More on Inigo Wilson


by Sunny
17th August, 2006 at 7:07 pm    

My source tells me that contrary to the received wisdom regarding this Orange employee, he wasn’t actually suspended due to the definition of Islamophobic or Palestinians. You see, Wilson’s job is to persuade people to accept mobile phone masts near their homes and schools. He has to “consult” local communities on behalf of Orange.

This is another ‘definition’ in the article: Counsultation – a formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time. London’s Congestion Charge for instance.

An initial reply by the company’s spokesperson Stuart Jackson said: “Though we respect the right of our employees to do so, Orange does not hold or express opinions on such matters, therefore the article you referenced does not in any way represent the views of our organisation.”

But I’m told: It was later that Golin Harris which manages the Orange account decided to suspend him after reading the whole article.
Stuart Bruce makes the same point. I can see how that may be more embarassing for Orange. The MPAC crew clearly don’t have as much influence as they think.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media






101 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Bloggerheads

    Inigo Wilson…

    Given what’s happening in this little corner of the world, I feel it important to make a statement regarding the Inigo Wilson affair. Happily, I can do so simply by agreeing with statements made by Dave: Backword – Zip Your……


  2. Francis Sedgemore » Blog Archive » Employed, and a blogger? Maybe not for long.

    [...] There are questions being asked about the motives of Inigo Wilson and his supporters, and the way in which Orange is handling the PR damage control exercise. This is only partially relevant, and we should focus on the fact that an employee has got into trouble with his employer for blogging, as this impacts on the blogging community as a whole. I would imagine that only a small number of bloggers are freelance journalists or otherwise self-employed, and the freedom of speech issue is vitally important. We should not let ourselves become distracted from this by PR spin. [...]


  3. L'Ombre de l'Olivier

    More Lefty Lexicon…

    The good news is that according to the comments to the previous blog post, and also I think seen on some other comment page (samizdata?) the sound chaps (and chapesses) at Conservative Home are “never going to take it down or amend it”. Unlike certai…




  1. Roger — on 17th August, 2006 at 7:37 pm  

    “Consultation – a formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time. London’s Congestion Charge for instance….”
    or Orange discussing whether the local community wants a ‘phone mast next to a school. Not surprising they don’t want him any more. IT’ll cost a fortune in PR to get over it.

  2. Don — on 17th August, 2006 at 7:39 pm  

    ‘ Counsultation – a formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time. London’s Congestion Charge for instance.’

    So Wilson has (inadvertently) revealed that he is disillusioned about the sincerity of Orange’s ‘consultation’ process. Of which he is a part. A complication, but the key issues remain.

  3. Roger — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:03 pm  

    Different issues. Wilson has destroyed his own credibility when it comes to consulting people.

  4. leon — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:04 pm  

    Wow this guy is a bit of an idiot isn’t he!?

  5. leon — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:06 pm  

    So the moral of this story is say what you want online but don’t be foolish enough to bite the hand that feeds…

  6. Refresh — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:18 pm  

    I had gone through the exercise of re-reading his article & lexicon after removing ‘Islamophobia’,'Palestinian’,'Israel’ – and you know I think he is ripe for the Monday Club!

  7. Refresh — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:20 pm  

    Sunny

    “The MPAC crew clearly don’t have as much influence as they think.”

    So it wasn’t any principles at work at all, just the fact MPAC was involved. How was it involved? People had self-started a campaign through use of their forum.

    Ah well. Such is life.

  8. Don — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:26 pm  

    Leon,

    ‘ don’t be foolish enough to bite the hand that feeds… ‘

    I think you may have hit the nail there, mate.

    Refresh,

    ‘The Monday Club’ a horrible crew, but not proscribed.

  9. Refresh — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:38 pm  

    Are you being argumentative again?

  10. Don — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:39 pm  

    Ha.

  11. Refresh — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:52 pm  

    Sunny,

    could you please check with your sources of the liklihood that he was already having problems with his employer.

