Gilligan tries to get clever


by Sunny
5th July, 2011 at 1:30 am    

Oh check out Andrew Gilligan, he think he has one on me! Says on his latest blog-post:

Almost two years ago, incidentally, one progressive blogger alerted us to the way in which SREIslamic were extremists “putting on a moderate face” and “jumping on a polarising and emotive issue to build their own base and support.” That blogger was none other than Sunny Hundal – the very gentleman who last weekend was denouncing me for making exactly the same point, and cranking out desperate excuses for the East London Mosque.

Uh oh! Hypocrisy? Has Hundal been caught out secretly getting chummy with mad mullahs?

Poor Gilligan, if he only bothered to read what I wrote just a few days ago:

And to be clear: I’m not a fan of SRE Islamic at all. Neither am I of religious bigotry. But here is an example of Gilligan selectively targeting Muslims while saying nothing of Christian groups on the matter. I oppose religiously inspired bigotry – but a belief in civil liberties and free speech requires accepting that sometimes people will say things you don’t like.

Gilligan has of course ignored all the points I’ve made while hysterically accused everyone else of kowtowing to homophobia. But that is the way of the smear-mongers I guess.

It’s funny how people who claim to want more free speech lose their marbles when it comes to Muslims huh?

Update: Oh dear, oh dear. More of Andrew Gilligan’s shoddy journalism comes out in the wash.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Muslim,Organisations






48 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. anon — on 5th July, 2011 at 1:53 am  

    “I can only conclude that in this case Mr Hundal’s evident dislike of me, or the “right-wing media,” or something, has entirely undermined his judgment and intellectual integrity.”

    He got you there. LOL

  2. BenSix — on 5th July, 2011 at 2:36 am  

    Hangonasec – I thought the argument was whether this Patel feller was a homophobe and, if so, how that reflected on the East London Mosque. No one’s claimed he shouldn’t be allowed to speak, whatever his opinions.

    Anyway, I don’t think I could be accused of being a fan of Gilligan. (Remember the days of Kennite? Boy, that takes me back.) But I’d like to note that these objections to his coverage – “whatabout X”, “you’re just obsessed with Y”, “you want to silence Z” – are just the sort of rot that fans of Nadine Dorries and her Christianist compadres throw into the comment box at LibCon when you chew ‘em out.

  3. Auberon — on 5th July, 2011 at 6:48 am  

    The argument, made by Sunny and others, is that Gilligan lies and smears to try and make his case. Strip away the deceit, and there is no case. It’s not journalism, it’s propaganda.

  4. Jon F — on 5th July, 2011 at 1:06 pm  

    This is really poor from Sunny. He knows full well just how homophobic Hizb ut-Tahrir are (their books say that gay people should be executed “kill those who do it and the one to whom it is done”).

    OK, so Patel is no longer officially a member of HuT. That’s fine, but does he renounce these views? And what about all the other connections between SRE Islamic and HuT which Sunny discussed in 2009? Have they disappeared?

    Sunny, it’s time to accept that simply because you don’t like Andrew Gilligan doesn’t mean he’s always wrong.

  5. AbuF — on 5th July, 2011 at 3:17 pm  

    “Gilligan has of course ignored all the points I’ve made…”

    No, he does not. He addresses each in some detail. Did you actually read his article?

  6. Basile Boli — on 5th July, 2011 at 3:43 pm  

    Just read Harrys Place’s latest attack on Sunny

    This, a pick from the comments…

    “His only consequence is that he’s called upon from time to time by the Guardian for comment as a ‘professional ethnic’.

    And in that guise, he is truly remarkable as a thoroughly nasty, ethno-centric, whitey-hating and racist prick.”

    Remarkable….

  7. damon — on 5th July, 2011 at 4:55 pm  

    I find this whole debate far from ideal.
    Gilligan is correct to point out that Yusuf Patel is an ”anti-gay campaigner”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92673hOm5U

    Patel names a school in Leytonstone and rails against LBGT week at the school. And talks about the need for ”muslims” to be governors in schools to stop that kind of teaching.
    If backward christians had the hold over the wider population that people like Yusuf Patel can have within the muslim community, then we would be in a very bad place.

    But I agree with one of the commentators on Gilligan’s blog who said it’s a bit of a joke that the Telegraph and it’s readers were now champions of gay rights all of a sudden, when just a few years ago most of them would have been solidly behind Section 28.

