Thursday, July 16, 2009

BBC pays head of Muslim Council of Britain £45,000 for 'libel'

Cranmer is simmering with rage – the thumos type, not the orge, though it may soon become so.

He reported a few months ago that the corporation had offered the MCB the princely sum of £30,000 and an apology for remarks made by Charles Moore on 12th March, when Question Time was debating the protests in Luton of a group of Islamic extremists during a homecoming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment. These professing Muslims heckled the troops and waved placards which read 'Butchers of Basra' and 'British Government: Terrorist Government'. Charles Moore simply criticised the leadership of MCB for failing to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas: thus, he averred, do they tacitly support such atrocity. The reason is manifest; the logic impeccable.

Cranmer was incensed then. Now he has a deep, inward feeling of anger.

£30,000 was clearly insufficient, for it has risen to £45,000.

The BBC has paid libel damages simply for broadcasting Charles Moore’s comment, which, it appears to Cranmer, would amount to fair comment. And it is even more grotesque when one considers that Muhammad Abdul Bari, the recipient of this small fortune, was never even mentioned by name.

How can one libel someone who was not named?

Thus is Charles Moore rendered guilty of a ‘thought-crime’ for an unacceptable ‘slur’ the good name and impeccable reputation of the MCB.

Instead of defending the right of Mr Moore to hold or express such views, the BBC loyally pays its jizya (or, rather, pays it on our behalf), and offers material proof of the kafir’s acceptance of subjection to the shari’a state.

But what is curious in the BBC’s reporting of this story is that they do not mention Charles Moore by name: he is simply referred to as ‘one of the Question Time panellists’.

Why might that be?

Could it be that by offering an ‘unreserved apology’ and paying out this absurd sum of taxpayers’ money to the Muslim Council of Britain, they are actually libelling the impeccable, upright, honest and noble Charles Moore?

Cranmer urges him to contact Carter Ruck without delay. His Grace would be happy to assist with the procurement of a legal opinion.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Rise above it - 'turn the other cheek'.

The BBC is a proven willing partner in left wing propaganda, spin and manipulation. The alleged settlement could well be no more than empty rhetoric - designed for political reasons as opposed to actual and factual.

16 July 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous not a machine said...

If only i could sue for my hurt feelings at our loss of freedom of speech by those whos jobs it is paramount that they have it.

i look forward to the day when this nonsense ends , and our lawyers cease the gouging at the vitals of democracy, for cheap and flash bravdo in the exclusive club of whose brain can cost the most money and freedom .

16 July 2009 at 17:10  
Anonymous oiznop said...

I don't agree with anon at all.

If we just turn the other cheek every time, we're taken for doormats.

I am not a doormat. Fight. Contend for the faith.

16 July 2009 at 17:11  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

One more reason why the licence fee should be abolished.

Not in my name

16 July 2009 at 17:13  
Anonymous Man with very hot bladder said...

My head just exploded.

16 July 2009 at 17:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace has just received an email from Charles Moore, who agrees that he has been libelled.

The Spectator's Notes should make interesting reading over the coming weeks.

16 July 2009 at 17:32  
Blogger Nick Gulliford said...

I am very pleased to see Charles Moore agrees he has been libelled. Let us pray for justice to be done and seen to be done.

But the BBC is smearing people every day in ways that many people may miss, unless they have somehow protected themselves against the BBC's policy of pursuing 'political correctness' whenever it can.

On Tuesday this week, 14th July, just after the start of the Today programme on Radio 4 at, Caroline Wyatt said, "Eight families will gather today to wait for the bodies of their fathers, brothers and sons to make their final journey home from Helmand province."

At least one of the eight was married. Why is it too much for the BBC to mention 'husbands' among the categories of those whose loss is being mourned?

16 July 2009 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally consider that I am libelled, at least once a day by the BBC.

As I see myself as being a conservative, English, British, a hetro-sexual male, a small business-man, a father, a seeker of truth and justice, a JEW, a Mason, a Christian, and a Zionist.

I consider that it is impossible to be all of these things, and not be libelled by the BBC on a highly regular basis. Miss-representation of just about everything and everybody is The BBC's stocking trade.