    In 2003 Bracknell News reported as follows:

    ‘Orange spokesman Inigo Wilson said: “There is no evidence of the adverse health effects of mobile phone masts. “If anything the most dangerous health effects come from using handsets rather than from living near masts.’

    Also on other thread.

    If this is all correct then Samuel Coates et al, may have bigger problems living this down. Jennifer’s Ear anyone?

  12. Francis — on 17th August, 2006 at 9:56 pm  

    Of course the real problem with the “Consultation” definition is that it is precisely the sort of definition that large numbers of people believe to be fundamentally true. Just a few days ago I had a friend tell me that the purpose of a public enquiry was to get the answer the government wanted while making it seem like it was listening.

    My only minor criticism of that definition is that it applies to governments of all stripes not just ZANU labour. In fact reading the list I would say that although some of the definitions are lefty specific many are more statist than anythign else and would apply just as much to a “right wing” statist government such as the one we have here in France.

  13. David T — on 17th August, 2006 at 11:13 pm  

    Now, if that is true, it really is a VERY stupid thing for a professional spokesman to be saying.

    I do not know what the thought process within Orange was, in relation to the sacking. It may be that the key consideration was the ‘consultation’ defintion, and I doubt I’ll find out. However that really would be conduct which fundamentally conflicted with his professional life.

    Its a Ratners’ moment.

  14. . — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:48 am  

    If that’s true, all’s well that ends well. Patronising idiot gets sacked for showing his true colours, rather than just writing a load of unfunny crap that some decided to complain about rather than expose as stupidity.

  15. Sam Coates — on 18th August, 2006 at 8:36 am  

    Copied comment from ConHome, I’m going to keep saying this until I’m blue in the face…

    The definitions are not Inigo’s perception of these terms. They are his perception, expressed in a satirical way, of the Left’s usage of the terms

    …How is this so hard to grasp??

    If the definition of consultation was his personal belief there is he wouldn’t have the job he has. Indeed, he is better placed than most to judge government consultations.

  16. Kulvinder — on 18th August, 2006 at 12:28 pm  

    The definitions are not Inigo’s perception of these terms. They are his perception, expressed in a satirical way, of the Left’s usage of the terms

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense, his satire must be based on personal opinion. He isn’t the god given authority on the usage of the terms and those on the ‘left’ would disagree with him. Hes used some form knowledge to make that post and unless he was juxtaposing actual conservative policy against ‘the left’ his own opinions must have come into play.

  17. Bert Preast — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:21 pm  

    Yes, this would clear it all up rather tidily, wouldn’t it?

    So were MPAC lying when they claimed to have received emails stating:

    “Good evening,

    Following on from your email, I thought you should be aware of this.
    We have received a number of complaints regarding the content of an article written by an Orange employee and published on an independent website which has offended some of our customers.

    We take the opinions of our customers very seriously and believe that this matter warrants further investigation. We have therefore suspended an employee while this investigation takes place.

    Kind regards,

    Orange”

    Several of them seemed to receive the same email at the same time – around 1800 on Tuesday 15th.

    Looks like the Orange PR machine doing damage control to me.

  18. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:24 pm  

    The ridiculous thing is that arab bloggers are even discussing this now so it’s bound to get into arab media which again is no good for orange who has businesses in the arab world where they will ALL be offended.

  19. leon — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:25 pm  

    Anon, you got any links for that?

  20. Kulvinder — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

    I don’t envy Orange’s position…stuck between two groups of loons.

  21. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:40 pm  

    Whats this personal stuff between sunny and MPAC. I think it spoils the story having such things in there and comes across as very immature

  22. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:43 pm  

    hahah kulvinder’s right! the funniest thign is that the tories are trying to repackage themselves as centrist and the right wingers are sooo upset. if you read conhome you can see the reality of consevative opinion. these guys hate muslims and hate asians. sikhs and hindu asians are at best the good niggers to the sort if people posting on there.

  23. Francis Sedgemore — on 18th August, 2006 at 1:46 pm  

    “Whats this personal stuff between sunny and MPAC.”

