Andrew Gilligan confirms why he’s become a laughing stock


by Sunny
22nd November, 2010 at 5:23 pm    

Andrew Gilligan writes on his blog that he has left Press TV:

I did present a regular discussion show on the station, in which Islamism, and the policies of the Iranian government, were often debated and challenged. But I stopped last December, in part for precisely the reason Mr Hasan says – taking the Iranian shilling was inconsistent with my opposition to Islamism.

I have not worked for Press TV since. The only exception is two one-off shows I presented for them in the week of the general election in May, more than six months ago

Note that in May 2008 I reported that Press TV was then promoting Holocaust Denial. Even before that, it was obvious where Press TV’s sympathies lied.

So it took over a year for Gilligan to realise that taking Iranian shilling was “inconsistent” with his “opposition to Islamism”? What bollocks. Either Gilligan is the dimmest journalist that ever existed or there’s more to this story than he claims.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media






55 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  2. Ryan Duffer

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  3. Unity

    RT @sunny_hundal: Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao Does a paycheck count as 'more to the story'?


  4. earwicga

    RT @sunny_hundal: Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  5. antonvowl

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  6. Natacha Kennedy

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  7. Adam Bienkov

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock http://bit.ly/clviao


  8. Humour 101

    Andrew Gilligan confirms why he's become a laughing stock … http://bit.ly/g8gkuo




  1. James — on 22nd November, 2010 at 6:01 pm  

    I like Gilligan – he exposed Ken Livingstone’s administration to the London public – who duly sent him packing. We would still be stuck with Red Ken had it not been for Gilligan.

    As for the above – your title is pure hyperbole. You wouldn’t bother with him if he wasn’t doing a good job rattling your cage.

  2. Sean — on 22nd November, 2010 at 9:11 pm  

    From exposing the lie that was weapons of mass destruction to scrabbling around desperately defending taking the Ayatolla dollar on his sad single issue blog. Yep, I’d say that makes one a laughing stock.

  3. Tom — on 22nd November, 2010 at 9:13 pm  

    “I like Gilligan – he exposed Ken Livingstone’s administration to the London public ”

    Er, he did what he’s always done: spun half truths into unvarnished facts and deliberately misquoted people* to make a wholly imaginary case and, as it turned out, puffed himself on the internet by pretending to be other people. Hardly Deep Throat, is it? Or is there a prison full of Livingstone acolytes I’ve overlooked?

    Face it: compared to Parliament at the time Ken was Mr. Clean, so Gilligan was facing the wrong way as usual, and missed the big story. Great Journalist my arse.

    * Me, for one. Ran together something I said with something I’d quoted someone else saying. There’s ethics for you.

  4. Arif — on 22nd November, 2010 at 9:59 pm  

    I don’t see why he should resign if Press TV do not distort what he says or censor him.

    If they do than it makes sense to resign, but if not surely Press TV is the perfect place for him to express the problems associated with Islamism (or whatever you want to call it) to the audience he (I assume) wants to influence.

  5. Rajesh — on 22nd November, 2010 at 10:08 pm  

    Sunny, this is ridiculous. Gilligan catches a clear error by Hasan but somehow this exposes him as a laughing stock. What does this make Hasan then if he can’t even make basic checks before publishing?

  6. earwicga — on 22nd November, 2010 at 10:30 pm  

    Refresh –

    Gilligan writes this:

    The answer to that question is “eleven months ago.” Because if Mehdi Hasan had actually spoken to any “sources at Press TV,” he would have been told that I am not, in fact, “among the highest-paid employees at the channel,” nor indeed any sort of employee at all. He would have been told that I have not worked for Press TV for nearly a year. I can only conclude that he did not, in fact, speak to anyone at Press TV – and that he made up this quote to further his untruth.

    It’s rubbish as Gilligan worked for Press TV in May. That is NOT nearly a year ago.

  7. Rajesh — on 22nd November, 2010 at 10:42 pm  

    earwigca

    He also says, and it’s in the original post here so is not a hidden piece of information,
    “The only exception is two one-off shows I presented for them in the week of the general election in May, more than six months ago”.