If The BBC payed even a small amount of damages every time it, miss-represented, obscured truth, or simply deliberately told cheap or massively expensive lies ( AGW for just one example ). The whole corporation would go bust within a month.

Which surly would be a most WONDERFUL THING.

What do you think we will get from the Establishments BBC for giving us this our current criminal, and criminally incompetent government, for the last 12 years?

I guess the answer starts with an F, and ends in uckall.

Atlas shrugged

16 July 2009 at 18:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I gave up my television licence last year; it involved surprisingly little pain. On the odd occasion that I wish to see a programme I use one of the catch-up services. To all those who are enraged by the BBC: give up your licence and starve the bloated corporation into submission.

16 July 2009 at 18:43  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Forty five grand and a grovelling apology for what? Did they roll over without a fight? Without so much as a whimper?

When are they going to apologise for extorting money (with menaces) out of me? How about apologies for disenfranchising my political views, my opinions (I'm a climate "heretic") and my right to watch quality TV that doesn't contain a Nu-Fascist "on message" theme?

Bullsh*t Broadcasting Creeps, if you want my honest opinion I refer you to the classic Arkell v Pressdram reply...

16 July 2009 at 18:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It’s enough to make any TV licence payer incandescent! Just who gave them the authority to award any of the license payers fee money to the MCB? They’re a pathetic bunch of cowards and of course with a Muslim guru heading up religious programs now they will be even more grovelling. Good luck to Sri Charles Moore with his libel case.

16 July 2009 at 18:47  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace,

Since when has the BBC been a Court of Law? If Mr Abdul Bari believed he had been libelled he should have taken legal steps. Equally the BBC has, as our servant and employee, an obligation to us all to ensure its actions are legally correct. It's manifest that it has not done so.

There is no indication at all of the BBC's (our) legal advice in this matter. That advice should now be placed in the public domain - if indeed it actually exists.

16 July 2009 at 19:58  
Blogger John Henry said...

Judging by the picture in your post, I think that Muhammad Abdul Bari has a pretty awful wig. Just saying that must be worth at least 60 grand compo if it costs 45 for speaking common sense.

16 July 2009 at 21:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watever happened to Daud Abdullah's, (deputy secretary general of MCB) threat to sue Hazel Blears for libel (see Your Grace, 7 April)?

Would any legally competent person like to give an opinion on how what she said in regard to the MCB can be compared with what Mr Moore said?

16 July 2009 at 21:47  
Anonymous philip walling said...

This is a Christian country or it's nothing. My dilemma is that I am not a Muslim or a liberal, but a Christian, so who do I turn to?

16 July 2009 at 22:49  
Anonymous Stephen Gash said...

Bought By Caliphate

Close it down.

16 July 2009 at 22:57  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

This satanic legislation only serves to line the pockets of 'minorities' that refuse to adapt to our societies and this force the majority of society to adapt to them!

And the UK-laws enable them to do so! How foolish! The UK-politicians are thus the greatest cause of downfall of the United Kingdom! This is called TREASON!

Of course, the legal profession rejoices: For vampires do not live off of vampires! These libel cases, and such only enirch the wrong people! At the expense of hardworking, civilised, adapted, cultured, lawabiding citizens!

Before any case of libel, or insult, is accepted, the person that is bringing the accusation SHOULD FIRST PROVE that it has effected him/her personally! If he/she fails to do so,the accuser should be prosecuted for abusing the legal system and the law for private gain and profit!

This would enormously limit the cases of libel and insults.

But our present-day governments will not have it! They only want to bring more unrest to society, more injustice, more robberies, more evil, greater control, greater tiranny. How much longer will we let them?

16 July 2009 at 23:03  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Johnny Rottenborough has the most effective solution and it was I have advocated many times whenever the topic of the BBC rears its head. Ditch the TV. Everything worth watching can be viewed via on-line services now, at your own convenience and at no cost. It forces you (and your children) to be a more discerning viewer by making you choose what you want to watch rather than whatever crap is being churned out when you switch on. Stop whining and take some affirmative action.

I need to ask Your Grace's spiritual guidance - to whom should I bare my cheeks: the BBC or the MCB ... or one cheek to each?

16 July 2009 at 23:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Rebel Saint,

Baring your cheeks would accomplish little.

