Submit or be bludgeoned

Over the past two decades, Ms Andrabi has led campaigns against alcohol and prostitution in Kashmir. She has played an important role in closing down cinemas, accused television channels of corrupting the youth and has raided internet cafes and restaurants for allowing young couples to meet privately.

For her activism, Andrabi has been in and out of jail many times.

Recently, she accused beauty parlours of promoting obscenity, describing them as dens of prostitution. She issued an ultimatum, asking them to shut shop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5028844.stm

We used to have an institution in Britain called Mary Whitehouse. She was a stern upright woman who would have found many points of agreement with Ms Andrabi. She campaigned vigourously for a moral and God-fearing society. She was sure that the country was slipping into a sleazy quagmire and it was her mission to stop it from happening.

But its the differences that are important here not the similarities. Note this:

'Ms Andrabi has often been accused of using force in her campaigns and although she denies the charge, many in Srinagar say they are afraid to speak about her on record.'

NOT Mary Whitehouse then; more like the muslim gestapo. Why is it that this urge to force conformity seems to reek from islam like a bad smell? Want to wear shorts while playing tennis? Then its a bullet in the back of the head for you! Want to have cold brew after work? Definitely a bullet in the back of the head. Want to wear filmy blouse so the blokes can ogle your boobs? I think thats a rusty hack-saw offense.

There is no country, no people, no group in the WORLD who will volunteer to live life like that.

Time for the new Caliphate?

A commentor on a previous post remarked "So what about a new Caliphate that would unite the whole Islamic world including the arabs?"

Here's a quote from the Iranian Woman blog:

The mullahs’ rule has expired because the mullahs don't belong to this age. They belong to an age when stoning, mutilation, and blinding were considered norm.

http://zaneirani.blogspot.com/2006/05/iran-revolutions-dont-wait-for.html

She's right. Forget for a moment what all the muslim men want- we hear from them every day. What do muslim women want? How about a life that is not dictated in all crucial respects by their fathers, husbands and brothers? How about a life that could encompass a public life, involvement in public policy, governance, the upper reaches of business or education? How about a scandalous life that didn't involve being stabbed or beheaded or stoned to death? How about the particular life which that woman wants to live?

This is no minor point. If half the muslim world doesn't want to join the other half in a gigantic act of communal nostalgia for days of lost glory, global importance and reach, it probably won't happen. And if it does, its not going to last very long.

Great big Mosques

The Palestinian government are finding it almost impossible to scrape together the $100 million that the EU and America no longer send their way. Strangely enough, the Saudi's, Syrians, Iranians and all the other loudmouth regimes that constantly bewail their plight are flinty-eyed when it comes to coughing up actual dollars for them. They pledge fifty million bucks here, twenty million bucks there, but the money never seems to appear in the bank! Weird!

But the funny thing is, there's one thing you can always get the Saudi's to part with huge sums for- a stupendously large mosque. Virtually every European country including Britain has had planning permission sought for stupidly large mosques. The one in London is planned for Newham, a few hundred yards from the main London 2012 Olympic site.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892780,00.html

This kind of penis-extension building is meant to demonstrate in physical terms what every muslim all over the world is programmed to say- that islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Sadly, its more likely to turn out to be what the rest of the world has come to associate with muslims, especially arab ones. There will be a lot of talk, a lot of posturing, a lot of 'bigging up', then NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

And by the way, muslims- there are 2.1 billion Catholics in the world. That means there are a billion more Catholics than muslims. Woe betide if you should ever stir THAT beast.

Mr George Galloway, MP

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/party-politics/party-politics/galloway-blair-assassination-would-be-justified-$441184.htm

A thought occured to me while reading this article. It would not be morally justified to blow up George Galloway, but it would be bloody good fun. Can this man get any further out into left field? What is he going to suggest next? Perhaps we should hand over Kent to the Syrians for safekeeping... maybe we should close all the churches that still teach Christianity and assign an imam to each neighborhood instead... is it time to rename Britain Dhimmiland?

If I were a British muslim, I'd try to get George Galloway out of the public eye as soon as possible. He is to muslim PR what Lord Haw Haw was for English fascists (for those of you who know a bit about this countries history). Some friends you DON'T need.

You are kidding, right?