    Sunny is a journalist who has on more than one occasion stuck his neck out and criticised MPAC, and been the the subject of intense vilification in return. I can criticise Sunny for a number of things, but this is not one of them. There is nothing immature about it.

  24. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 2:00 pm  

    forget the history mate. im just reading it right now. and the way the blog entry ends is immature. sure its just a blog so rock on. but take this out of the blogospehere and …

  25. Sam Coates — on 18th August, 2006 at 2:48 pm  

    “these guys hate muslims and hate asians. sikhs and hindu asians are at best the good niggers to the sort if people posting on there.”

    Sigh.

    This whole thing is getting more and more pathetic.

    Give me one tiny scrap of evidence for this? Not only has ConHome never published anything racist and deleted comments that were – we have published anti-racist articles such as Inigo’s was.

    I hate the fact that I feel I have to justify myself, but for one thing my long-term girlfriend is Iranian/Indian.

    How does that figure into your prejudices?

  26. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 4:42 pm  

    “Give me one tiny scrap of evidence for this? Not only has ConHome never published anything racist and deleted comments that were – we have published anti-racist articles such as Inigo’s was.”

    Okay – “Who says Osama Bin Laden has distorted his religion?” – is that one tiny scrap enough or do i have to wade through all the sick islamophobia and racism on your site? probably a left wing journo will come along and do it soon anyway. you have been warned.

    “I hate the fact that I feel I have to justify myself, but for one thing my long-term girlfriend is Iranian/Indian. How does that figure into your prejudices?”

    Your sliding it into an iranian/indian is about as relevant as whether and how frequently you masturbate to maggie thatcher. Not relevant.

  27. Francis Sedgemore — on 18th August, 2006 at 4:53 pm  

    One of the MPAC-associated complainers has left a comment on my blog, and included a link to a graphic that I may be forced to pull. Your comments would be appreciated.

  28. Amir — on 18th August, 2006 at 5:57 pm  

    Here’s the graphic.

  29. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 6:02 pm  

    Hey Manuel Coates

    “Islam is the same imperialistic death cult today that it was when that deranged, violent, psychopathic, pedophile, the “prophet” Mohammed, created it.” Peter Holubz @ 04.30

    some more islamopobia on your comments board. keep on slidin.

    like i said the conservatives will never change. bunch of scumbag bigots. theymight only be attacking muslims now but tomorrowand yesterday they will attack the rest of the asians. hindus and sikhs are just the good niggers for now.

  30. anon — on 18th August, 2006 at 6:12 pm  

    not all conservatces are bad but there are too many bigots in there especially on bigotsHome website.

  31. Amir — on 18th August, 2006 at 6:24 pm  

    Anon,

    If only those damn Tories were more like, err, I dunno, Yvonne Ridley.

    Ridders me’ Smidders!!

  32. Bert Preast — on 18th August, 2006 at 7:04 pm  

    anon wrote: “like i said the conservatives will never change. bunch of scumbag bigots. theymight only be attacking muslims now but tomorrowand yesterday they will attack the rest of the asians. hindus and sikhs are just the good niggers for now.”

    Typing that give you the shakes, did it? You want to calm down. Relax, enjoy your problems.

    If enough people give paranoid cretins like this any credence, we are all truly doomed. And I even hate tories.

  33. jonz — on 18th August, 2006 at 8:18 pm  

    Anon. Pot. Calling. Kettle. Black.

  34. Francis Sedgemore — on 18th August, 2006 at 8:23 pm  

    Asghar Bukhari has just made a complete tit of himself on More 4 News, and this has cheered me up no end.

  35. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 9:29 pm  

    Francis, seen the graphic. I can’t see why you’d need to pull it.

    If the excerpts are as ‘anon’ shows then Samuel Coates has a problem. Might even need to be disbanded – a bit like the Young Conservatives.

    Lets cut the bullshit. Its vile stuff.

