|
Post by marky on Nov 13, 2010 17:30:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 13, 2010 17:42:32 GMT
'Political Correctness' is for the most part the excuse used to justify appeasement of militant Islam. in other words, "we're not shit scared, - we're just politically correct".
Funny how they're not politically correct towards, Christianity, Israel, Tories, AGW sceptics, or any group they really don't have to fear.
We can transpose PC to really mean 'Petrified of Comeback'.
|
|
|
Post by marky on Nov 13, 2010 18:07:42 GMT
Just updated the Mark Thompson thread where I believe he admits religious bias and that would mostly mean Islamic bias.
"Political correctness" I read Marxist destruction, the method of useful idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 13, 2010 20:53:13 GMT
Here's a fabulous excerpt from the Impartiality: Fact or Fiction - Friday 22nd September 2006 Seminar Agenda and Transcript link you posted Marky about Alan Yentob Clive Anderson poses a hypothetical situation: CLIVE ANDERSON: ....you’re editing the 6 o’clock news and you’ve got a new-ish star anchor called Laya Khan, she’s been a big success, very popular, got a lot of coverage in employing her, in fact it’s almost as if there’s a sort of dip in viewing figures as far as you can detect for a news programme when she’d been away for a few weeks when she’s been on an assertiveness training course and she’s also been to the Punjab to meet up with her fiancés family for the first time and she’s come back on Monday morning in the office and she’s wearing a hijab. Are you going to say anything to her?
This is what Mary Fitzpatrick had to say - and get ready to cringe MARY FITZPATRICK: I don’t agree I think that she should be respected for her decision to wear the hijab, it’s something,....
MARY FITZPATRICK: ...it’s part of her religion, it’s part of who she is and I think that it would be very wrong for us to question it. It’s her decision and we need to be respectful and she should be allowed to go ahead.
(OVER TALKING)
But this is not about short sleeves, it’s about who she is and her religion and how she sees herself and we as an organisation should be totally respectful of that.
I wonder when the 'organisation' is going to be respectful to the society they are serving - we don't want our women covered head to feet, we evolved from that a long time ago. After some debate about the issue, she comes out with this doozy still defending her stance; MARY FITZPATRICK: And actually it’s all about who is our audience? It’s not made up of Mr and Mrs average who live in Woking, though a little bit of it, but there are lots of other people..
I would love for this stupid c*** to receive a pro-rata salary out of what she presently gets from the licence fee based on the 'lots of other people' that she wants to appeal to, and cut out the Mr. and Mrs. Average from Woking.
|
|
|
Post by marky on Nov 14, 2010 8:07:47 GMT
A top BBC executive has given news reader Fiona Bruce the green light to continue wearing a crucifix on screen.
According to Head of TV News Peter Horrocks it is "absolutely fine" for presenters to wear religious emblems - as long as they remain discreet.
"A large shiny cross would be too distracting," he wrote on the BBC News website.
Two weeks ago BBC chiefs banned the news reader's discreet necklace, but since then Mr Horrocks has canvassed viewers' opinions. The hijab is not a discreet symbol of female repression, religious brainwashing and stupidity, it is however a symbol that in some Islamic countries is rigorously enforced, not wearing it could lead to bullying, beatings, being horribly maimed... I wonder if the BBC would allow a satanic emblem as long as it remains discreet?
|
|