Over at Khalifah.com, I was intrigued to read this:

"The party (Hizb Ut-Tahrir) also works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society and engages in dialogue with Western thinkers, policymakers and academics."

I was intrigued because the actual method of 'projecting a positive image of Islam to Western Society', based on a perusal of this website, is to pour vitriol on our social life, institutions and principal political figures; lie about our policies; distort events from all around the world and tell us how our inferior societies will be much better off once they've been over-run and coerced into muslim observance.

But then we see this-

What is Hizb ut-Tahrir’s methodology?

Hizb ut-Tahrir adopts the methodology employed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when he established the first Islamic State in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad limited his struggle for the establishment of the Islamic State to intellectual and political work. He established this Islamic state without resorting to violence. He worked to mobilise public opinion in favour of Islam and endeavoured to sway the political and intellectual elites of the time. Despite the persecution and boycott of the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims, they never resorted to violence.

Islam, especially at the beginning, was established by military conquest. In particular, places that had humiliated or rejected Muhammed with contumely were conquered with particular viciousness. This H.u-T statement is a modulated, calculated lie. But thanks for the heads-up about subverting our self-proclaimed 'political and intellectual elites'. The great liars lying on behalf of islam have gone a great distance in persuading those so-called elites of the 'true' nature of islam: the religion of peace. Its not, of course, never has been, and for the duration of its existence (can't be long, methinks) will not be.

As Mark Steyn points out, if there is some hideous crime committed these days, the odds that the guy responsible will probably be called Mohammed are very good indeed.

Damn lion! Bit my head off!

Remember the limerick about the lady from Niger? I'll repeat for those of you unfortunate enough not to have been exposed to a lot of Edward Lear:

There was a young lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003160.stm

Sadly, nobody in Britain seems to GET this idea. Want to go off to Israel and arse around in somebody else's civil war? Seems like a fine idea. Especially if you are burning with righteous indignation on behalf of the poor ickle Palestinians. But actions have consequences, and going into a war zone can have really nasty high velocity consequences.

But instead of just accepting that if you put your head in the lions mouth, that may well be your last act; nowadays people feel that they must be allowed to sashay about the world opining their little opinions and bleating their indignation and protesting their little protests and without ever meeting up with the reality of those places they swan in to. The reality of wars especially civil wars is that many people die, very often unjustly and without much reason. If you go to one, that could possibly happen to you.

I don't feel sorry for James Miller and Tom Hurndall. They were men who chose to go into a very dangerous place, and wander around the VERY FRONT of the front line. I don't really care what they were doing there, but it was completely voluntary. And the consequences of their actions was, they died. Tough.

The Anglican Socialist Commune

It was with a sinking heart that I read the headline: "Church Plan attacks Government". The Anglican Church has become a home for soft-headed and blasphemous views on just about everything. 2000 years with no women or homo bishops? Who cares!! We're 'Modern'. So I just knew that in some way, this Church plan was going to be a bozo-fest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003498.stm

And sure enough it is. The minimum wage is too low!! The government uses poverty as a 'tool of coercion' against asylum seekers!! Jobs for life are not guarunteed to everybody!! (ok, I made up that last one). But seriously, these are the views of mid-20th century communists. How many Anglican bishops DO believe in the state as the mechanism to cure all ills, and DON'T believe in the healing power of Jesus's blood? I'm guessing its a lot. This bunch of washed up intellectual midgets with their trendy vicar nonsense need superannuating, and the Anglican church needs to take Christianity seriously again. It also needs to take the 'Anglican' part seriously, i.e. its the Church of England, and for the English.

Put away 'Das Kapital' guys, and take out those Bibles!

Public policy the modern way

The way that public policy is conducted in Great Britain has gone from lean, relatively mean, effective and certainly cost effective 100 years ago; to bloated, grotesquely generous, ineffective and utterly cost-inefficient.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2190421,00.html

This story about Britains inability to rid itself of cunning and cynical enemies covers pretty much all those bases. There are seven million people working for the government in this country, none of whom can send these enemy activists back to their homelands. They can provide them with homes, cash and legal support however.
So even though there can't be more than a handful of people in the whole country who actually want that to happen, thats what happens.

When are we going to make this country work properly again?

Is political correctness a myth?