  36. Don — on 18th August, 2006 at 9:58 pm  

    Refresh,

    Don’t be absurd. Check it out for yourself; you’ll be bored witless before you find anything remotely offensive. I just looked at the first 24-hour of commenting and they nearest thing to offensive I found was;

    Not the first Tory to have his career cut short by an orange – remember Stephen Milligan.

    Seriously, check it out; if you conclude that the general tenor of that site is seriously bigoted, I’ll take your judgement seriously. But anon (and I’m assuming he’s the same anon that was trying to gee things up on the thread, and probably the same anon that leaves nasty comments on lady’s blogs)is a mere troll.

  37. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:09 pm  

    Anon – can you point us to those quotes you’ve given above.

    I don’t have the energy to do a search of the blog.

  38. mol — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:10 pm  

    The “definition” of “Consultation” , citing the London Congestion Charge as an example, is actually true.

    Ken Livingstone has explicity ignored the opposition views expressed by the majority of people who participated, and he and his political appointees have patronised anyone who has pointed out the broken promises and failures of the scheme – no cash for public transport (it has all gone into extra payments for Capita plc), no net effect on congestion, no improvement in air pollution etc.

    Mast Action UK seem to have plenty of experience of Orange’s “consultations” over the siting of mobile phone masts.

    UK Government mobile phone mast SiteFinder website

  39. Don — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:17 pm  

    Refresh,

    Languid or what?

    Peel him a grape while you’re at it.

  40. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:36 pm  

    I checked that comment – and it does exist. I think Samuel had suggested he was would remove offensive comments.

    I am more interested in the tone of the editorship:

    Here is what the deputy editor says:

    “”jummy”, “Peter Holubz” and “kuffar” in particular should be careful not to give any more ammunition to anyone who chooses to take this thread as somehow representative of anyone other than those expressing them.”

    Rather than challenge the commenters for their tripe, he worries it’ll give the wrong impression or ‘ammunition’ to others.

    In a separate post I will give the full comments, the deputy editor has picked up – as I think the bloggers trick (meat and drink of the blogosphere) of partial quotes highlighted out of context is grossly unfair.

  41. Sunny — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:38 pm  

    Heh. Fellas you’re all barking up the wrong tree. It has nothing to do with his views on Muslims. Given that now this has become a rallying cry for people on both sides (may I add – needlessly), Orange will have to weigh up whether it’ll lose more customers by firing him or keeping him. Either way it’s not even worth getting to a huff about.

    And for some reason some ‘Anonmouse’ idiot is going around on blogs saying “Sunny is Islamophobic” because he took down Asghar Bukhari. Heh. Listen to what I said you dimwit and in my previous post on the issue.

    Orange should just come out and admit it was the word ‘consultation’ which caused his suspension. End of controversy.

  42. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:38 pm  

    Those comments from ConservativeHome:

    I’ve only ever seen Muslims laugh once. That was when the World Trade Centre was attacked; they laughed and laughed and little Palestinian children danced in the street at the hilarity of it.

    They will laugh a second time when they take over this country, complete with Sharia Law and kill the non-believers.

    We are letting it happen and every time someone panders to them it encourages them to demand and expect more and more.

    Clear the lot of them out now. No more Mosques in Britain.

    Posted by: kuffar | 18 August 2006 at 19:54

    “Inigo Wilson, you have my support. Your definitions were clever and accurate; confrontation with the truth always angers those who stand against it.

    The fact is that Muslims are incredibly intolerant of any criticism of their “religion”. Islam is the same imperialistic death cult today that it was when that deranged, violent, psychopathic, pedophile, the “prophet” Mohammed, created it.

    The mere existence of non-Muslims sends Muslims into a bloodlust for violent jihad. Sadly, freedom and Islam cannot coexist. Either we try to convert the satanic death worshippers to Christianity, or we are forced to kill them before they kill us.

    Posted by: Peter Holubz | 18 August 2006 at 04:30″

    Tim Montgomerie, the Editor, is away at the moment so don’t refer to him with regard to what you think about our enforcing of our comments policy here.