  8. jamal — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:09 pm  

    the squirming of gillian is very amusing to see

    to see comments defending this liar whose story has been shredded is just pathetic.

  9. AbuF — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:40 pm  

    Show how he has been “shredded”, Jamat – and I might be convinced that you can actually read.

  10. AbuF — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:41 pm  

    Oh – and that was not a typo… ;)

  11. TORY — on 5th July, 2011 at 6:27 pm  

    Sunny caught red handed. In favour of exposing what everyone knows is going on, when he gets the journalistic credit of course. Against in when AG shows what everyone in the world knows – he’s a better journalist.

  12. Sarah AB — on 5th July, 2011 at 7:45 pm  

    @ Basile – that was Reza V, who also comments here. Yuck.

  13. JB — on 5th July, 2011 at 8:50 pm  

    I’m sorry, Sunny has answered all the points Gilligan raised against him. As for the other points, i’ve already dismantled them in a previous post:

    Saying, “Go and attack Muslims or Gays” is wrong. Saying Islam is not a correct way of life, or homosexuality is not correct way of life is not wrong. It’s just a matter of opinion.

    Yes, other religions do say that homosexuality is not allowed – the Catholic Church and Orthodox Jews are quite vociferous. What about parliaments?? The Northern Ireland DUP party doesn’t agree with it, and it’s the main party in NI, which has the blessing of the British government! David Cameron – Gilligan and the Telegraph’s Tory friends – were even considering aligning with the DUP after the hung parliament.

    Gilligan LIE 1: Gilligan claims the Telegraph apologised for “a 50-word,” “news-in-brief” piece that he did not write. Gilligan had the article on his blog, under his name, and now it’s taken down. Proof:

    http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/02/uk-muslim-extremist-leader-jailed-for.html

    Telegraph’s apology clearly relates to the now defunct Gilligan blog (they say the article is called “Extremist leader jailed for child abuse” which was the one on his blog):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8550515/East-London-Mosque.html

    A lie Islamophiobia-Watch picked on:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/6/1/torygraph-apologises-to-east-london-mosque.html

    Gilligan Lie 2: He suggests that the preacher concerned left HuT because it wasn’t hardline enough on sexuality. By now it’s clear Gilligan is making opinions on the hoof! Anyone who know anything about HuT, know they have clear opinions on sexuality and voice them regularly. They have to, if they want to follow a caliphate movement! The ignorance/duplicity of Gilligan is mind-boggling.

    Gilligan has lied in these articles throughout. Firstly, he’s spun it to be something it isn’t. He is basically saying the ELM is holding some sort of hate forum against gays, when clearly it wasn’t.

    But do you want to know who holds a hate forum? Andrew Gilligan. Look at the comments on his blogs below from his disciples. And what does Gilligan and Telegraph do about it? Nothing!

  14. Don — on 5th July, 2011 at 9:41 pm  

    The original question, I think, was whether Gilligan’s piece was good, honest investigative journalism or a shabby, shabby grudge piece which omitted salient facts, misrepresented the events and played heavily on innuendo. Sunny took the latter position and so far, on that point, I haven’t seen a good argument against.

    Whether on not the actual event breached the ELM’s concordat with the LGBT community is another question, and on that point, I haven’t seen a good argument for. I twas not, as far as I can see, an event at which LGBT issues were raised or part of the agenda.

    So, that leaves us with the question, does the presence of people with a background of homophobic speech at a non-related event breach the agreement?

    Continue to have fun with that, but on the original point, was the article trash? Of course it was.

  15. Ravi Naik — on 5th July, 2011 at 10:23 pm  

    It’s funny how people who claim to want more free speech lose their marbles when it comes to Muslims huh?

    No – this story is not about freedom of speech or religious bigotry, nor is it about progressive values , gay rights, Muslims or a particular mosque.

    As @13 and @14 pointed out, it is about journalistic integrity or in this case the lack of, and the anatomy of a smear. If you allow Gilligan and HP to define this story as something else – as you seem to have done in this post, you lose.

    The point that should come across is that we expect honest reporting regardless of whether it defends values we agree upon.

  16. damon — on 5th July, 2011 at 11:05 pm  

    I take your point Ravi Naik, but it’s been a miserable ‘debate’ overall I have found.
    Is it not possible to just call a spade a spade?
    Can the ELM and the Islamic Forum of Europe be justifiably said to have a negative influence on public life? Or are they benign and just religious institutions that are not understood properly? And the victims of islamophobia.