I hear more and more often that political correctness is mythical, a straw man created by right-wing ideologues so they can launch tirades against the humanitiarian policies of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

I just downloaded the 'Electoral Commission Guidance on registering as a political party'. Government document from a government department. On the cover are five pictures montaged. The first one is of a young woman who looks Iranian or perhaps arabic. The second is a stock shot of the clock tower at the Houses of Parliament. The third is of a hand holding a mobile phone. The fourth is a middle aged black woman. And the fifth is a hand putting a letter in the letter box.

As a piece of propaganda, its dull and worthy, but it is undoubtedly politically correct. Only 6% of the British population are anything other than white anglo-saxon yet you would think from this document that there weren't actually any white people in the country at all. Thats just silly and condescending and factually incorrect. Which is a pretty good working definition of political correctness.

Highway to nowhere

What could be more symbolic of the disastrous and through-the-looking-glass world of African politics than the recent naming of a refurbished highway in Malawi. Bingu wa Mutharika thought it was appropriate to name it after Robert Mugabe, marxist dictator of Zimbabwe. The highway was paid for by the EU.

What we have here is a mutually supportive gang of thugs, un-reformed marxists and parasites, using our money to defecate on our heads. Malawi is a desertified disaster zone, policed by government spies, ruled over by mean and stupid men. Zimbabwe, about the same.

"Some of the roads in this country were named after criminals, others were named by colonialists, perhaps for killing more blacks. However, in Mugabe we have a hero of Africa and he deserves the honour,"

Wa Mutharika said at a ceremony attended by the veteran Zimbabwe leader

That, unfortunately, is about the level of debate you get a lot in Africa. Just curious, but how many roads in Malawi WERE named for colonialists for killing more blacks? Names? Dates? killings? And the roads named after criminals? Why would you do that? We tend to put our criminals in prison, in disgrace...

What heroic deeds has Mr Mugabe performed? The Rhodesians voluntarily handed over power to the transitional government of Abel Muzorewa without ever having lost a battle, as I recall. Then Mr Mugabe won rigged election over Zapu, the Ndebele party, which he then destroyed root and branch in two years of murderous terror. Is that the heroic act Mr Mutharika was referring to? Perhaps it was the judicial theft of 5,000 commercial farms from their owners in the late nineties up to the present which has had the knock-on effect of almost completely destroying the Zimbabwean economy and given it +1000% inflation? We shall never know, I suspect.

What I do know is, every dollar we give these murderous buffoons is another dollar they can squirrel away to Switzerland, or another dollar they can use to make their own peoples lives a little bit more shit than it is now. Once we're done with Iraq, there are some more regime changes we should seriously consider.

Who's counting?

An article on the BBC website from the 6th of April quotes civilian casualty figures from a website called Iraq Body Count. The count is 39,296. A terrible toll.

Much harder to find, a body count for Darfur, Sudan. As of 15th of Sept 2005, the figure was 370,000. God knows what it is now, in May 2006. The body count for the Democratic Republic of Congo, is 3.9 million people, according the Lancet, journal of the British Medical Association. Interestingly, Iraq Body Count is the only dedicated website for casualty figures for these three ongoing wars.

Huge amounts of web space are dedicated to discussing those 39,296 deaths in Iraq. As far as I could tell, there is one professor (Eric Reeves, Smith College) counting the casualties in Darfur. Its very difficult to find anyone other than the Lancet who can give even a vague estimate of the DRC casualties. Which I think goes to show that one casualty is very much different from another casualty.

Muslim casualty murdered by a muslim in Iraq? Very Interesting! Black Muslim casualty murdered by an Arab Muslim in Darfur? Not very Interesting. Black African murdered by another black African in DRC? Yawn. The utterly disgusting thing about lefties and anti-war idiots is that they really don't care about Darfurians or Congolese or Rwandans or Sierra Leonians or Liberians. Can't get them to talk about them AT ALL. Doesn't make it onto their radar. They can discuss every nuance of Palestinian oppression with eery intensity. They can witter on for hours about US tactics in Ramadi or Mosul or Kut. But ask them how many times they've marched for the poor pitiful wrecks in the eastern provinces of Congo? How many times have they 'spoken truth to power' over the massacring of defenseless tribesmen in Darfur?