    For the record to anyone reading this – almost all of the debate on this thread today has been from non-regulars of ConservativeHome. Their views shouldn’t be taken as an example of CH opinion.

    I’m run off my feet at the moment so can’t follow every comment as it comes in, but I am going to start being much more stringent with comments that are irrelevant or unhelpful in tone.

    “jummy”, “Peter Holubz” and “kuffar” in particular should be careful not to give any more ammunition to anyone who chooses to take this thread as somehow representative of anyone other than those expressing them.

    Please keep it civil.

    Thanks.

    Posted by: Deputy Editor | 18 August 2006 at 22:04

  43. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:43 pm  

    Where’s my grapes Don?

  44. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:54 pm  

    Sunny – you pushed the story.

    Anyway – it seems its passed Inigo Wilson by. His compadres at ConservativeHome are going to have to use him. Possibly leaving him unemployable.

    As for Orange – they can’t win, those offended by the material (if you read their comments there is a broad range of people offended), may move from Orange; and those supporting the material may also move from Orange.

    Brainless.

  45. Sunny — on 18th August, 2006 at 10:59 pm  

    I pushed the story as I heard it, and then I clarified it as more info came. Such is the wonderful world of blogging.

    Anyway, the comments on CH are tamer than what you get on CIF. Big deal – there are Islamophobes and there are their opposites. Someone has apparently started a thread on MPAC comparing me to Nick Giffin. They really start crying when their head honcho gets dissed don’t they.

  46. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 11:07 pm  

    Sunny

    “I pushed the story as I heard it, and then I clarified it as more info came. Such is the wonderful world of blogging.”

    I’ll give you that – and its appreciated.

    But what would give you more gravitas is to stop following individuals.

    And it is a big deal.

    I will take a look on their forum now.

  47. Katy — on 18th August, 2006 at 11:10 pm  

    Someone has apparently started a thread on MPAC comparing me to Nick Giffin.

    The mind boggles :-)

  48. Don — on 18th August, 2006 at 11:26 pm  

    Sunny, read that thread. They’re really steamed aren’t they? To be fair, there are a couple of fair-minded voices in there.

    Refresh,

    You don’t get grapes for that, Nothing there we haven’t shrugged off from OP here. The Deputy Editor just sounds tired, overwhelmed, and aware that he has a problem with non-regulars who were ‘irrelevant or unhelpful in tone’.

  49. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 11:47 pm  

    Don, may be so. By running that editorial piece they’ve helped no one especially Inigo Wilson. The tone of the header itself needs serious questioning. In fact that was what I had typed out already.

    In terms of being overwhelmed – given the mountain of filth that is churned out by Islamophobes (some here too) daily, you should not be surprised that some of it is seriously funded. If you don’t and I can’t get round to dealing with it – then someone would and it seems now will.

    If you recall all the zero tolerance campaigns up and down the country – then why should muslims not take a stand. It had to happen somewhere.

    Personally, serious blogsites should think about what their policy is on offensive material. That should include CiF and PP.

    And as Bert Preast says this sort of reaction will lead to 50,000 more Islamophobes. Then what can you say – lets have 50,000 more of them.

    But between you and me, the British are not stupid they see this sort of filth for what it really is.

  50. Refresh — on 18th August, 2006 at 11:59 pm  

    Sunny, Don is right.

    Also they are drawing the comparison that you shouldn’t be seen as a spokeperson for muslims (as a non-muslim) just as we shouldn’t expect Nick Griffin to speak for white people in general.

    However there is one poster who is particularly unhappy that you should be consulted on the media. For me I thought it was quite appropriate. I’ve registered just so I can make my views known.

  51. Bert Preast — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:06 am  

    Refresh – London has now been bombed in the name of islam. And will be again. Islamophobia is not, therefore, irrational. The onus lies with the muslims to prove to the rest that something can be done to control this. Blaming the British for bringing it upon themselves is not the correct way to go about this. Each time it happens you have tens of thousands more islamophobes.