The fault in this instance lies with the BBC: it should have vigorously defended its corner and appealed any judgement against it. If it is libellous to voice one's opinion, it becomes difficult to see how a programme like Question Time could survive. If one calls Tony Blair a war criminal, may one be sued? If one called Gordon Brown a liar, will it be censored?

If not, why is the MCB treated favourably?

16 July 2009 at 23:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comes from your license fee.

17 July 2009 at 00:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is only one solution for the EVIL that is The BBC, and The Broadcast/ mind control industry in general.

Get rid of the truly nasty object. Either give it to someone who you seriously hate, or throw it in the nearest dump.

Please be reminded that it is not the TV itself that is profoundly evil beyond belief.

The BBC and the rest, can only mess with your mind, if you actually watch the thing.

Remember tere is also more sociable and more worthwhile things to do then watching TV. Like respectively picking your nose, and eating the product in public. Or watching the grass grow in the back garden.

Remember the BBC is still controlling your mind whether you agree with its content or not. It is also controlling your mind, whether you are paying full attention to it or not.

But above all please remember this. the TV may be very bad for you personally, but it is far far worse for children then you could possibly understand or wish to understand.

For children, TV is not just mind control. TV causes serious and permanent brain damage.

Atlas shrugged

17 July 2009 at 02:14  
Anonymous Athanasia contra mundum said...

Philip Walling
This country used to be Christian but now it's run to please muslims as proved time and time again. Both the major political parties pander to them.It's not ideal but the BNP is the only party comitted to adressing this problem.

17 July 2009 at 05:14  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Just as the Burma Nationalist Party addresses its "problem" with the Muslims.

17 July 2009 at 05:46  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

The BBC news item reports that Mr Bari has given the £45000 to charity.

I wonder what Charity? Hopefully the Army Benevolent fund, but I fear not.

17 July 2009 at 09:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

£45,000 = 315 licence payers

£30,000 = 210 licence payers

Mark Thompson salary at BBC = 5726 licence payers

The inclusivity of allowing more people to contribute

17 July 2009 at 09:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Ultramontane Grumpy Old Catholic,

His Grace did note that, but decided not to mention it. Whether or not Mr Bari donates this money to charity or not is of no consequence: it is still taxpers' money, and doubtless Mr Bari will ensure that the charity accords with his beliefs.

If it were donated to HM Armed Services, or to any charity of Charles Moore's choosing, Cranmer would be the first to praise Mr Bari.

17 July 2009 at 09:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bari is donating the £45k to "charity". I think we all know what that means. Perhaps we can now prosecute the BBC for funding terrorism.

17 July 2009 at 11:14  
Blogger Greatheart said...

I hate to add a dose of reality to proceedings but there is an incredible amount of legal ignorance being shown on this thread.

1/ Most newspapers, never mind the nation's public broadcaster, are very nervous of defending defammation accusations in court because libel is such a subjective issue. Comments regarded by one person as defammatory might be regarded by another person as entirely innocuous. Very few libel actions ever get as far as court because it is the jury which decides the level of damages. It's a simple question of risk. 45k might seem like a big payout but the BBC's lawyers will have been aware that a jury might award even higher damages to Mr Abdul Bari.

2/ I know that Your Grace regards it as being entirely logical that the MCB's silence on the issue of violent terrorist attacks on British soldiers is an implication of support for such acts. That is not how a court would see the matter. Silence implies nothing except silence (in the same way that the right to silence cannot be taken as an implication of guilt in a criminal case). Only a proven connection between the MCB and Islamic terrorism, established by documentary evidence would be enough upon which to build a libel defence (incidentally this would be a justification defence not a fair comment defence).

3/ An association cannot be sued for libel EXCEPT in cases where the association is identified with a particular leader or leadership. Mr Abdul Bari could quite convincingly argue that he is the public face of the MCB and, as such, he has been damaged in the estimation of the public by Mr Moore's remarks.

4/ For the fair comment defence to be used in a case of defamation, the BBC would have to prove that Mr Moore's remarks were made without malice, ill will or, indeed, any improper motive. If it could be shown that Mr Moore had made his comments recklessly, without assessing whether they were true or false, the BBC would be in an extremely difficult position.