    This isn’t complicated. Hasan asks Gilligan when he will quit Press TV. Gilligan has already quit, whether 1 year or 6 months ago. Therefore Hasan was wrong and according to Gilligan , this error could have been easily found even by checking wikipedia.

    Sunny decides that the person who has been embarrassed by Hasan’s error is not Hasan but Gilligan.
    I just don’t see how this can be the case. I suspect that Sunny is trying to protect a friend by defending him. However, the defence is so weak it just makes Sunny look silly & Gilligan comes out of this looking great.

  8. earwicga — on 22nd November, 2010 at 11:11 pm  

    Apologies Rajesh, I typed the wrong name in my last reply to you. As you point out, there is no need for Gilligan to write ‘for nearly a year’, when the truth is 6 months ago. It makes no sense.

  9. Sunny — on 22nd November, 2010 at 11:16 pm  

    Arifr – the point isn’t whether Press TV censor him or not – I’m sure they don’t. I’ve been a guest on there a few times and everytime I find a way to slate the Iranian regime. Still they invite me back.

    The point is – if this ludicrous excuse for a journalist is going to claim he stopped because he realised getting paid by Press TV was incompatible with his views – it took a bloody long time for that penny to drop.

    Gilligan’s long been the butt of jokes – now he looks even more ludicrous.

  10. BristleKRS — on 22nd November, 2010 at 11:59 pm  

    “Either Gilligan is the dimmest journalist that ever existed or there’s more to this story than he claims…”

    Well, he probably needs to read back through his Palm Pilot notes to job his memory.

  11. John — on 23rd November, 2010 at 5:02 am  

    Pro-Taliban Mullah Fazlul Rehman due in UK today;

    Ban Fazlur Rehman’s entry into UK
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/80656/ban-fazlur-rehmans-entry-into-uk-ansar-burney/

  12. cjcjc — on 23rd November, 2010 at 7:05 am  

    “I’ve been a guest on there a few times”

    Priceless.

  13. cjcjc — on 23rd November, 2010 at 9:11 am  

    Can you remind us when Ken Livingstone stopped working for Press TV?

  14. Arif — on 23rd November, 2010 at 10:37 am  

    Since they don’t censor Gilligan or distort what he says, I think he is wrong in coming to the conclusion that being paid by them for working for them is incompatible with his views.

    Perhaps he feels in some way his presence legitimises something or other unpleasant. However working for the Murdoch empire or, say, Alexander Lebedev, or Associated Newspapers etc could all be seen the same way.

    Is it that the freedom of speech seemingly offered to you and him by Press TV is incompatible with his views? Or is it that he will only work for a media company for which he agrees with the political views of the owners? Such a stance would make it impossible for me to work anywhere, except in self-employment!

  15. Arif — on 23rd November, 2010 at 10:40 am  

    cjcjc – Ken Livingstone also had a regular column in the Sun. He explained that it got him access to millions of readers who would otherwise be exposed only to right-wing propaganda in the newspaper. I found that a convincing argument, and was glad he did it.

  16. cjcjc — on 23rd November, 2010 at 11:10 am  

    And he was restaurant critic for the Standard too.

    A man of deep principles.

    So deep they can be hard to find.

  17. damon — on 23rd November, 2010 at 11:54 am  

    What’s the beef with Gilligan exactly? I know he’s not liked by some, but when you have such entrenched positions and personal animosities around the things that Gilligan, HP and PP talk about, it’s sometimes not easy to know who’s right when.
    No comment on that Panorama programme last night for example? Or was that part of the Islamophobic drip drip drip that the Mail and the Daily Star so obviosly spew forth?

    I don’t like the way Gilligan’s blog plays to the Telegraph gallery – but he does tease some things out that would have otherwise gone by without comment.

  18. Sunny — on 23rd November, 2010 at 3:48 pm  

    heh, cjcjc I wouldn’t preach about principles to others if I was you.

    Arif – as I said, the point isn’t whether he was censored or not. And you might be right about reaching a different audience etc.

    The point here is about how long it took Gilligan to come to the conclusion he did… makes him look like a tool.