I have lived in Africa, and know first hand how much the people I spoke to long for what we have- safe, prosperous, interesting lives. And how they feel trapped and threatened and disempowered by their own criminal governments and the warlords who run most African countries. Anybody on the left care? Absolutely not. Unless there is some screeching anti-Bush or anti-Blair mileage to be made, those poor folk can just go hang.

The Fundamentals

I was just musing about an article I read a few days ago in the London Times newspaper. It was an opinion article about the supposed last days of Tony Blair in his job. Supposed, I say, because Tony Blair must secretly gloat over the vast number of obituaries written for him that were 'greatly exaggerated'. But in the center of this piece was the following hugely contentious statement, tossed out with inappropriate casualness 'On the fundamentals, Tony Blair has got pretty much everything right'.

Really? The fundamentals are defense of the nation from its enemies, keeping public order, avoiding harm to the economy, administering the machinery of government, running elections, maintaining the constitution and all legally constituted institutions of governance, collecting taxes and conducting relations with other states. So lets do a quick audit:

Defense: probably his biggest 'win' from an objective point of view. we have aligned ourselves unequivocally with the US, the only serious international player committed to free and just societies around the world. 1/1

Keeping public order: crime in Britain is rampant and getting worse. The Police are hog-tied and prevented by PC rules from acting strongly and effectively against criminals. Sentance lengths are stupidly short. Alternative punishments are non-existent. Habeas corpus and trial by jury have been undermined. 1/2

Avoiding harm to the economy: 7 million people in Britain work for the government. Taxes take 41% of GDP, the most EVER. The burden of bureaucratic nonsense on businesses is huge. The British economy is creaking under the strain of the huge welfare state edifice it has to support. 1/3

Running elections: For the first time in 150 years, electoral fraud is a problem in the UK. A number of elections in Birmingham were straighforwardly fraudulant. Postal voting is universal, rather than just for those who could not leave their houses. All because of a fictional 'voter deficit'. 1/4

Maintaining the Constitution, and the institutions of state: The house of lords has been gutted and now exclusively exists for party-political patronage. The position of Lord Chancellor has been dispensed with. Psuedo-parliaments have been created in Wales and Scotland, with ill-defined powers that compete with Westminster in some respects. 1/5

Collecting taxes: very successful. much too successful. 1/6

Conducting relations with foreign states: pretty successful. staunch ally to the US, annoyer of France and Germany, friend to all countries with equitable, free and open governance, and pretty hostile to tyrannies. 2/7

(Healthcare and Education): these are NOT fundamental functions of governments. And perhaps thats why this government does such a bad job with them. The healthcare systems in this country are chaotic, over-funded and utterly disorganised. Remember the Soviet economy? It ran on the same principles... Education- run by a huge and ever-increasing number of wonks who produce a fiat every day to pile on the 50,000 from last week. Also chaotic and very bad at doing its core tasks. 2/8

So by my reckoning, Tony Blairs record is abysmal. Its really only his strong line on foreign relations and going to war on our enemies that retrieves him somewhat.

But it just isn't enough. The wealth of this nation has been poured in a torrent into social security systems that breed sullen, depraved, anti-social wretches with never-ending requirements for more government hand-outs. The governing party have created hundreds of thousands of psuedo-jobs paid for out of taxes. The number of government employees minutely observing, statistically analysing and bureacratically handcuffing other people working will soon outnumber the people actually creating wealth. Rather than being the 'brain' of the civil 'body', the state has become a massive parasite on it, sucking its lifeblood at an unsustainable rate. And Tony Blair sat there and watched.

2/8 is not good enough, not by a country mile.

Simple questions, crazy answers

Tony Blair has rightly condemned a decision of a British judge to allow hijackers from Afghanistan to remain in Britain and not be at risk of deportation. When the law becomes this absurd, only the unwise refrain from saying so. Which in Britain is about 50% of the population, seemingly.

On the same day, the report on the performance of the security services prior to the 7/7 bombings of London has come out, and says that although no mistakes were made, limited resources meant that the individuals who actually did the bombings were not under scrutiny.