    Maybe the fault is the nature of these internet forums and blogs. It’s frustrating that things have to become so convoluted and polarised.

  17. ThomasFowler — on 6th July, 2011 at 12:26 am  

    @Damon:

    It’s got blown out of all proportion. The effects on the ground are not what is described by Mr Gilligan and his disciples. Gay people are not being attacked the minute they exit Whitechapel tube station.

    I don’t personally agree with the line taken on homosexuality, and I would not want to be a gay Muslim. But I do think it has been most deliberately spun in this case (and others) to be something it is not.

    The statistics first of all were spun by Gillian and Harry’s Place (homophobic attacks had risen higher elsewhere, in non-Muslim areas); there was no attempt to say what the attacks that did occur actually were – thugs (big drug/gang problem in the area); and local LGBT individuals that I know do not support this nihilistic, Taliban-esque vision that the barmy cranks populating some of the Telegraph’s comment section, and parts of HP too sadly, seem to believe. There is a childlike willingness to believe (on the part of the conspiracy nuts reading) and mendaciousness (on the part of those in possession of the facts) in reporting this “lumpen block” that essentially, the narrative goes, wants to take over and take us all back to Afghanistan.

    We recently (the public) castigated Johann Hari for his reporting methods. How do we view similar from the Telegraph’s London editor?

    See this analysis of how AG lied about a paedophile being at the mosque:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/7/4/lies-and-andrew-gilligan-who-accused-the-east-london-mosque.html

    My view is that we cannot have an accurate idea of what is going on if we are relying on such compromised journalists for our sources of information. Regardless of what may or may not be going on. Surely such sensitive issues require a calm and patient investigation – not the twists and turns of someone seeking a headline?

    And this is how Andrew Gilligan’s own paper wrote about him in 2004 – rather eye-opening I’d say:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1453173/The-extraordinary-world-of-Andrew-Gilligan.html

  18. Sundeep Vikram — on 6th July, 2011 at 12:54 am  

    “(homophobic attacks had risen higher elsewhere, in non-Muslim areas)”

    Could you provide proof of this statement, please? I can’t find anything to support it.

    “Gay people are not being attacked the minute they exit Whitechapel tube station.”

    Actually there have been numerous reports of abuse and assault, and then there is the mass attack at the George and Dragon pub. Over all Mr. Fowler you seem engaged in wishful thinking or deception. Either way you’re a bit of an ass.

  19. Lamia — on 6th July, 2011 at 1:00 am  

    @ Sunny,

    “But here is an example of Gilligan selectively targeting Muslims while saying nothing of Christian groups on the matter. I oppose religiously inspired bigotry – but a belief in civil liberties and free speech requires accepting that sometimes people will say things you don’t like.

    Gilligan has of course ignored all the points I’ve made.”

    But your ‘points’ were all irrelevant deflections from the question of whether ELM had reneged on its promise to bar speakers who had made expressed homophobic views. It did make that promise and it did break it – even if Andrew Gilligan said so. whether it did so in the company of Christian biogts ofr not is neither here nor there. You have tried to move the goalposts. It won’t do.

    @ Damon,

    “it’s a bit of a joke that the Telegraph and it’s readers were now champions of gay rights all of a sudden, when just a few years ago most of them would have been solidly behind Section 28.”

    It’s a bit of joke, sure, but it’s not nearly such an unpleasant joke as the fact that so many of those who were pro- gay rights a few years ago are now in the forefront of apologists for vicious homophobes. At least the Telegraph and co are moving in a progressive direction on this point. Sunny and co have moved in the opposite direction into the reactionary camp.

    @ Don,

    “So, that leaves us with the question, does the presence of people with a background of homophobic speech at a non-related event breach the agreement?”

    Of course it does. Which part of a promise never again to host speakers who have expressed homophobic views do you not understand?

    “Continue to have fun with that, but on the original point, was the article trash? Of course it was.”

    Bull. ELM promised never again to host speakers who had expressed homophobic views. It has broken that promise. That is a fact, however much you and Sunny try to pretend that it is irrelevant to an article on broken promises about hosting speakers who have expressed homophobic views. And there’s nothing ‘fun’ about being on the receiving end of homophobia, you pillock.

    @ Thomas Fowler,

    “My view is that we cannot have an accurate idea of what is going on if we are relying on such compromised journalists for our sources of information.”