    Here’s his latest attempt to smear Dave Hill
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/nov/20/labour-debates-response-to-lutfur-rahman-victory-tower-hamlets

  19. cjcjc — on 23rd November, 2010 at 3:50 pm  

    “heh, cjcjc I wouldn’t preach about principles to others if I was you”

    Maybe not.

    But I am not standing to be Mayor of London!

  20. Konnu — on 23rd November, 2010 at 5:19 pm  

    Of course Gilligan is a laughing stock, he has no idea what ‘leaving’ means. He ‘left’ as a matter of conscience last year, but he was back there 6 months later, as revealed by Hasan and admitted by Gilligan in his contradictory statement. So, who’s to say he won’t be back there next month if the Iranian cheque book is again wafted under his nose? He implies he’s off the payroll, but I doubt Press TV believe that – he’s only a phone call away!

  21. cjcjc — on 23rd November, 2010 at 5:24 pm  

    Any comment on Livingstone’s Press TV hosting at all?

    I mean, I know that Gilligan is very important (while being a joke of course), and that we should focus on him but, erm, any thoughts on Livingstone and Press TV?

  22. harith — on 23rd November, 2010 at 5:59 pm  

    This comment by ‘Birdy’ on the New Statesman thread should set things straight, given how skewed the reportage is here:

    The thing is neither of these two journalists come out smelling of roses in this squalid cat-fight.

    Gilligan’s employment in PressTV was at best questionable and at worst immoral. Particularly due to the fact that he remained in employment during Iran’s brutal crackdown of the Green Democracy movement following elections last year.

    Mehdi Hasan’s interview with Lutfur Rahman was a joke and deserves to be mocked. It was a series of pliant and superficial questions which provided a foil for Lutfur to spin his sophistry: “I absolutely believe in a secular society”, he said. This was snake oil, because his known alliances with the IFE and the theocratic Jamaat-e-Islam suggest otherwise. I am sure Ken Livinsgtone was happy with that “interview”, having backed Lutfur. This was a lovely propaganda piece in his favour.

    And the second:

    Mehdi’s own critcism of the Iranian regime has been awfully weak. Here he is advocating unquestioning acceptance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s word on Iran’s record of stockpiling nuclear weapons. The logic being, if Ayatollah Khamenei says it’s the truth, then it must be the truth. Right, Mehdi?

    “Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the stockpiling, the production, the use of nuclear weapons us forbidden under Islam. Spot on. Islamic Republic of Iran. The fatwa of the Supreme Leader”

    Mehdi Hasan is a good reminder that this field is not simply split between goodies and baddies – he obviously falls somewhere inbetween. But no honest journalist, and an Oxford graduate at that, can possibly apply the term McCarthyite to the current situation – it suggests either dishonesty or a shockingly poor grasp of the history of the Western world over the last 3/4 of the century.

  23. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 6:36 pm  

    harith,

    If our good host gets to appear on PressTV – which I have never seen – then what the heck is the issue about Gilligan?

    Particularly due to the fact that he remained in employment during Iran’s brutal crackdown of the Green Democracy movement following elections last year.

    As long as they are both free to say what they want to say, this seems to me to be a storm in a teacup.

    I’d assume Sunny gets paid for his time? As Gilligan obviously did.

    If the difference is between getting money on a freelance basis as opposed to getting money on an employee / employer basis then, because the latter contract is more demanding, and more likely to be abusive, you may have a point.

    Dunno harith.

  24. harith — on 23rd November, 2010 at 6:56 pm  

    As long as they are both free to say what they want to say, this seems to me to be a storm in a teacup.

    I tend to agree but perhaps you should address that to the person who wrote the original post.

    Birdy’s comments are spot on.

    There has never been a good reason to either work for PressTV or even to appear as a ‘guest’.

  25. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 7:12 pm  

    Harith.

    You will have to excuse me.

    Err…

    Who the heck is Birdy?

    I feel I have fallen into some sort of cultural trap, that, had I known it, would have swallowed me whole.

  26. Konnu — on 23rd November, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

    Whether or not there’s good reason to appear on Press TV, the difference in the case of Gilligan is his utter hypocrisy. The self-appointed crusader against uppity Muslims – oops, I mean ‘Islamists’ – thought nothing of working for the Iranian regime whilst fabricating accustions of links to extremism against others.