Lets describe the situation we have. A significant number (unknown at present) of the muslim population of Britain (at present about 1.2 million) are what the mainstream media calls radicalized. 'Radicalized' in this context means: they have been taught islam properly (all the jihadi language about killing infidels and making war on unbelievers is canonical and based on an accurate reading of the koran and hadiths) and are putting into practise what their religion teaches them must be done. 'Radicalized' actually means, proper muslim.

The implications of that for the security services is having to monitor hundreds of thousands of people. Is that sustainable? Can the 59 million non-muslims of Britain be expected to foot the bill and exert the considerable effort to monitor, patrol and imprison such a massive number of people? We need to seriously ask whether Britain can afford to have a muslim minority of those proportions within its borders. Controlling islamism in foreign countries is a matter for the governments of those countries and perhaps the international community. Controlling islamism in Britain is up to us, and doing it may entail virtually unprecedented policies. Only twice before in British history have we had a large minority population who were self-declared traitors or potential traitors to this country- the Danes in the ninth and tenth centuries, and the Roman Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Both of those minorities were subject to harsh and bloody policies before they were finally neutralised as a threat to the life of the nation. Both received help and support from external enemies of Britain who saw them as useful adjuncts to their own efforts to destroy this nation.

Which brings us back to absurd laws. The first duty of a government is to protect its subjects from enemies external and internal. We need ministers and judges who will enact laws to allow the state to do that job. We need ministers and judges who will not spout pious politically correct claptrap that puts our lives and the lives of our descendants in jeopardy. And we need to withdraw from any agreements that tie our hands and make it virtually impossible to kick foreigners out of Britain who hate us and want to destroy us.

Ruth Kelly the apostate

Poor Ruth Kelly has been exposed as an apostate from Britain's very strict state religion, 'PoliticalCorrectitude'. Rather, she believes in something called 'Sin'. The Times is suitably appalled, as if it had been discovered that she has a penchant for bestiality. Turns out she thinks homosexuality is ... dread hush... wrong!

All was explained when it was discovered she belonged to a dangerous breakaway sect called 'The Roman Catholic Church'. This tiny sect has about 2 billion committed adherents, so its obviously some minority thing. Britian is aghast that a practising 'Roman Catholic' has managed to infiltrate the higher echelons of its government, while harboring such noxious views.

As Saint Denham of Labourtown says, 'It is obvious that the introduction of civil partnerships for gay people was one of the most significant and positive things this government has done.' (The Times, page 2, Wednesday May 10 2006) Absolutely right! A governments main responsibilities read:

1. Enabling gay/lesbian relationships
2. Promoting ministers who agree that enabling gay/lesbian relationships is GRRRRReeeeeaaaaaat!
3. Nice stuff for old people and the sick and the needy and stuff
4. ....
5. Thats about it
...
97. Defending the realm, relations with foreign powers and other trivial stuff

Fortunately, a knight in shining armour has come to save us from all this madness. His name is David Cameron! Hurrah! He'll cut through all the cant and the gibberish, and re-assert common sense and Christian ethics!

Wait a sec, oh noooooooooooo. He won't.

House the world

Does southern England need 200,000 new houses or not? Thats a huge number of new residences, all of them needing utilities and services and roads. Water is already scarce in southern England. The roads are already at near-capacity. The fabric of the countryside is battered and torn by the amount of infrastructure needed to serve the current residents.

If you add some serruptitiously revealed facts together things start to become a bit clearer. About nine months ago, in a survey of minorities, especially recent immigrants, it was revealed that there are over 200,000 Somalis living in Britain, only 12% of whom have a job. All of them presumably have a house though. Even if they are living 5 to a house, thats 40,000 properties. Somalis are just one group of recent immigrants who have been given 'social' housing en mass. There are Kurds and Kosovo Albanians and Iraqi's and Sierra Leonians etc etc. The Labour parties policy of allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Britain has meant that all housing, but especially social housing is now at a premium, especially in big cities, including London. And native English people are squeezed, especially the very poor ones, i.e. the ones who Labour claim to represent.

So its probably better for the socialists of Britain to discuss this as purely a 'housing shortage' and not start discussing the facts about whether southern England has enough residential properties or not. Because the Labour party have a secret policy of taking in all the tragic cases from around the world and giving them an English council house, paid for by the English tax payer, but very very quietly. Sustainable?

I'd better take a valium

The BBC have obviously got a stake in the high blood pressure medicine companies.

