...and any other matters that take our fancy
Ah yes, the people in that film had more right and ability to openly oppose an evil totalitarianism than we do... On the subject of this outrage and the BBC coverage, I once again was made to feel quite sick having to listen to Nabila Radmani give us the benefit of her analysis (you'll remember she denied the Charlie Hebdo deceased had a right to publish what they did)...http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06nrsx3/newsnight-13112015Normally she comes across as a seething volcano of long-brewed resentment ready to blow...but tonight if anything she looked a bit more relaxed. Her analysis? None - just a rather obvious statement of what had been taking place. Still if you freeze fame her features she seems to look pleased with herself...or something.
It's extraordinary. First 'Newsnight', then this morning's 'Today', then the BBC News Channel. She's everywhere again. Hearing her on the News Channel earlier, she was doing much the same - making the blandest statements of the obvious I've yet heard.
Oh God not again - Martin Price on R4 today about 8.30am saying what his greatest concern was about the terrorist attack in Paris ...the use of suicide bombers? the vulnerability of a fun, open city? the indiscriminate - no, none of those idiot!! It was that we might wish to stem the tide of migration caused by war and give up on multiculturalism! Also, why are the BBC referring to the attackers as "gunmen" when they used grenades and bomb vests as well as guns? Why not call them terrorists - since that is exactly what they profess to be doing i.e. spreading terror among the infidel.
Watching 'BBC Breakfast', the presenters went out of their way to avoid the use of the word 'terrorist'. Naga Munchetty almost said it but stopped herself, gulp and continued with the word 'terror' instead.