“BBC chiefs are lining up journalist and newsreader Clive Myrie to replace Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, The Mail on Sunday can reveal”, says the The Mail on Sunday.
My favourite Clive Myrie moment came five years ago when he appeared onRichard Osman's House of Games and had to locate Ukraine on a map of Europe. My flabber was well and truly gasted when, after TV presenter Angela Scanlon correctly marked her guess for where Ukraine is with a green dot, Clive, having given it time and thought, then revealed his orange dot for where he thought Ukraine is:
Clive had located it in Azerbaijan. He didn't win the point.
“He reads the news. It would be embarrassing”, teased Richard Osman, quipping, “Clive, you know what, Ukraine hasn't really been in the news recently, has it?”
Just catching up with Rosamund Unwin's Timesinterview with “the BBC’s hero in a hard hat” Clive Myrie. One paragraph follows on from something we were talking about yesterday:
It is that humanity which has struck viewers, particularly when Myrie appeared to shed a tear for Ukraine on screen. The era of the emotionless foreign correspondent is over, he believes. “We are in an age of feeling,” he said. “It would be odd to be reporting on a colossal tragedy like this and for empathy not to come out.”
It's also interesting to see him state what he sees as the purpose of his reporting:
Although he is careful to compliment other broadcasters, Myrie argues that the BBC’s coverage is made possible by its public funding. “It is important at times like this that we show what we really can do,” he says. “You get the weight and breadth of coverage because of the licence fee.”
He sees his role as to ensure that viewers understand what is happening to civilians: “Then they can put pressure on their elected representatives to do something about it.”
He's no fan of social media of course:
It is also as a corrective for fake news online. “Social media is the perfect breeding ground for utter crap,” he says. “I can be held accountable for every word I put on air — so can ITN, Channel 4, Sky, CNN. Some dick in his basement putting up rubbish cannot be held accountable.”
And he's no fan of GB News either by the sounds of it:
Myrie swears a lot more than viewers of the news might expect. He calls the “false equivalence” of those who liken Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the West going into Iraq “f***ing bullshit”. He doesn’t “want to hear guff from some jerk on GB News saying while he doesn’t trust Putin, he doesn’t trust the mainstream media either, and he’d rather surf the internet ... F*** people like him,” he says.
Craig: The BBC is being praised to the skies for its war coverage, and not only by itself and the usual suspects. Not that I've seen any BBC coverage, so I can't say if it's deserved or not, but lots of surprising people are singing its praises. It seems to be having a good war.
Sue: Well, I was half thinking that the BBC is ‘having a good war’, too. But with all its resources and long-standing infrastructure it would be surprising if it wasn’t.
I haven’t watched it very much though, but sometimes the ad breaks on other channels drive one BBC-wards. I haven’t seen any of the Beeb’s opinion stuff, only the Myrie/Doucet reporting. I must say Lyse is getting more emotional than usual (and Clive is okay. A bit drained obvs.)
I saw Konstantin Kisin's performance on Question Time (excerpts on YouTube.) It’s weird to see him on the dreaded BBC, especially when he’d only just said he’d stopped appearing on GB News because he felt he was being expected/required to opine on things he didn’t particularly know enough about.
This unexpected invitation from the QT team must be partly to do with the new ‘impartiality’ pledges.
Speaking of which I dread to think why they’ve let Jeremy Bowen loose on Ukraine. He will inevitably make comparisons with the M.E., (how he sees it - The bully against the oppressed, the brave Ukrainian-Pally resistance, the almighty Russian-Israeli aggressive warmongering.)
I think I actually heard him make a reference to the M.E. in an aside on the Today prog, though I couldn’t find it when I searched. Can you imagine how the BBC’s new impartiality regulators let someone like Jez go to Ukraine with all that baggage?
The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu talked about building your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. In the Cuban Missile Crisis - the closest the world has come to nuclear disaster in 1961 - the deal there after the Soviets put missiles into Cuba was that the US move missiles out of Turkey. Now, of course, the things are not...you know, you can't directly transfer the idea, but the point is, there needs to be in all these crises, to finish them, a face saving deal. Otherwise, the two sides tend to fight until one side wins or both are exhausted, which is a catastrophe for the countries affected by that, as we've seen in the Middle East extensively.
BBC reporters like Lyse being more emotional than usual was one of the topic on Samira Ahmed's Newswatchthis week, asking: How new is it? Does it help or hinder the viewer's understanding?