There is a steady drip drip drip of stories meant to 'broaden the minds' of the obviously ignorant and closed-minded English about Islam emanating from the bowels of the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4964222.stm

The title says it all: 'I want to open peoples minds'. How condescending and insulting is that????? I am sick sick sick of people telling me how closed-minded I am, how bigoted I am, how institutionally racist I am, how I should learn to lead a different life in MY OWN F***ING COUNTRY so that the immigrants are happy!!!!!!!!

This woman wants the WHOLE ACTING PROFESSION changed so she can keep on wearing her muslim-required clothes. Excuse me? Do you know how pompous and ridiculous that makes you sound?

I lived in the US for seven years, and NOT ONE DAY out of those seven years did I presume to tell the American people how they needed to change their beliefs, their world-view, their behaviour and their social mores to suit me. I would never have dared. That would be rude and arrogant. Yet every single frickin day I read and hear demands from muslims in Britain about how much Britain doesn't suit them in some way or other.

Well here's the surefire solution for all your many dissatisfactions and disappointments. Leave.

No no no no no no no no no no no!!!!!!!

I feel a berserker attack coming on! This country has reached a nadir I never thought possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4967138.stm

So let me get this straight- its ok to damage other peoples property, constantly harangue them in the street, be aggressive towards them and try to intimidate them- the police don't care a jot. But should you dare to fight back and give them a taste of their own medicine- straight to the cells.

This country is chewing away at its own entrails with a gusto that would shame Hannibal Lecter.

The pope: Catholic. Bears: poop in the woods

Yes, the BBC's coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is tilted to one side on a continuous basis, according to an independant panel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm

What is curious though, is this conclusion: 'The BBC fails to always give a "full and fair account" of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased.' What exactly is the nature of the bias then? What is conspicuously absent is any statement of the actual content of the bias; which is that the Palestinians are always the innocent victims, and the beastly state of Israel is always the bully, the agressor and the villain. Why isn't that mentioned at all? Because when it comes to issues like the poor ickle Palestinians, lefties lose any vestiges of objectivity or professional distance. They go into 'empathy' mode, tutting at the horrible jews (the bad father figures) and making every weak justification of the behaviour of the Palestinians (the oppressed juveniles). Its like the normal rooting for the little guy against the big bully but on steroids.

Lost in the BBC's mish-mash of hardly-researched half-truthful reporting of the Palestinian conflict is any concerted effort to learn the REAL history of that busy part of the world. How many BBC journalists or indeed the legions of Israel haters across Britain, know anything about the Ottoman empire, the fall of it in the 20th century, and the British protectorates (established under League of Nations mandate) that replaced it? I have never heard either group talk about these huge salient facts AT ALL, and presume they neither know nor care about them. What has become a characteristic of all politics in the 21st century is peculiarly pronounced when it comes to the 'Palestinian Issue': the passionate promotion of a cause or issue that you know almost nothing about. I think of it as the Lady Di principle.

Michael Grade, chairman of the BBC, says that he finds the report 'reassuring'. I reckon if the report had said that the BBC journalists kill and eat babies he would also find that 'reassuring'. Another signal feature of our age is the utter impregnability of organisations like the BBC when faced by genuine criticism. Shame and a sense of duty are as rare as unicorn dandruff.

"We are confident we have the right editorial structures and processes in place to provide high quality, impartial journalism and to ensure we continue to make progress in developing the authority and comprehensiveness of our output."

You can get software that produces stock rubbish like this- corporate gobblydegook that does nothing to address the actual fact of the bias that has been identified, and is interchangeable with corporate gobblydegook from any other day or any other issue.

The British publish deserve better than this for their 3.7 Billion pounds.

Update: Turns out that the report said the bias was AGAINST the Palestinians... un-frickin-believable. What were they watching??? Which BBC were they scrutinizing? Not the one I watch...

Start printing up the Israeli army 'hunk' posters

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most astute commentators in the US. This article about the traditional role that Jews have played in the pyschology of both the Muslim world and Europe is an absolute gem.

www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton042606.html

Particularly striking is his damning indictment of the academic and journalistic communities in the US, something that is mirrored in Britain.

I pledge to start a crusading mission to bring these facts to the attention of the British people, and to help re-shape the public mind regarding them.