On the issue of the BBC fighting this action in the courts, I'm afraid that his Grace cannot have it both ways. The criticism levelled at the BBC (in many cases quite rightly) for its editorial lapses has created an environment in which the BBC will do anything to avoid courting negative publicity for fear of a backlash from those sections of the press which would rather see Mr Murdoch controlling the country's media. It is much easier to settle a libel action out of court than to go to an expensive trial in which the outcome could be even more costly to the licence fee payer than the out of court settlement - never mind the hysteria which would be engineered by sections of the media over the inevitable waste of licence fee payers' money. The BBC, as usual, is damned if it goes to court and is damned if it doesn't and, as far as his Grace is concerned, is just damned.

17 July 2009 at 12:55  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

That's a pretty bad ginger wig the gent is sporting in the photo.

Hopefully the money can be spent on a better syrup.

17 July 2009 at 13:31  
Anonymous Athanasia contra mundum said...

Charles Moore should have been more
adept in his commentary.The MCB
behave in a legal but provocative way knowing that the media will
react resulting in substanial
financial windfalls laughing at us all the way to the bank or wherever.Journalists are not competent enough to deal with these
landmines.These people are
much smarter than us.Look at what they have achieved as a small minority in this country in such a short period of time. Who else could threaten the House of Lords without consequence and prevent a
foreign MP from visiting England.

17 July 2009 at 14:50  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Re Athanasia: "These people are
much smarter than us."

I challenge that assertion! It is exactly one of the principles used by successful cultural invaders. Once they have convinced the indigenous culture of their superiority - they can dominate and superimpose their own culture.

Nastier, they may be; more aggressive as invaders, they certainly are. But smarter? How come we had to take modern amenities and knowledge to them, if so?

17 July 2009 at 15:17  
Anonymous Athanasia contra mundum said...

Well they are manginging to ride
rough shod over us. What's smart about allowing that to happen?

17 July 2009 at 15:39  
Anonymous Athanasia contra mundum said...

What's smart about presenting weapons to your enemy?

17 July 2009 at 15:42  
Anonymous Athanasia contra mundum said...

What's smart about letting down the drawbridge and inviting your enemy to live with you .

17 July 2009 at 15:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is also the case that Charles Moore is withholding payment of his TV license fee. I wonder whether this has any bearing on matters?

17 July 2009 at 15:48  
Anonymous Dismembered said...

Why dont we just use the tax money to install a huge hindge down the middle of the country ... Would make it so much easier to bend over backwards.

The BBC make me sick. The Government (If you can call that rabble a government) make me sick. The honey pot that is the U.K. and all its eurotrash / immigrants makes me sick.

Wonder why Im emmigrating to Canada ?

17 July 2009 at 16:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well with that £45,000 he could buy himself a decent wig ....

17 July 2009 at 16:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,
As always I agree with everything you say, but, as a matter of fact (and to keep you out of court) it is very easy to libel someone without naming them. If I write that the CID of Camberwick Green are corrupt I could be sued by every detective in that station. I would, in fact be better off naming an individual.

17 July 2009 at 16:39  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Athanasia - I take your point. I, too, have a big problem with the way we're just lying down and letting this happen to us. I really don't understand it. It's beginning to make me ashamed to be present-day British - when I've always been proud, and happy, and glad, to be just that.

You're right. We do seem to be behaving stupidly. My point, however, is that stupidity is not our 'default' setting. But what has happened to throw our inherent intelligence, creativity, and backbone, off track?

Short of declaring that the euSSR has 'put something in the water' ... I believe that, after WWII, many British people determined never to fight WWIII. That alone left fertile ground for the Marxist style cultural invasion that I believe has been at work since at least then. We didn't anticipate this new kind of war, though - one in which all our own institutions would be turned against us from the inside, and which would be sustained over a period of several generations.

Now, it seems, the deconstruction is at work in the police force: fracturing the organization by divide and conquer methodology; and doubtless also by filling it full of foreigners who don't even know what law is. The neuSSR types won't recognize that our law, education, and civilization, evolved from Judaeo-Christian principles and under the aegis of Christianity. Oh, no. They decry Christianity as just another 'superstition' or 'belief system.' Well we don't have to look far to see what their 'belief system' produces.