The fact that it featured a particularly toe-curling example of heart-tugging purple prose from Fergal Keane [‘On platform 6, a father's farewell to his infant son. What cannot be held must be let go. Until another day’] shows where that kind of thing probably began at the BBC, with the likes of him and Orla Guerin - and Jezza Bowen, with his endlessly-repeated, embittered, personalised memories of a particular moment involving Israel and his unfortunate friend.
Even John Simpson cried recently - though he told Samira Ahmed that he's not proud of doing so and it won't happen again.
So, as you can see, I've actually watched a BBC programme now.
As I listed earlier, the first part of the programme rehearsed the usual subjects covered by the BBC's Disinformation Unit, with social media getting it in the neck over misinformation as usual.
However, here comes another preachy passage from later in the programme when they discussed the 24 November migrant tragedy in the English Channel when 27 people drowned.
They'd already played a clip of a Thought for the Day by Bishop Nick Baines where Bishop Nick had said, “The difference between the fallen Westerners in Afghanistan and the drowned Easterners at Calais is that we label the latter, question their choices and forget their identity”, and Clive had said “the feelings were summed up” by this TFTD, without outlining quite whose feelings were “summed up”. [I'm assuming he thought he and Marianna were speaking for everyone], when this was said:
Marianna Spring - It always strikes me whenever I see these stories in the news just how bad it must be for you to leave where you call home. Because why would you ever choose to. It's the place where everyone you love usually. It's the place you know. It's the place you so desperately want to stay. And in that terrible tragedy where so many people were killed off the coast of the UK a large number of them were from Afghanistan. And we've all seen what's happened there over the past 6 months, especially, and the Taliban takeover and what that means for lots and lots of the people who live there, who are fearing for their lives.
Marianna Spring describes herself as an “award-winning specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media” with BBC News and BBC Trending, but she was peddling a bit of disinformation of her own there.
It's simply untrue that a “large number” of people killed in that terrible tragedy “were from Afghanistan”. Most were Kurds.
FACTCHECK - 16 Iraqi Kurds, 4 Afghans, 3 Ethiopians, 1 Iranian Kurd, 1 Somali, 1 Vietnamese, 1 Egyptian died on 24 November 2021 in the English Channel disaster.
Sticking with this year's Pick of the Year with Marianna Spring and Clive Myrie I want to quote you three short discussions from it, just so you can get a sense of just how preachy it was.
You'll hear them moralising about the racism that followed the Euros [how much was there really?], asserting that woke is a good thing and that some things - such as taking the knee - aren't up for debate - and that the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' isn't really up for discussion either.
On racism after the Euros:
Marianna Spring - I think the biggest conversation about online hate happened around the Euros. I was actually at the Final watching those penalties and, perhaps a worrying sign of my job or the impact of my job, was sitting there and as I watched Rashford and Saka and Sancho go up to take those penalties and I watched them miss, my first thought was, Oh my gosh, they are going to get so much racist hate on line!
Clive Myrie - And so many people said that. So many people said they knew that was what was going to come, which is such a terrible indictment of our culture and our society at the moment.
On racism in cricket and 'taking the knee':
Clive Myrie - You know, it's good that these rocks are being turned over and these debates are being had and conversations are taking place. Because, you know, enlightenment is the key to wisdom, and frankly I think a better society.
Marianna Spring - I think as well, in, I mean...A lot of the conversation online has been very polarised, and we talk about cancel culture, and we talk about the culture wars, but actually that reckoning, that awakening, that there are things that are wrong and they are just wrong and supporting standing up against things that are wrong, it isn't up for debate. And a lot of the conversation around taking the knee has been about that really.
Clive Myrie - We as a society should be listening to their reasons as to why they are taking the knee are not placing our own ideas about taking the knee on their heads.
On Black Lives Matter:
Clive Myrie - Black Lives Matter.
Marianna Spring - It's not controversial.
Clive Myrie - It's not a big deal. When you think about it. And it does not mean that white lives don't matter. It's just making the point that Black Lives Matter too.
I wonder if Lord Blunkett and Libby Purves and Michael Buerk listened to today's Pick of the Year on BBC Radio 4. I think they'd have been appalled.
If anything show's the station's sharp turn towards 'woke' this is surely it.