    Maybe, on reflection, Sunny is wrong to let Gilligan off lightly as a mere ‘laughing stock’. The truth is that Gilligan is a complete disgrace.

  27. Refresh — on 23rd November, 2010 at 7:38 pm  

    This is a curious debate. Arif makes good relevant points. Surely having people from an opposing point of view as presenters is a good thing. Reaches audiences you wouldn’t normally.

    Having said that I would question the net value of any of his contributions, given his sources are so highly motivated.

  28. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 7:42 pm  

    Konnu @ 26,

    There either is a good reason to appear on Press TV – which I have never watched – or there isn’t.

    Maybe, if you are right and I am wrong, Sunny should be reflecting on his own appearances.

    I doubt though that he does.

    It is by entering the lions den of opposition to these ideas that Sunny gets kudos.

    Least, he does from me.

    Frankly, an ‘uppity muslim’ is just as much a tit as an ‘uppity christian, or a uppity ‘jew’.

    Or an ‘uppity atheist’.

    All of them are people that prefer to divide rather than unite.

    To be honest, unrepresentative extremists drive me mad…

    (There is is an ill considered post by someone called Brownie, who thinks that you and I are a ‘bit less’ than the god like genius that comment on Harry’s Place.

    Who are a lot better that you dear reader, ’cause they write there and you are persons of dismerit, and, when they write there, they just mock you.

    Err, that would be Brownie.)

    What a psycofantic little toe rag.

    I might disagree on here, I obviously do, but I do not play Brownies racism card. I think he ought to say, ’cause he knows it is true:

    Whilst the vast majority of muslims do not agree with what some idiotic bastards say….

    And, our chum will pretend that that is not what he is saying.

    Brownie will be back, denying that he ever said anything like that, denying.

    Brownie, along with David T, and graham, etc. etc, want to make us fight.

    That is what these bastards do!

    All the time.

    I will repeat, ad infinitum, that I have never met a muslim that met their criteria.

    So, I do not want to be part of their nonsense, and frankly, dear reader, do I doubt you do either.

    Correct me if I am wrong…..

  29. Konnu — on 23rd November, 2010 at 8:34 pm  

    dc @28

    The regulars at Harry’s Place are vile bigots, not worthy for you to engage in reasoned, civilised discourse. Hardly surprising, then, that Gilligan is cast from the same hateful mould, and draws heavily on their poisonous output.

    When I wrote of ‘uppity Muslims’ I did not mean extremists, for in truth the real extremists are not the target of Gilligan’s constant lies and smears. What does he care of the murderous extremists who kill indiscriminately, or the hate-filled extremists who disrupt the commemoration of our fallen soliders? Nothing, as far as his writings go, for those he attacks are not extremists at all, just Muslims who have offended the exclusiveness of the ‘white establishment’ he so often mentions and defends. How dare they get involved in wider society, how dare they attract the attention and praise of the great and the good.

    So Gilligan and the HP regulars compromise the real struggle against extremism by using it to promote their own wicked agendas. Whatever ‘Islamism’ may once have meant, they now abuse the term ‘Islamist’ to ensure that those Muslims who don’t know their place in the house are sent back out into the fields where they cannot be seen or heard, let alone mingle with respectable white folk.

  30. Mark T — on 24th November, 2010 at 9:50 am  

    The regulars at Harry’s Place are vile bigots

    A lie.

  31. earwicga — on 24th November, 2010 at 10:04 am  

    It’s an opinion Mark T – one which many share.

  32. Mark T — on 24th November, 2010 at 10:12 am  

    It’s an opinion

    Really? You don’t say!

    There I was thinking that Konnu had dispassionately weighed up the evidence and come to an objective conclusion, rather than just typing a crude smear based on fuck all.

    Still, that was just “my opinion”. Thanks for setting me straight.

  33. Sunny — on 26th November, 2010 at 5:05 am  

    advocating unquestioning acceptance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s word on Iran’s record of stockpiling nuclear weapons.

    Oh no, Mehdi Hasan praised an Ayatollah for condemning nuclear weapons.