How bad it has to get before someone can rise up to unite us in fighting the rot (and blowing up that awful tunnel!), I don't know. But many of us seem to be recognizing what's happening - thanks to this kind of Forum and, especially, to Cranmer.

17 July 2009 at 18:08  
Blogger David said...

Here's the thing. Despite this being aired here and in The Mail, The Telegraph and on other blogs and being made public, the BBC still goes ahead and does what it wants with utter disregard. What can we do to prevent this happening? Absolutely nothing.

The Marxist cultural revolution has been taking place and we now live in a communist state in all but name. It would appear that millions of lives in WWII were lost for nothing.

18 July 2009 at 08:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is the guy in the photo wearing a wig?

18 July 2009 at 19:09  
Anonymous TBF said...

From Harry's Place:

Perhaps better legal minds than mine can explain how this came about. On 12 March 2009, during a broadcast of Question Time, Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, stated that the senior-leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain considered the killing of British soldiers to be a “good” and even “Islamic” act to follow.

This had followed a political protest in which a pro-victory gaggle of Dr. Moreau’s grotesques by the name of Followers of Ahl Us-Sunah Wal-Jamaa’ah – but which newspapers such as the Guardian insisted on describing as “anti-war” and plain-old “Muslims” – had harangued a home-coming parade by the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton.

The leader of this group is Anjem Choudary, pictured here during his heady student days.

What Would Omar Bakri Mohammed Think?

Although it is an al-Muhajiroun front-group, it was on this backdrop which Moore made his comments. Any functioning democracy or healthy political debate requires discussion events such as Question Time which allows ideas and statements to be bandied about, and challenged if needs be.

We are no longer living with only a handful of media outlets – newspapers or broadcasters – owned by one or two barons, and where a maligned individual has little recourse to set a record straight. For a start, “record” is an out-of-date analogy, and there are also blogs and foreign state-owned broadcasters advertising on London buses.

18 July 2009 at 23:56  
Anonymous TBF said...

Part 2:

The Secretary General of the MCB, Muhammad Abdul Bari, for instance, has been reported as stating that homosexuality is incompatible with his religion. He, like everyone else in this society, should be free to hold socially and religiously conservative views as long as he does not attempt to impose them on the wider society.

I find the MCB’s erstwhile prolonged boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day extremely distasteful, and their rationalization based on misconceptions or outright falsehoods, but I accepted it through gritted teeth.

I mean, it is not as if he invited to the East London Mosque a big cheese in Jamaat-i-Islami, a Bangladeshi religio-political party of which senior members were intimately involved in the 1971 East Pakistan Civil War in which upwards of two millions Hindu and Muslim peasants and dissidents were killed.

As far as I can tell, Abdul Bari’s case rested on words he offered to the Independent two years previously. Here they are:

Do you find the killing of British troops in Iraq unacceptable?

Our troops are doing an unenviable job. It is unacceptable and appalling to hear of them being attacked and I am very sorry for their families. We appear to have learnt very little from our history of interfering in other countries, and I believe, history in turn, will not look very kindly at our recent actions.

That this underpinned Abdul Bari’s argument was implicitly confirmed by a press-release from representing solicitors, Carter and Ruck; and explicitly confirmed in paragraph five of a press release from the BBC.

Thus, after between four and six years of British service personnel being killed by insurgents and violent extremists, and two years after 52 Londoners were murdered by self-immolatory terrorists, Abdul Bari said was “history will judge us”. Did he clarify this statement at any point?

In 2006, whilst still in favour with Government departments, Kaa sound/lookalike MCB-spokesman Inayat Bunglawala had responded to online questions on the Muslim Discussion Forum concerning ‘mixed messages’ from the MCB-leadership with regards to support for violent extremism. He explicitly stated that no pleasure should be taken in targetting of British service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan:

18 July 2009 at 23:58  
Anonymous TBF said...

Part 3:

British Muslims should in my view work with other sections of our society to ensure that British troops are brought back from both Iraq and Afghanistan without delay. It would be wrong to take any pleasure in the deaths of combatants in those conflicts, whether British, Iraqi or Afghani.

