Uk muslims want full apology from bbc host

[Pipski 0]

Kilroy is a jerk, he always was a jerk and now he's proved that his brain doesn't work. It's of little relevance that he said what he said in his shitrag newspaper column rather than on the Beeb. Hell, by that argument the BBC could employ Combat18 just so long as they didn't go around burning down shops and beating people up when they were on set. Like Caesar's wife, the BBC must be seen to be above reproach. It's an organization that broadcasts throughout the entire world and is trusted as a source of news by the inhabitants of oppressive and censorious regimes. By not responding to the spewings of Kilroy's diseased mind they would only undermine their credibility throughout not only the UK but the rest of the globe. `If there's one racist working there, why couldn't there be more? And if so, how trustworthy can their programmes be?' As it is, the Beeb has sent a strong message that it will not tolerate the kind of disorganised mental effluent that flows from Kilroy's pen and reinforced its position as a balanced and impartial observer of world events.

As for several thousands of Arabs dancing in the streets after 9/11, a lot of that footage was shot in Iraq where one suspects the choice boiled down to `you'd better stomp your feet and light a match, we know where you live m*****f*****'. Not all of it was, by any means, but a lot of the more demonstrative joy was filmed in Baghdad.

[theavonlady 2]

As it is, the Beeb has sent a strong message that it will not tolerate the kind of disorganised mental effluent that flows from Kilroy's pen and reinforced its position as a balanced and impartial observer of world events.

The usual hypocracy and double standards at the BBC.

Quote[/b] ]BBC chiefs accused of 'double standards' over TV presenter

By Fiona Govan and Chris Hastings

(Filed: 11/01/2004)

The BBC was accused last night of operating double standards over its suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his comments about Arabs while it continues to use a contributor who has called for Israelis to be killed.

[JdB 151]

hypocracy and double standards at the BBC.

Quote[/b] ]BBC chiefs accused of 'double standards' over TV presenter

By Fiona Govan and Chris Hastings

(Filed: 11/01/2004)

The BBC was accused last night of operating double standards over its suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his comments about Arabs while it continues to use a contributor who has called for Israelis to be killed.

It almost begins to look like we should love all muslims, and hate all Jews (where have I heard something similar before? )

[Pipski 0]

Tom Paulin is a prick as well, I didn't realise he was contracted to the Beeb though. They'd probably be well advised to ditch him too.

But I am getting thoroughly sick of the Telegraph crying `anti-Semite' every time anyone criticises Israeli policy (Tom Paulin aside! In this instance they've caught one fair and square!). It doesn't help the issue, it's usually not accurate, it's just a Pavlovian instinct to muddy the waters.

[svendejong 0]

Quote[/b] ]It almost begins to look like we should love all muslims, and hate all Jews

Its a new one for me!

[tracy_t 0]

The matter is that us Britons pay our license fees to keep the BBC running.

I pay the BBC to report the news as-is, not skirt issues.  

I also pay the BBC to represent the views of the UK people, from Scotland to England to wales, to Northern Ireland.

I personally don't agree with Robert Kilroy silk's statement but I wouldn't ban his show (not that I watch it, I'm at work). He does have a right to free speech whether you like it or not. Or does that mean that the majority have the right to ban the rights of the minority? Shall we all just think the same, yes, like a herd of sheep?

I do not approve of ANY censorship. (EDIT: Actually I do, where paedophilia is concerned, but no-one in sane mind can condone sexual perversion of that sort)

Can I ask you: do you think political correctness is a good thing, where kid gloves have to be used in any context to avoid offence? I'm not sure I do - I prefer straight talking.

Try being politically correct in Glasgow (where I live) and you'll be knocked on your arse.

PS:

For those of you who take umbrage, I will defend to the death my right to say anything I like, when I like, to who I like, without censure. After all, that is what our grandfathers fought for in WW2

[theavonlady 2]

PS:

For those of you who take umbrage, I will defend to the death my right to say anything I like, when I like, to who I like, without censure. After all, that is what our grandfathers fought for in WW2

Just keep in mind the little sign-holding fella on the right side of my sig.

[tracy_t 0]

Aye, within the constraints of the message board I am posting in, of course <cough> <cough>

As they said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail,

"HELP, IM BEING OPPRESSED!!!"

:-)

[AliMag 0]

Well said tracy_t.

political correctness = hypocrisy

The day we accept censorship the war on terror will be over.

The terrorists would have won.