    Clearly, he must be an Ilamist!! Bring out the pitchforks and string him up boys!

  34. Fun Fun — on 26th November, 2010 at 6:49 am  

    Sunny Hundal: enabler of clerical fascists (just in case they are Brown People).

  35. Sarah AB — on 26th November, 2010 at 7:07 am  

    Konnu – the only relevant Gilligan reporting I can think of is the Dispatches programme – I don’t see how that fits in with your criticism. Obviously I don’t agree with you about HP either.

    I don’t have any problem with the post though – AG’s reasoning does seem a bit lame. I suppose I think Press TV is best avoided completely – but there is case against that position, and it’s more the inconsistencies in AG’s own position which are the problem.

  36. Konnu — on 26th November, 2010 at 9:57 am  

    Sarah AB @35

    I was thinking less about Gilligan’s pitiful Dispatches programme, and more about his relentless, twisted blog output in recent months. He’s a bigot and a liar. And he gets paid for it.

  37. harith — on 26th November, 2010 at 10:22 am  

    Oh no, Mehdi Hasan praised an Ayatollah for condemning nuclear weapons

    Clearly, he must be an Ilamist!! Bring out the pitchforks and string him up boys!

    Eh? He has “praised an Ayatollah for for condemning nuclear weapons”? No. That is not what the statement is saying at all.

    What it means is that Mehdi Hasan is prepared to dismiss any query of the statements by and thereby accept unconditionally the verbatim statement by Ayatollah Khamenei – that Iran is not stockpiling nuclear weapons.

    What do you call that? Well, what do you call people who accepted verbatim George Bush’s statement that Iraq had WMDs? Yes, that’s right – you would call them “neocons”.

    Would it be right to call Mehdi an Islamist for dismissing any questioning of the statements from the leader of one of the most tyrannical Islamist regimes in the world?

    That would depend on your sense of objectivity, your politics and to the extent you would go to appear biased.

  38. Konnu — on 26th November, 2010 at 10:32 am  

    harith @37

    Would it be right to call Mehdi an Islamist for dismissing any questioning of the statements from the leader of one of the most tyrannical Islamist regimes in the world?

    The regime that Gilligan worked – and probably still works – for.

  39. harith — on 26th November, 2010 at 10:38 am  

    Well Mehdi has already been caught out for lying about Gilligan’s employment status with Press TV. And Rajesh’s comment upthread bears repeating:

    This isn’t complicated. Hasan asks Gilligan when he will quit Press TV. Gilligan has already quit, whether 1 year or 6 months ago. Therefore Hasan was wrong and according to Gilligan , this error could have been easily found even by checking wikipedia.

    Sunny decides that the person who has been embarrassed by Hasan’s error is not Hasan but Gilligan.
    I just don’t see how this can be the case. I suspect that Sunny is trying to protect a friend by defending him. However, the defence is so weak it just makes Sunny look silly & Gilligan comes out of this looking great.

  40. harith — on 26th November, 2010 at 10:46 am  

    By the way, here is Ken Livingstone hosting (not guesting) a chat show for Press TV in November 2009.

    Will Mehdi be posting another angry polemic to his New Statesman blog criticising Ken Livingstone for taking the Iranian shilling? He should. It is, after all, the kind of consistency that he might want to uphold if he still wants to retain a shred of credibility and not be a “laughing stock” – by the author’s erm, standards.

    Will Sunny be condemning this too? Who knows.

    But one thing is certain, when Ken Livingstone hosts a chatshow for Press TV, it is a totally different set of ethical paramters for the likes of Mehdi Hasan and Sunny Hundal.

  41. Konnu — on 26th November, 2010 at 12:14 pm  

    harith @39

    You’ve only got Gilligan’s extremely unreliable word that Mehdi Hasan is wrong about his ‘employment status with Press TV’. You mention a comment by Rajesh, which talks about checking the Wikipedia entry. It currently says:

    Until December 2009, Gilligan presented a fortnightly programme for Press TV, the Iranian government’s English-language TV channel.

    It doesn’t say he left Press TV. Either he left then, as Mehdi spotted, came back in May. Or he never left at all, it’s just another gap between his programmes. Or, if Gilligan is to be believed at all, he left, came back, and left again.