    Then maybe you should encourage the guardian and Independent to report on this matter in order to give some balance. But since they flatly ignored the Gay Free Zone poster story, ‘balance’ is not what we’re likely to get if they ever do write about the issue.

    “Gay people are not being attacked the minute they exit Whitechapel tube station.2

    No one is saying they are, so perhaps you could stop your pathetic strawmanning – it’s boring. It is the provenly bigoted ELM under discussion, not Tower Hamlets as a whole, or Islam or all Muslims, as you have previously dishonestly tried to pretend.

  20. ThomasFowler — on 6th July, 2011 at 8:08 am  

    This book covers part of the trend we’re witnessing here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-among-the-truthers-by-jonathan-kay.html

    @Sundeep:

    There was a vicious attack, you are correct, in 2008 I believe. My point is that we need to debate the overall facts, not the headlines: there is not a war against gays in Tower Hamlets and the effects of any preachers that appeared once at the ELM is negligible on a national level.

    On the whole, there is also far too much trolling type behaviour here. Calling people an “ass” (Sundeep) or Lamia’s frequent screams at opponents do nothing to help or support their arguments. It simply seems to confirm that Gillian has a bunch of conspiracy-laden zealots as his disciples.

    No-one should support homophobia. No-one should also misrepresent facts to support conspiracy theories.

    We need to take the emotion out of this. I know the East End. I know that homophobic incidents have taken place. I know that homophobic speakers have appeared at the East London Mosque. I know that the community holds deeply-conservative views. But that does not equate to a gay-bashing plague: the reality on the ground does not support that thesis. Those holding alternate views should also be prepared to accept that their champion of truth might have twisted facts.

  21. ThomasFowler — on 6th July, 2011 at 8:38 am  

    A response to Johann Hari’s (now a somewhat compromised source) claims on Muslim homophobia:

    http://aethelreadtheunread.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/can-we-talk-about-johann-haris-shoddy-journalism-now/

    When LGBT members from outside the community tried to march in the East End, it was revealed that their leader was a former leader of the lovely, lovely English Defence League (EDL).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12569166

    A take on the statistics:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/6/11/homophobia-in-tower-hamlets-how-a-small-group-of-bigots-are.html

    Those who cry for conflict should beware of what they get.

  22. Rachel — on 6th July, 2011 at 9:30 am  

    So many things potentially to respond to, but I think my only intervention will be to say that no one should hold up Islamophobia Watch to be of higher journalistic standards than Gilligan.

    When I first started looking at it I actually thought it was a spoof site. Now I see it is deadly serious, but with a pernicious intent – alongside the commendable task of exposing anti-Muslim bigotry this site takes it upon itself to trash dissenting voices of Muslims – be they secular, feminist, or otherwise not adhering to the conservative standards of the best funded and best connected Islamic groups.

    Thomas, you are right to ridicule the frothing types who believe Tower Hamlets is some kind of anti-gay war zone (I live here and also know that’s bollocks) but that doesn’t mean you have to defend the conservative Islamic groups either.

    Let’s stake out a new territory in the borough, looking to neither Gilligan nor Bob Pitt to set the terms of debate.

  23. ThomasFowler — on 6th July, 2011 at 10:29 am  

    @Rachel: A very sound point. Now, if only we could remove the corrupt and communitarian politics, we’d be getting somewhere.

  24. Alsop — on 6th July, 2011 at 6:36 pm  

    “Now, if only we could remove the corrupt and communitarian politics, we’d be getting somewhere.”

    But then Sunny wouldn’t have a job and would lose the only chance he ever has of gettin’ laid.

  25. jamal — on 6th July, 2011 at 7:03 pm  

    abuf

    the drugs are clearly not working in your case.

    lamia

    you clearly do not live in tower hamlets or stepped anywhere near east london mosque otherwise you would not be typing such utter garbage.

  26. Lamia — on 6th July, 2011 at 10:38 pm  

    “you clearly do not live in tower hamlets or stepped anywhere near east london mosque otherwise you would not be typing such utter garbage.”

    what have I typed that is garbage, and what does living in Tower Hamlets or not have to do with whether or not large numbers of homphobic hate preachers have been guests at ELM over recent years? They have. It’s established fact, irrespective of the amount of strawman excuses you and Thomas Fowler try to make.