It used to be a showcase for the width and depth of Radio 4's output across the year, intended to make you laugh and cry and think. This year it was almost entirely political, earnest and preachy. They weren't going to let us think for ourselves either.
It was presented by Clive Myrie and Marianna Spring. They played Radio 4 highlights from across the year that dealt with these subjects [in the order they dealt with them]:
[a] The Capitol “attempted coup”, QAnon, Trump and conspiracy theories
[b] misinformation and vaccine hesitancy
[c] misinformation and climate change
[d] how Facebook is failing to tackle misinformation
[e] feet
[f] climate change and wildfires
[g] migrants and refugees
[h] Afghanistan
[i]'Internet shaming' of women
[j] women's fears about their safety following the murder of Sarah Everard
[k] online hate/racism
[l] racism in sport
[m] taking the knee against racism
[n] Mondays.
It really was as fun as it sounds.
If you recall a comment I quoted a month ago today that said ''I can't help myself, and I know it's silly, but whenever I switch on radio 4 I listen to the first 10 words I hear. Invariably they are about race, gender or climate. Try it.'' If that person had have tuned in to Pick of the Year it would have been an instant 'Bingo!'
Morecambe's very own Tyson Fury is giving the BBC a good hammering again over Sports Personality of the Year. For the second year running, the mighty boxer is threatening the BBC with legal action if they put him on their SPOTY shortlist. The comments below the Telegraph report are very much in his corner. One commenter recalled something I didn't remember at all, BBC presenter Clive Myrie in 2015 calling him a ''d🦆🦆🦆head''. [''You can't be a d🦆🦆🦆head and win Sports Personality of the Year''.] That might not have helped.
Though blaming climate change for the wildfires in Australia, the BBC has nevertheless dispatched Clive Myrie to cover the story, despite already having two correspondents in the country (Shaimaa Khalil and Phil Mercer). I'm guessing Clive travelled there by plane rather than paddling by canoe.
Kathy Gyngell: Clive Myrie reporting from Australia on BBC News at 10 tonight. Why has he been flown all the way there - bear in mind the major carbon footprint - when there’s a bureau on the ground?
— Simon Pearson #xmil #StandUp4Brexit FB (@SimonPearson961) April 10, 2019
And this time there's definitely no 'devil's advocate questioning' get-out clause for the BBC. Clive is talking to fellow BBC reporter Christian Fraser:
The fundamental fact is a no-deal Brexit, a crashing out, in two days time would not only be bad, catastrophic some would say, for the UK but it would be terrible for the rest of Europe as well.
"Fundamental fact", "no deal...would...be", "crashing out", "bad", "catastrophic".
Last night's News at Ten on ITV devoted two minutes and 19 seconds to the Luciana Berger/Labour antisemitism story. The BBC's News at Tengave it all of 25 seconds. And to add insult to injury, Clive Myrie stumbled over her surname.
Inflaming the situation is a hot issue at the moment.
In a comment today Pugnazious at Biased BBC recalls a previous example of the BBC doing just that - and, in the process, reminds me of how stories often become much clearer after the mainstream media bandwagon moves on...
Do you recall the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014? He was a black man shot by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. Riots ensued, and BBC journalists (along with much of the media) went into overdrive, heavily pushing the racism angle.
But go to the Wikipedia page on the Shooting of Michael Brown and you'll see that, four years on, the view is now that Officer Wilson killed Mr Brown in self-defence. Forensic evidence and credible witnesses backed his story. Unreliable witnesses had spread false rumours. It wasn't a racist police killing.
The BBC and Left-wing media tried to stir up a race war, and were partially successful, by falsely claiming white police officers were killing unarmed black men because they were ‘black’….here’s the BBC’s Clive Myrie [black] adding to the angry rhetoric...
‘Well, slavery may have long gone, but apprehending someone because they could be up to no good, simply because they’re black is still police policy in much of the land….'
Myrie sites ‘Ferguson’ as proof that Blacks are being targeted…
‘It is through the prism of racism that many black Americans see the deaths of countless black men at the hands of white police officers, and a look at the facts suggests this might be appropriate.
Ferguson, in St Louis in Missouri, is the place where an unarmed black teenager called Michael Brown was shot dead by a white police officer.
In the midst of the Obama era, oh, what a rude awakening the events of Ferguson have been.’
Except that’s just not true…the police officer was being attacked, he was punched, the man tried to take his weapon and then ran at the officer the result of which he was then shot.
