 AM

Why not let the BBC Editorial staff know your opinion. There is an 'Editorial Blog' on the same page as the (heavily moderated) 'Have your Say' page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/

Posted by: einherjar at October 30, 2006 4:59 PM

The Head of BBC TV News (Horrock) gets interviewed on 'News Watch' here and is asked about the lack of coverage of the Kriss Donald trial (or should I say trialS since the fouth Pakistani male was tried separately earlier and that was not covered either):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/
If you watch the video you can see he has no valid explanation at all, and he says that they should had covered it!
Watch the video!

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 30, 2006 9:02 PM

Horrock is being a snake and trying to concentrate on lack of trial coverage, but it is much wider than that - the whole thing was not covered: the kidnap/murder/torture/burning alive itself, the hunt for suspects, the funeral, the extradition of suspects from Pakistan, the first trial, the whole lot was censored.
BBC censorship.
Horrock is a snake.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 30, 2006 9:22 PM

Dear Mr Horrock, if you are reading this could you please answer this question: why did BBC national TV News not cover any part of the Kriss Donald case?
I watched your video 'explanation' on News Watch and you did not give any explanation at all. Why did you not cover this case?
At one point on the video you 'explain' the lack of coverage by stating that you believe that some of the complaints about the lack of coverage may be politically motivated. I really do not care what you belive about the complaints, neither do I care if they are politically motivated. They are valid complaints. Also, how can complaints about your lack of coverage explain the lack of coverage? Mr Horrock, let's follow the time line here: the lack of coverage came first, since it was only AFTER the lack of coverage that the public complained, so how can the complaints have caused the lack of coverage? Time machines? Complaints about event 'A' can not have caused event 'A' since they happened afterwards.
So, Mr Horrock, the question still stands: why did you censor this news? Please write in, I would love to debate with you.
And may I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 31, 2006 1:46 PM