Cheers

[aj_addons 0]

i agree with t_tracy i live near glasgow in a shicke hole called greenock its best not have a view on anything around here as people get murdered for supporting the wrong football team around here

[Scorpio 0]

What a coincidence....they do that in Manchester too.

[denoir 0]

The matter is that us Britons pay our license fees to keep the BBC running.

I pay the BBC to report the news as-is, not skirt issues.  

I also pay the BBC to represent the views of the UK people, from Scotland to England to wales, to Northern Ireland.

I personally don't agree with Robert Kilroy silk's statement but I wouldn't ban his show (not that I watch it, I'm at work). He does have a right to free speech whether you like it or not. Or does that mean that the majority have the right to ban the rights of the minority? Shall we all just think the same, yes, like a herd of sheep?

Can I ask you: do you think political correctness is a good thing, where kid gloves have to be used in any context to avoid offence? I'm not sure I do - I prefer straight talking.

Try being politically correct in Glasgow (where I live) and you'll be knocked on your arse.

PS:

For those of you who take umbrage, I will defend to the death my right to say anything I like, when I like, to who I like, without censure. After all, that is what our grandfathers fought for in WW2

Where do you draw your limit?

The law sets some - racial hate, defamation etc. Do you disagree with those limits?

Quote[/b] ]

I do not approve of ANY censorship. (EDIT: Actually I do, where paedophilia is concerned, but no-one in sane mind can condone sexual perversion of that sort)

And you think somebody in sane mind can be a nazi?

You kind of ruined your own suggestions there. If you claim that you don't support any censorship then you should not support any censorship. Otherwise you advocate the current system (which exists for a very good reason) where some things that are generally considered destrucitve (or insultful or hurtful to others) are censored. If you were the only person in the world, then I would agree with you that free speech should be unlimited. However when you have other humans around you, then you have to show some consideration. Our society and civilization is based on mutual understanding and cooperation. The liberties that you say you advocate have a very important boundary condition and it's that you can do as you wish as long as you don't hurt others.

In the end a form of equilibrium is found between individual free speech and our collective values.

Quote[/b] ]

For those of you who take umbrage, I will defend to the death my right to say anything I like, when I like, to who I like, without censure. After all, that is what our grandfathers fought for in WW2

Sorry, but that is the biggest piece of manure I've seen in a long time. They fought for keeping their homes free of German tanks. Or do you wish to say that Stalin fought Hitler because he wanted to defend free speech?

[tracy_t 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Where do you draw your limit?

The law sets some - racial hate, defamation etc. Do you disagree with those limits?

I disagree with censorship when it is hiding the truth. Speaking the truth is just. If it upsets minorities then tough.  Propagating outright lies on the other hand cannot be condoned. Or do you disagree on that, Denoir? Would you rather shut up instead of speak out against a corrupt status quo, for fear of upsetting someone?

Quote[/b] ]

You kind of ruined your own suggestions there. If you claim that you don't support any censorship then you should not support any censorship. Otherwise you advocate the current system (which exists for a very good reason) where some things that are generally considered destrucitve (or insultful or hurtful to others) are censored. If you were the only person in the world, then I would agree with you that free speech should be unlimited. However when you have other humans around you, then you have to show some consideration. Our society and civilization is based on mutual understanding and cooperation. The liberties that you say you advocate have a very important boundary condition and it's that you can do as you wish as long as you don't hurt others.

Denoir, people should have the right to say anything when it is the truth. You are implying in your statement above, that if the truth hurts others then it should be suppressed.  

Given your simple logic, should a corrupt politician be allowed to hide in the shadows for fear that a statement exposing his misdemeanours should upset him? Clarify the boundaries!

And if I was the only person in the world I wouldn't speak to myself - that's a sign of madness ;)

Quote[/b] ]

Sorry, but that is the biggest piece of manure I've seen in a long time. They fought for keeping their homes free of German tanks. Or do you wish to say that Stalin fought Hitler because he wanted to defend free speech?

How dare you call that manure!! What right do you have to say that millions of people losing their lives to defend their way of life (of which the right to free speech is integral) is shit? If the right to free speech is not important, why is it an integral part of the American constitution (based on our declaration of Arbroath, history fans.) ?

Do you think the British were fighting for the Queen? Or the politicians? No.

<offensive comment removed, although its the truth>

[denoir 0]

How dare you call that manure!! What right do you have to say that millions of people losing their lives to defend their way of life (of which the right to free speech is integral) is shit?