Many of the shootings so dramatically and sensationally hyped by the BBC as race killings have in fact been by non-white officers…so race is not an issue…and studies have shown that it is Whites who are more likely to be shot whilst Blacks are more likely to be stopped.
The result of all this was that Blacks then launched lethal attacks on police officers killing many due to the perception, driven by the Media, that police were targeting Blacks.
Police officers died because of reporting from the likes of the BBC’s Clive Myrie….and yet it is Trump and his criticism of that feral Media who is to blame for the angry, violent divisions in America?
Re-reading Clive Myrie's report in late 2018 it's hard not to use the term 'fake news' in connection with it.
It was doubtless very heartfelt and he surely thought it was true that the death of Michael Brown was connected to racism, despite official denials, but he allowed himself to take sides and fell foul of the actual truth of the situation.
That he was very far from alone in doing this doesn't really excuse him.
Stephen Daisley's Spectator piece on the hypocrisy of some feminist journalists over Melania Trump is well worth a read. It begins:
Stephen cites a number of spiteful American examples, but if you want to see some first-class British journalistic sneering and tut-tutting at Melania then just take a look at last Tuesday's The Paperson the BBC News Channel (from five minutes in)where a couple of media Kates can be seen sniping away at the First Lady over her choice of shoes with not-so-merry abandon.
And the BBC presenter, Clive Myrie, joined in the sneering too. ("Interesting attire...She put her flats on...They were quite shiny...Well, how often does one get to go to a disaster zone?").
Kate 1 was wearing an old-fashioned black top with white polka dots. Kate 2 was wearing a gender-neutral white shirt (as befits someone from the Huffington Post). Clive was wearing a BBC dark blue suit with a striped blue tie and white shirt. None of their shoes were visible under the table.
The BBC's very own White House correspondent Tara McKelvey, accompanying the Trumps on Air Force One, used her Twitter feed to report the latest presidential visits to Texas and Louisiana, sending regular updates and photos. Among the updates were:
Tara's BBC website report on the Presidential couple's tour of the hurricane-hit areas is quite complimentary about the President's own performance (albeit in a slightly sneering BBC way), with lines such as this:
Still, on the Trump-o-meter scale, the things he said and did on Saturday - and earlier in the week too - did not seem all that bad.
I can't see what shoes she had on when she wrote that though. Nor did she even bother to tweet a photo of her own shoes either. I can't help feeling that was an opportunity missed on her part.
I didn't really want to go anywhere near this one, but as it seems like a clear example of BBC bias here goes after all...
Another story featured on yesterday's BBC One News at Six concerned the transgender prisoner Tara Hudson's legal bid to be moved to an all-female prison. Tara (previously Aaron) Hudson had been jailed for headbutting a barman in Bristol.
It's a story that's been widely reported and widely discussed, and one interesting element is that pretty much all of the mainstream UK media, from the Daily Mail to the Guardian and the BBC, is now entirely in tune with one of the key demands of transgender campaigners: that transgender people should be accepted as belonging to the sex (gender) they believe themselves to belong to and that reporting about them should reflect that.
On yesterday evening's BBC news bulletin, both Clive Myrie and Duncan Kennedy showed themselves to be fully on board with this. Both the BBC newsreader and BBC reporter used exclusively female pronouns and possessive adjectives in relation to Tara Hudson - thus suggesting to me that the BBC has recently issued editorial guidance on the issue:
..."has been granted her wish", "has lived as a woman all her adult life", "she lost an appeal", "has lived as a woman all her life", "She's gone through 6 years of gender reconstruction", "For the past week she's been in an all-male prison", "She's been subject she says to hours of abuse", "Speaking before her conviction for assault, she told the BBC...", "tried to get her sentence changed...", etc.
Though I'm thoroughly liberal (and libertarian) on this this matter myself, I know there are plenty of people - from Germaine Greer to Kathy Gyngell - who do not accept that 'transgenderism' is real or that its promotion is desirable - and they refuse to be browbeaten into using words like 'she' and 'her' in relation to someone born as a man, however much that infuriates the easily-infuriated on Twitter or on university campuses.
On the above evidence, the licence-fee-funded BBC quite clearly does not agree with them. It has taken the campaigners' side (as I shall also do in what follows).