    That’s why Gilligan is a laughing stock. He’s tried to throw it back at Mehdi Hasan, but Gilligan’s been caught out – again.

  42. harith — on 26th November, 2010 at 12:27 pm  

    Yeah but it’s meaningless unless Mehdi Hasan is prepared to condemn Ken Livingstone in exactly the same terms for doing exactly the same thing – presenting a show for Press TV.

  43. Konnu — on 26th November, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    harith @42

    Livingstone has nothing to do with it. Gilligan did a nasty blog piece against Mehdi Hasan’s interview with Lutfur Rahman, Mehdi Hasan responded by pointing out Gilligan’s hypocrisy.

    Sunny rightly draws attention to Gilligan’s absurd statement about leaving in December “I have not worked for Press TV since”, which Gilligan himself immediately contradicts – he has to, Mehdi Hasan had already revealed this contradiction.

    You have to remember that whenever Gilligan writes accusing others of lying, it usually means that it is he himself who is lying.

  44. harith — on 26th November, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    This is what Mehdi wrote on his NS blog regarding Gilligan:

    Lest we forget, the man is a paid employee of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He hosts his own show on the state-funded English-language Iranian broadcaster, Press TV.

    By which definition, Ken Livingstone was also paid to host a show on the state-funded English-language Iranian broadcaster, Press TV.

    It’s a very simple question: Will Mehdi Hasan be condemning Ken Livingstone for doing the same thing?

  45. damon — on 26th November, 2010 at 1:04 pm  

    Is this the kind of thing that Andrew Gilligan is called a laughing stock over? His Blog from a couple of days ago which had the headline:

    ”Islamists establish a bridgehead in Parliament”.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100065538/islamists-establish-a-bridgehead-in-parliament/

    He reckons that the Muslim rights group ”Engage” are Islamists. Are they? Reading some of the links he does on that page they certainly seem to have that look about them.
    For example, they wrote an article titled ”Alibhai-Brown continues her shrill crusade against Burka and Niqab-wearers.”

    Because she had strongly objected to what Caroline Spelman said about the burka on coming back from Afghanistan. This is what Alibhai-Brown had said:

    ‘Yes, Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, really did claim that the burka delivers its wearer blissful freedom. As a Muslim, you might expect me to agree with her, but I can’t. She is wrong. Her fatuous and ill-conceived defence of the burka rendered me apoplectic with fury.

    Does she even understand the harm she does by sanctioning this perversion of our faith?’

    You have to read their reply to her for yourself.

    My personal choice would be to get beyond name calling and inter blog rivalries and just discuss the issues at hand. I’m not a fan of Harry’s Place particularly and I have my doubts about Gilligan, but they both raise some interesting topics that might otherwise go unnoticed.
    The spat about Press TV is the least interesting IMO.

  46. Sarah AB — on 26th November, 2010 at 1:26 pm  

    Interesting – I don’t routinely read his blog though I think I have followed links to it in the past. ‘Islamists’ seems a bit strong but iengage seems to offer a frustrating mixture of moderate comments, for example disagreeing with Muslims who want to boycott the Royal Wedding (on Islamic rather than boredom grounds!), and completely valid criticism of injustice, such as a piece about anti-Muslim bigotry in France – mixed in with a rather gratuitous advert for the Walt and Mearsheimer Israel Lobby book and a rather silly piece about the Panorama programme written by someone before they’d even seen it. Some sensible comments follow, some just pointing out that the programme seems fair enough, others making *reasoned* objections to it – an apparent mistranslation of Arabic, and a point about tabloid tone and production values which I thought (having seen the programme) was fair.

  47. damon — on 26th November, 2010 at 3:19 pm  

    Yes they are a bit of a mixture of moderate and nutty.
    Why should they be concerned by Dr. Zakir Naik being banned from the UK particularly? Because they are for freedom of ideas? Well maybe that’s fair enough – but googling their head man’s name and pickled politics together, came up with this PP thread from a couple of years ago about a councillor from Dundee who objected to a photo of a puppy on a police poster.
    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2118

    Is he is the same guy?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.