  52. Sunny — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:11 am  

    Also they are drawing the comparison that you shouldn’t be seen as a spokeperson for muslims

    Refresh, a clearly stupid and ill-thought out assertion. Clearly then any Muslim should not, regardless of profession, be allowed to pass comment on non-Muslims. Please think before you type, it would help.

    we shouldn’t expect Nick Griffin to speak for white people in general.

    Do you not see the stupdity in that comparison or do I have to spell it out for you?

  53. Bert Preast — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:12 am  

    I should say that I don’t lay all the blame for this at the feet of muslims. Incalculable damage has been done by idiotic middle class civil servants trying to do the right thing. The Piglet ban springs to mind – I don’t think a single muslim complained, it was just that some cheesewit bureaucrats highly trained in diversity thought Piglet might be offensive. They’re a bit like the SAS of multiculturalism, eh?

  54. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:13 am  

    Of course. Both problems need to be tackled. Head on.

  55. Sunny — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:16 am  

    Personally, serious blogsites should think about what their policy is on offensive material. That should include CiF and PP.

    Well, we have to weigh up freedom of speech to say things other find uncomfortable and disagree with, and stuff that is outright racist and offensive. I delete plenty of the latter. The former is a grey line and I’ve many a times deleted OP’s posts on that basis.

    If you don’t and I can’t get round to dealing with it – then someone would and it seems now will.

    It’s important to pick the right battles and ones that don’t make things worse. What about the daily insults churned out by so-called Muslim commentators like Asghar Bukhari? Are you challenging that?

  56. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:18 am  

    Sunny, I think you need to read again what I said they were saying.

    No, you don’t need to spell it out to me.

    Bottom line is they are not comparing you to Nick Griffin.

    In any case “Also they are drawing the comparison that you shouldn’t be seen as a spokeperson for muslims” what’s wrong with that?

    There is one where you are passing comment, and another is where you are speaking for them.

  57. Sam Coates — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:18 am  

    “The Deputy Editor just sounds tired, overwhelmed, and aware that he has a problem with non-regulars who were ‘irrelevant or unhelpful in tone’.”

    Spot on to be honest. If anon can point out one CH regular commenter or an article on CH that is bigoted I’ll eat my hat.

    I’ve cut kaffar’s comment down. Unfortunately I missed it the first time and I do think it was over-provocative, but out of 300 going on 400 comments that isn’t bad.

  58. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:27 am  

    I agree and welcome you #58. And it helps flow of considered debate which is good for all of us. And for freedom of speech.

    As for challenging offensive material from Asghar Bukhari, I would if I came across it.

    I had spent a good while on Guardian talkboards, doing just that – fighting with people from both sides of the argument. But time being more precious now, I feel PP is a better investment.

    And to be honest, I think you do a fine job – can’t always agree.

    Something I was going to say on the MPAC site.

    On OP – I was hoping to convert her to rationality through debate – but she’s never come back to me on the circumcision question. Maybe one day.

  59. Sunny — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:28 am  

    Bottom line is they are not comparing you to Nick Griffin.

    Really? Firstly it’s a stupid analogy. If I was Osama Bin Laden then one could compare me to Nick Griffin and say I don’t speak for Muslims. But clearly, I’m not Muslim. So you can’t use the Nick Griffin analogy. A better one would be to say that it’s like a white journalist writing about Muslims. But no, he has to use Nick Griffin, in context of ‘Sunny is a rabid Islamophobe’ so we’ll compare him to Hitler and Griffin. On top of that, you haven’t answered my other point. White commentators constantly discuss Muslim issues, whether positively or negatively. And Muslim commentators do vice versa. Since when did a bunch of jumped up activists decide what I should be allowed to say or not? And would you be happy with Muslim commentators (political and non-political) only being allowed to pass judgement on Muslim issues?

    It’s fucking absurd. And I’m so disappointed you can’t even see. Sheesh. You get more absurd by the day. I’m off to bed.