On this particular story the issue is whether a young transgender woman, convicted of a violent crime, should be housed in an all-male prison or an all-female prison. Her birth certificate and passport say she's a male but she believes herself to be a female, looks like a female and, unquestionably, would be very likely to have a particularly uncomfortable time in an all-male prison.
The question I expected Duncan Kennedy's report to raise was, 'What's the right thing to do?', and then for contrasting point of views to be aired.
That's not what happened though. The whole thrust of his report tended towards the position that Tara Hudson should be moved to an all-female prison. All of the people who appeared in his report supported that position - including her mum and one of her transgender friends. The other person who appeared was Tara herself.
And then came the really odd thing. Duncan Kennedy called Tara Hudson "Tara" in his BBC report.
That's very unusual in a news report about someone imprisoned for committing a violent crime, isn't it? Violent criminals are usually referred to by their surnames. So why call this violent criminal "Tara" here? [Even the Guardian calls her "Hudson" in its reporting of the story.]
I think the answer to that is that Duncan was obviously on her side, and seeking to put us on her side too.
His whole report felt far too much like campaigning I think. And there's far too much of that going on the BBC at the moment.
It was the most interesting so far, so I will summarise it. (You might want to get the anti-depressants out, just in case).
It was presented by the BBC News Channel's Clive Myrie and began with the story of how his own parents had emigrated from Jamaica to the UK in search of work. His mum and dad had both found stable employment here. At the end of the programme, however, Clive's mum said that if she'd been faced the same choice now, given the present lack of job security in the UK, they probably wouldn't have come.
Clive's Panorama traced that trajectory over time - from the good old days of the 1960s and 70s when jobs seemed to be for life, through the sadness of the miner's strike to the coming of globalisation (with its adapt-or-die impact on many companies), ending with fears that automation and new technology will destroy 10 million UK jobs over the next 10-20 years. No wonder Arvo Part's sad Spiegel Im Spiegel made its second heart-tugging appearance in the series.
The programme's early stages concentrated on 'the Precariat' - a new class of people in precarious jobs, as outlined by London University professor Guy Standing - and on zero-hours contracts. A woman who hates zero-hours contracts and her lawyer were the focus here; their target Sports Direct. (Representatives from Sports Direct were absent). A government minister briefly turned up to say zero-hours contrasts are a good thing.
The Sports Direct factory was built on an old mine, closed (we were told) by a Conservative government. Dennis Skinner and one of his NUM chums rued the day. Michael Heseltine conceded the government had no plans for the workforce after its closure. There's little hope in the town now. It's one of Britain's most deprived areas.
With the coming of globalisation, companies like Doctor Martens outsourced jobs to China, laid off a thousand UK workers and nearly went bankrupt. They've bounced back by bringing the jobs back and diversifying. Their director wants politicians to do more to back British manufacturing.
Manufacturing isn't where work seems to be moving though. Logistics hubs are the big new thing. 1 in 8 people working in Northamptonshire now work in the logistics industry. Many are paid little more than the minimum wage. Some colleges have been set up - first by Labour, then expanded by the coalition - to encourage skills. We saw a girl and boy training to become mechanical engineers.
Automation is the greatest game-challenger though, Clive said. Angus Knowles-Cutler of Deloitte has done some research into its effects already:
We were surprised by the results. We found that more than half of secretaries' jobs have disappeared in the past 14 years. The same for travel agents. The same for librarians. The same for county clerks.
He calculates that 35% of the jobs we currently do in the UK are "at high risk of disappearing, of being made redundant in the next ten to twenty years" - which translates as 10 million UK jobs.
Angus Knowles-Cutler: "I think everything we're seeing says this is a second industrial revolution but we don't know how quickly, and how well society can actually respond to those changes. DO we actually need to put the brakes on it? Is that possible in a competitive world?"
Clive Myrie: "The answer is, of course, 'no'. But success will depend on how well we adapt and how well we train the people we keep".
Youth unemployment is very high, Clive continued. Apprenticeship schemes are the key to dealing with this, it seems. One graduate apprentice at Doc Martens is enjoying hers and is excited to be employed.
Michael Heseltine thinks all these changes have been a good thing. Dennis Skinner thinks we've lost what's important. I think I'll take that anti-depressant pill now.
Why can’t David Cameron and Boris and the BBC believe what “the Moslems” are telling them? Choudary and Co. are open and honest. Transparency is what we like, no?
The obvious answer is before our very eyes, but due to circumstances beyond our control we can’t admit it. There are so many Muslim and right-on voters in this country, and understandably, no-one dares to risk rocking the boat.