At another point, however, he was reported as stating:

I don’t agree that there is anything ambiguous about the MCB’s position on suicide bombings. We have pepeatedly made it clear that we utterly condemn the deliberate killing of all civilians whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, and whether it is carried out in the UK or anywhere else in the world.

Does the same extend to not targetting service personnel and other decreed combatants, or is this considered an onerous task not to be revelled in?

Further discussion of alleged links between big cheeses in the MCB and violent extremism, notably Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh and beyond, can be found here.

Although Moore mentioned no individual by name, Abdul Bari took it as reference to himself and sued. The presiding judge accepted the following argument from Abdul Bari’s solicitor:

[...] although Dr Bari was not actually mentioned by name, the “leadership” of the MCB was referred to, by implication referring to him in his capacity as leader and chief spokesman of the MCB.

Mr Tudor said the BBC accepted that these allegations were untrue – in fact, in 2007, Dr Bari said publicly that the killing of British troops in Iraq was unacceptable.

The BBC has agreed to pay Abdul Bari £45,000 in damages plus legal costs. Abdul Bari has stated his intention to donate they money to charity. Bear in mind, the MCB is a registered charity.

Anyone with a passing interest in libel writs in the English courts should be entirely unsurprised to hear the presiding judge’s name.

18 July 2009 at 23:59  
Anonymous TBF said...

Part 4:

What is also puzzling me is that other senior members of the MCB *are* considered to be supportive of the targeting of British service personnel: notably the current Deputy Secretary General, Daud Abdullah. A few days before the broadcast of Question Time, the Observer had reported that Abdullah and other senior British Islamists (including Chief Imam Shaykh Abdul Qayyum of the ELM) had signed what has become known as the Istanbul Declaration.

As reported, the Declartion implored the “Islamic Nation” to oppose by any means thought necessary all individuals deemed supportive of the “Zionist enemy” (cf. Israel). At the time of signing, foreign political leaders, including the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had suggested providing peacekeeping Naval forces to monitor arms-smuggling between Gaza and Egypt.

An open letter from the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears was subsequently published in the Guardian in which she stated that no further dealings would be conducted by the British Government with the MCB until it distanced itself from Abdullah’s remarks and he resigned.

In a response, also published in the Guardian, Abdullah called her remarks a “misguided and ill-advised attempt to exercise control” and stated his intention to remain in position; with the apparent backing of the rest of the MCB leadership. Subsequently, he announced his intention to sue Blears, in respect of her office, should she not retract her letter and issue an apology by 15 April 2009.

A letter from the Treasury Solicitors, acting on behalf of Blears, to Abdullah’s solicitors revealed their willingness to continue with such a course of action. It closed with the statement, “It follows, of course, that your offer of settlement is rejected”. No further reports of attempts to pursue a libel case by Abdullah or the MCB have been heard.

So, my question is, even if Moore’s statement to be have been considered a reference to Abdul Bari, why was it considered libelous considering:

* The MCB’s continued tactit toleration of its Deputy Secretary General following his endorsement of the Istanbul Declaration;

*A lacklustre response from the Secretary General of the MCB when asked to condemn attacks on British service personnel;

* Apparently contradictory statements, in response to internal concerns about support for violent extremism within the MCB, from another senior MCB member regarding violent extremism in which a distinction between civilians and military targets was seemingly drawn;

* Existing concerns of links between senior MCB members and the violent extremism of Jamaat-i-Islami?

18 July 2009 at 23:59  
Blogger gatesofvienna said...

The good name of the MCB?

19 July 2009 at 10:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had to remove TV from my life years ago, the BBC will not be fed by me.

It is time your Grace followed my example, and put your angry money where your angry mouth is, FOR REAL.

It is a kin to financing the Nazi Party in the 1930s, why fianace the Nation's enemy, with YOUR money ?

It's not sane is it ?

You must All prove your love is real, with this simple non-violent action.

It is the only way the BBC will be brought to heel.

Failure to end this major inconsistancy, will just result in more tears.

Most of the BBC's garbage is online anyway, and I still don't watch it.

Same goes for Channel bore.

Anonymous Has a unique IP Adrress.

21 July 2009 at 05:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older