  27. Auberon — on 6th July, 2011 at 10:46 pm  

    Lamia, have any of these preachers been guests at ELM since it was discovered they were homophobic? No. So, move on – they have.

  28. Lamia — on 6th July, 2011 at 11:34 pm  

    “have any of these preachers been guests at ELM since it was discovered they were homophobic? No. So, move on – they have.”

    Er, no. The point of the story is that they HAVEN’T – as illustrated by this latest case of a known homophobe preaching at ELM only a couple of weeks ago, AFTER ELM promised not to host anymore.

    The apologists for ELM here are not very good, are they? Still, it’s hard to defend the indefensible, and that’s what you are trying to do.

  29. AbuF — on 7th July, 2011 at 1:19 am  

    @jamal #25

    abuf

    the drugs are clearly not working in your case.

    Not half as clever as you think you are: if the drugs were working, then presumably I would be labouring under the narcotic delusion that everything is peachy at ELM and the homophobic bigots that are clearly working there are in fact the truly egalitarian breeders of fluffy little kittens of a wonderfully psychedelic kind.

    Idiot.

  30. Mam Tor — on 7th July, 2011 at 1:55 am  

    @ThomasFowler

    A take on the statistics:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/6/11/homophobia-in-tower-hamlets-how-a-small-group-of-bigots-are.html

    “the Bangladeshi youth later found guilty of stabbing Hemsley was initially released on bail pending the results of forensic tests, and he took the opportunity to rob a 12-year-old girl of £5 at knifepoint. Does this really sound like an individual whose actions were primarily motivated by his faith?”

    Racist rubbish. Members of Faith groups that break the rules are ‘no true believer’. Pure bolleaux.

  31. Mam Tor — on 7th July, 2011 at 2:06 am  

    @ ThomasFowler

    Still with the conversative views? Although now they are ‘deeply-conservative’?

    This is a highly emotional description, despite your desire to remove emotive arguments.

    Which views are you protecting as ‘conservative’ and which as bigotted?

    We don’t describe the BNP or EDL as ‘conservative’, why describe others are ‘conservative’, except to present them as historically benign rather than repugnant?

  32. Auberon — on 7th July, 2011 at 6:55 am  

    @Lamia: you do yourself no credit by dismissing anyone who questions Gilligan’s line against the ELM as an apologist.

    Further, if you buy into Gilligan’s viewpoint that someone saying homosexuality is against their religion is by definition a homophobe (which is what Patel has done), then you are being disingenuous suggesting you were holding the mosque to their promise when, by definition, all the Muslims who go there every day are in your terms homophobes.

    There’s probably nothing the ELM, or any mosque, can do to satisfy you unless they close down and the Muslims are ‘dealt with’.

  33. Lamia — on 7th July, 2011 at 8:34 am  

    @ Auberon,

    “There’s probably nothing the ELM, or any mosque, can do to satisfy you unless they close down and the Muslims are ‘dealt with’.”

    Where did you get ‘dealt with’ from?

    Oh, I see, you just inserted it to imply that I had said it, or that I am in agreement with something like ethnic cleansing against Muslims.

    It says quite a bit that you are reduced to making such smears.

    As for what could be done about ELM to satisfy me, it is quite simple:

    1. The taxpayer should stop funding the place to the tune of millions of pounds. We don’t fund Ian Paisley’s or Stephen Green’s church.

    2. Next time some bigot plays ‘Spot the Fag’ or some such stunt there, both they and the insitution should be prosecuted.

    3. People like yourself should stop presenting a place that has over years hosted numerous homophobic and anti-semitic preachers as if they are victims. They are not. ELM are bullying bigots whose response to being caught out is to make a show of being the real victims. They have some useful bigoted idiots on the left who are willing to whitewash them and smear those they demonise, but there are fewer nowadays. Most people have got wise to the bully’s tactics.

  34. ThomasFowler — on 9th July, 2011 at 12:38 pm  

    I invite those who have received most (all) of their information from the internet to go down to Tower Hamlets and speak to the mosque on the ground, as well as its opponents, before making up their mind.

    Things have a habit of getting more complicated when you look at it from all dimensions and angles.

    There is no substitute for seeing the reality for yourself.

  35. AbuF — on 9th July, 2011 at 12:54 pm  

    So, Thomas, your recipe is:

    (1) Ignore the evidence from any media that ELM persistently promote homophobic, racist, misogynist, sectarian bigots who sometimes themselves promote violence as a means of achieving their ends;

    (2) Accept the *word* of ELM that, all evidence aside, they are a progressive, inclusive community of believers who harbour no ill will to others on any grounds whatsoever.