  60. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:30 am  

    Sam, can you also take care of Peter Holubz. That is the most offensive.

  61. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:33 am  

    Sunny, stay awhile.

    I hadn’t seen it that way.

    But you clearly do.

    Let me digest what you’ve just said. Back to you in a mo.

  62. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:42 am  

    Sunny – OK understand where you are coming from. And yes you are right to be offended.

  63. Refresh — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:43 am  

    “And would you be happy with Muslim commentators (political and non-political) only being allowed to pass judgement on Muslim issues?”

    No of course not.

  64. Sunny — on 19th August, 2006 at 2:16 am  

    Well, I’m glad we agree then.

  65. anon — on 19th August, 2006 at 2:39 am  

    @Refresh, here you go:

    Inigo Wilson, you have my support. Your definitions were clever and accurate; confrontation with the truth always angers those who stand against it.

    The fact is that Muslims are incredibly intolerant of any criticism of their “religion”. Islam is the same imperialistic death cult today that it was when that deranged, violent, psychopathic, pedophile, the “prophet” Mohammed, created it.

    The mere existence of non-Muslims sends Muslims into a bloodlust for violent jihad. Sadly, freedom and Islam cannot coexist. Either we try to convert the satanic death worshippers to Christianity, or we are forced to kill them before they kill us.

    Posted by: Peter Holubz | 18 August 2006 at 04:30

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/frontpage/2006/08/orange_inigo_wi.html#comment-21271857

    Samuel Coates has been told of this islamophobia. He did nothing. conservativeHome – clean up your racist islamophobic comments.

    Refresh theres loads and loads more.

  66. Anonmouse — on 19th August, 2006 at 3:01 am  

    Sunny said: “A better one [analogy] would be to say that it’s like a white journalist writing about Muslims.”

    This is just why being asian doesnt qualify you for being muslim. Every muslim knows white people are muslims too. They would never make that slip.

    But you just did.

    Look I know you’re stressed that tens possibly hundreds of people are going to complain to the BBC but the article is about asian muslims not asian sikhs and your views are given without declaring you are an asian sikh, something the BBC journalist should, given the article, have declared.

  67. Anonmouse — on 19th August, 2006 at 3:17 am  

    Sunny said: “White commentators constantly discuss Muslim issues, whether positively or negatively. And Muslim commentators do vice versa.”

    Ditto.

  68. Sam Coates — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:01 pm  

    Refresh,

    I can see why Peter Holubz’s (who I’ve never heard of before) comment was offensive and it has been duly amended. I think some of the things he said are matters to be argued against with reason though so you still won’t agree with the amended version.

    “Inigo Wilson, you have my support. Your definitions were clever and accurate; confrontation with the truth always angers those who stand against it.

    The fact is that Muslims are incredibly intolerant of any criticism of their “religion”. Islam is as imperialistic today than it was when the “prophet” Mohammed created it.

    The mere existence of non-Muslims sends some Muslims into a bloodlust for violent jihad. Sadly, freedom and Islam cannot coexist.

    Posted by: Peter Holubz | 18 August 2006 at 04:30″

  69. Bert Preast — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:07 pm  

    May I introduce Mr. Peter Holubz?

    http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=pholubz4

    He was so proud of that post on CH he made it a thread for his blog. How touching.

  70. Don — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:18 pm  

    Young Republichristians?

  71. Katy Newton — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:23 pm  

    He was so proud of that post on CH he made it a thread for his blog.

    The good thing about stupid people is that they really can’t resist parading their stupidity for all to see. This makes them easy to spot.

    The best that can be said of Peter Holubz is that he is no more representative of British non-Muslims than the 7/7 bombers were of British Muslims. Every community has its lunatic fringe.

  72. Katy Newton — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:24 pm  

    (Oh, and of course he is not in fact British. My mistake, I was confused by the fact that he was commenting on Conservative Home. I don’t know how representative he is of Americans.)

  73. Bert Preast — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:33 pm  

    “Young Republichristians?”