Why should anyone actually believe a goody-goody fantasy, rather than honest Anjem when the evidence is there for all to see. Kindly look at Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, blah blah bloody blah, and ‘Palestine’, everyone’s oh so precious cover-up for their embarrassing antisemitism.
A courageous Muslim poses the question - why is it that Muslims can be, philosophically, as radical as you like, but unless and until they resort to violence in deed or or plot, they’re considered to be moderate.
In every other aspect of our society, an ‘extremist’ is defined by both their actions and their personally held views; it is perfectly reasonable to label a racist a ‘racist’, whether or not they carry out illegal acts or promote law-breaking. For some reason, however, such rational logic isn’t generally applied when it comes to describing members of religious groups.It seems that any Muslim who states that they support obeying the laws of the land is defined by default as ‘moderate’ without regard to whether he or she might hold some views that are very extreme and unpleasant indeed. However, a large section of our media and institutions appear to only label a Muslim as an ‘extremist’ if he or she breaks the law or incites others to do so. This is illogical and irrational.
The verbally incontinent Asghar Bukhari of MPACUK, whose verbosity is no match for his stupidity, has been on our screens day and night since the incident. He simply has to chant “Though Moslems abhor this act, it was because of the government’s foreign policy” and his interlocutors are virtually pole-axed, reduced to stuttering stupefaction. Stunned into submission by what they dumbly accept is a legitimate grievance. Dumbfounded! By what? Bamboozled by a trumped-up, illogical, patently ridiculous “greevy-ance.”
To his credit Clive Myrie attempted to challenge this meaningless, baseles, blatantly illogical, manifestly false mantra. “We’re trying to make things better for the Afghanis” protests Myrie. But Bukhri’s having none of that. He doesn’t want our ‘better’. He wants Sharia. He wants poverty, misogyny, repression and female genital mutilation. You know, the true Islam. That’s the ‘better’ he wants.
Followers of Islam, the true version, the false version, the perverted version, the version that doubles-up as a hostess trolley, all oppose “our” side - that is Western armed forces - trespassing on Muslim land, “killing Moslems.” That’s the chant that’s universally repeated by practicing, radical, fanatical, ghettoised, integrated, built-in or free-standing, moderate Muslims everywhere.
So I’m waiting for them to explain. Which Muslims mustn’t we kill? The Taliban? Saddam Hussain? The Sunnis? Shia? Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab? Do tell, Mr. Bukhri old chap, which particular Muslims are the ones that are reserved solely for other Muslims to kill?
Or is it just that Muslims are a homogeneous group when it suits the case for the prosecution, and the good v bad, moderate v extreme, mustn’t-be-tarred-with-the-same brush, don’t-associate-us-with-terrorism, hard-done-by, epitome of diversity when it happens to suit the case for the defence. So why are we going through this charade?
Certainly, Muslims are quite right to fear the backlash. If they don’t want a backlash, they must denounce a whole lot more than just the one gruesome act.
Aftermaths are like that. After Brievik’s atrocity the finger was pointed at the “the right-wing” as a whole. Very few qualms about that were to be heard from the Guardian-reading ‘we are all Hezbollah now” brigade.
Whenever Islamic inspired terrorism rears its head, mixed with the horror there’s an undeniable sense of vindication. Relief that the violence is motivated by Islam and not an unhinged rogue representative of one’s own kith and kin.
Banged up for telling the truth? Anjem believes in telling it like it is. He doesn’t bother condemning the beheading of Lee Rigby, settling instead for an oblique reference to obeying the law of the land.
Other muslims think it’s sufficient to condemn this particular barbaric act, while still harbouring their precious greevy-ance. They advocate exerting their influence over our foreign policy by democratic means, and in polls, surveys, interviews, undercover and open-plan reporting, they come out with stuff that makes a mockery out of David “This was nothing to do with Islam” Cameron’s politically correct, factually incorrect assertion.
Anjem Choudary is a true colours kinda guy. We know where we are with him. Like Bukhari and other grievance-burdened Islamists who pay televised lip service to their disapproval of the ambush and murder of Lee Rigby, Choudary also wants Sharia; chauvinism, misogyny, repression and, who knows, female genital mutilation; the true Islam. He doesn’t just want it in Afghanistan or Iraq. He was born here, and he wants it here.