    I see.

    So, people present witness evidence at a trial. You ignore this in reaching your conclusions about the guilt and innocence of the accused. Instead, you simply turn to the accused and ask him baldly, “did you do it?” And when the accused replies in the negative, you conclude on this assertion alone that he must be innocent.

    Brilliant.

    I do hope you never do jury service.

  36. ThomasFowler — on 9th July, 2011 at 8:09 pm  

    To repeat: take your existing evidence; go collect further evidence on the ground to corroborate (go visit the institution in question, for example, and actually speak to them); then decide.

    But as to what you are deciding, beyond “close it down!!!11!!” I am not sure. Have you even spoken to anyone in the Muslim community there?

  37. Auberon — on 10th July, 2011 at 11:08 am  

    AbuF, if you ever do jury service, you’ll be alarmed to learn that in the English legal system after the prosecution has made its case, you can’t jump straight to a verdict, no matter how convinced you may be. Evidence is then challenged by the defence to reveal any flaws.

    And I dare say that if it were found that much of the prosecution evidence was deliberate lies, smears and twisting of the truth, a jury may decide the defendant was not guilty as charged, if the judge hadn’t already decided there was no case to answer!

  38. AbuF — on 10th July, 2011 at 11:32 am  

    ThomasFowler

    Nice try, but no banana

    I was not contesting an understanding of the British trial system. I was pointing out your ludicrous and desperate attempt to deny any and all evidence, save the testimony of the accused.

    Next.

  39. AbuF — on 10th July, 2011 at 11:34 am  

    @ Auberon (above).

    I think it is quite quaint the way that ELM activists always deploy “White” names when they come onto sites to defend the indefensible.

  40. damon — on 10th July, 2011 at 5:01 pm  

    It’s a bit pointless going on about this.
    This is one of those fault lines where debate across it is impossible. I’m somewhere in the middle and think that ELM is definitely suspect for what it has done in the past, but that’s really not the very narrow point this thread was making. Gilligan is wrong on a few things he’s said and it doesn’t matter about anything else he has said that might be right, because those are off topic.

    Who is to blame for framing discussions so that they quickly form sectarian fault lines is another question altogether. And a much more interesting one I’d say.

  41. Auberon — on 10th July, 2011 at 8:26 pm  

    @AbuF #39

    I didn’t choose my name because I’m white, but much as it may upset your prejudices, and irrelevant though it should be to the discussion, I am white, and defending the ELM from Gilligan’s lies hardly makes me an ‘ELM activist’.

    I don’t know which is more pitiful, your assumptions about colour or your support for the liar Gilligan.

  42. AbuF — on 10th July, 2011 at 10:53 pm  

    Why? Should all Muslims be Brown, then, Auberon?

  43. AbuF — on 10th July, 2011 at 10:54 pm  

    A shame you cannot bring yourself *not* to stand shoulder to shoulder with patent bigots, Auberon.

  44. steve — on 11th July, 2011 at 3:20 pm  

    “I think it is quite quaint the way that ELM activists always deploy “White” names when they come onto sites to defend the indefensible.”

    And how you attack PP and Sunny on Spittoon then come and post on here, Abu F

  45. AbuF — on 12th July, 2011 at 12:28 am  

    I also attack him, quite trenchantly too, here as well, “steve”.

    Your point is, exactly?

  46. AbuF — on 12th July, 2011 at 12:31 am  

    What you, and doubtless legions of others, fail to understand is how a Muslim convert is – nonetheless – not willing to buy into the Ismlaist bull that passes for Islam in too many circles.

    Perhaps you have a Pakistani mate who has got Islamist Allah?

    I happen to think your mate is a wanker, whether he is South Asian or not.

    Gerrit?

  47. Mars' pointy stick — on 12th July, 2011 at 4:36 am  

    perhaps you could enlighten? us AbuF, are you a convert to Islam

  48. douglas clark — on 12th July, 2011 at 6:46 am  

    You’ve got to admire AbuF. Frankly, he doesn’t give an inch.

    I recall a Canadian taking the US to bits once. AbuF is in the same league.

    American: “We have developed military interventions against all countries, including Canada.”

    Canadian: “Have a look at the White House wall.”

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.