LMAO. I want everybody reading this to take a deep breath and aborb the irony. You, a self-proclaimed advocate of freedom of speech and in a discussion about freedom of speech question my rights to free speech? Oh, man. I have to save this post

Quote[/b] ]

If the right to free speech is not important, why is it an integral part of the American constitution (based on our declaration of Arbroath, history fans.) ?

Who said that the right ot free speech is not important? You said that "After all, that is what our grandfathers fought for in WW2"

Which is a complete load of manure. They fought for keeping foregin invaders out of their countries. Citizens paying taxes is also an integral part of the American constitution. Was WW2 about "Defending the duty of the people to pay taxes"?

Please don't waste my time with platitudes and worn out clichés.

Quote[/b] ]

I disagree with censorship when it is hiding the truth. Speaking the truth is just. If it upsets minorities then tough.  Propagating outright lies on the other hand cannot be condoned. Or do you disagree on that, Denoir? Would you rather shut up instead of speak out against a corrupt status quo, for fear of upsetting someone?

For most part I agree with that. For instance in the case of state secrets, I disagree. You don't have the right to discuss classified documents. Or if you are a doctor, you don't have the right to discuss a patient's health with others. etc

But what this BBC guy did was propagating outright lies about Arabs. I suspect that your problem is that you actually agree with him and that's why you don't think of it a defamation. But if you agree with him, it doesn't make it more true - it just defines you as a bigot.

Do you agree that stereotyping a whole ethinical group and say that they have not contributed anything to our civilization is lying? If not, then you are a racist and a bigot. If you do agree with it, then you should also understand why the BBC guys statements were not ok.

Quote[/b] ]Given your simple logic, should a corrupt politician be allowed to hide in the shadows for fear that a statement exposing his misdemeanours should upset him? Clarify the boundaries!

Politicians in democracies are chosen by the public and answer to the public. Hence it's not only the right of the public to review their actions, but it's the duty of the public.

[tracy_t 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I suspect that your problem is that you actually agree with him and that's why you don't think of it a defamation. But if you agree with him, it doesn't make it more true - it just defines you as a bigot.

No, it doesn't make me a bigot. It makes YOU an idiot, for you obviously did not read my original missive closely enough. What part of "I do not agree with Kilroy Silk's views" did you not read?

I am no bigot. I am a Protestant married to a Catholic living in the most densely multicultural part of Scotland. Glaswegians will tell you, that is some combination!

Were you not an ex-mod and all, I'm sure you would be post-restricted for such a vile/stupid/inflammatory accusation. But, because you have the RIGHT to say such things, I won't report you. You might not be so tolerant right enough.

Next time you're in Glasgow, drop me a line, and I'll show you proper bigotry.

So anyway, back to the main thread:

Britain didn't have to defend itself from ANYTHING. Germany did not declare war on the UK, it was the other way round.

Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland. Yes/No? Or do you know better?

So, when were the UK's "rights" under threat? We declared war to preserve Poland's right to exist. (Unlike Sweden, which did f**k all of any note during WW2. Oh yes... what exactly does Sweden do anyway, in general?)

Finally, answer this question:

Quote[/b] ]

Quote (denoir @ Jan. 12 2004,00:48)

So the truth is, we need morons, bigots and militants to safeguard our culture

Quote[/b] ]

Quote (denoir @ Jan. 12 2004,23:03)

And such people are the real threat to our culture - racists and bigots that corrupt it from within.

what is it to be? Do you ignore people when you know you are wrong.

I am obviously not the only one in here spouting manure. I suggest you make your mind up on your stance on these matters!!! lol @ you.

As you put it, I "suspect" you are a twat. Free speech!

Finally, to mods, If I am post restricted because of this, you had better PR Denoir as well. That's all I will say on the matter.

[SPQR 0]

people should have the right to say anything when it is the truth.

That's an easy definition of Truth. However, if you knew better manking, everyone has his own truth.

Everybody is the moron of someone else. Just a matter of point of View....

Sure, if people can only understand U=RI logic, the essence of Truth understanding will be an impossible task  

Quote[/b] ]Britain didn't have to defend itself from ANYTHING. Germany did not declare war on the UK, it was the other way round.

Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland. Yes/No? Or do you know better?

So where were the Allied troops (UK and French, I do not forget my own country) when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, in spite of mutual support treaty

It was so far, far away...

what did Chamberlain say about Hitler ? ... "Oh, that's a nice guy, and I'm coming back with a peace treaty in hand"