    Fearsome, ain’t it?

  74. Anonmouse — on 19th August, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    Sam Coates saw those comments before and did nothing until reported here although they had already been TWICE reported on ConservativeHome, and Sam had posted following the reports having made no changes to them.

    Even if we accept the excuse that Sam will proffer that he didnt see the posts etc etc. The fact remains that these sorts of posts are acceptable on conservativeHome. Noone reported it but there were hundreds of comments made folowing this.

    The most appalling thing is that Sam Coates and conservativeHome see fit to edit and change the comments so that they are acceptable. They are the rantings of an israeli islamaphobic nutter who probably writhes in delight everytime an innocent palestinian (or more recently lebanese) child is killed. Why does sam coates simply not remove the islamophobic rantings of an odious little racist rather than edit them? Why have we not been told that he has been banned?

    After all that is the conHome policy (routinely ignored): “Homophobic, racist or other hateful posts will also result in permanent bans.”

    Or is it okay to be islamophobic and racist (against say palestinians) on conservativeHome? I’m beginning to think it is.

  75. Katy — on 19th August, 2006 at 1:04 pm  

    This Holubz bloke isn’t Israeli or Jewish, if his website is anything to go by. He seems to be in favour of converting people to Christianity.

    Whatever else he might be, he is clearly a loon, and if Conservative Home don’t consider his comments to be acceptable as he posted them, I would have thought they should delete them altogether, not amend them to make him look less loopy and offensive than he is.

  76. Anonmouse — on 19th August, 2006 at 1:26 pm  

    You’re right of course Katy, and conservativeHome have revealed themselves yet again.

  77. Bert Preast — on 19th August, 2006 at 2:28 pm  

    Careful Anonmouse – your own house has quite a lot of glass in it…

  78. Chairwoman — on 19th August, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    Anonmouse – I’ve just read your number 77 and I am disappointed that you should immediately assume that Holubz is Jewish. Before you rush to say that you said Israeli, I don’t think you meant an Israeli Arab, did you?

    That sort of comment doesn’t sit well next to accusations of racial, or religious, bias. That is not to say that the chap isn’t a prat of the first order, he just isn’t a Jewish one.

  79. Sam Coates — on 19th August, 2006 at 5:03 pm  

    Anonmouse, frankly, this obsession of yours is incredibly tiresome – and not just to me.

    You’ve had your say about all this, you’ve laboured your points to death, so why don’t you just go for a walk or something?

    I don’t have time to follow up on every little moan about things you don’t agree with. I obviously don’t agree with what that guy said and have now taken the bits which were most likely to “offend” you in the hope that you would stop generalising about “Islamophobia” etc etc etc. He has never commented on ConHome before and is not representative of those who do.

    Editing the comment further would just be to delete things you don’t agree with. Unlike what you have made clear with your moderate-sounding vendetta against Inigo Wilson, I don’t generally play the person when disagreeing with someone, I play the ball.

    I’m not returning to this thread, I’m going to call my Muslim girlfriend in Tehran.

  80. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 3:40 pm  

    Chairwoman: “Anonmouse – I’ve just read your number 77 and I am disappointed that you should immediately assume that Holubz is Jewish. Before you rush to say that you said Israeli, I don’t think you meant an Israeli Arab, did you?

    That sort of comment doesn’t sit well next to accusations of racial, or religious, bias. That is not to say that the chap isn’t a prat of the first order, he just isn’t a Jewish one.”

    How silly your ranting is. He has the israeli national flag as the picture for his homepage. You dont know whether he is an israeli or not but you assume because he has a link to a christian network that he is not israeli. Then you assume i am anti-semitic. I will assume one thing but unlike you I will be accurate in my assumption: You’re stupid.

  81. Katy Newton — on 20th August, 2006 at 3:48 pm  

    Anonmouse, if you read his blog you will see that he is a fundamentalist, right-wing, pro-life Christian who lives in America.

  82. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 3:50 pm  

    ConservativeHome – Samuel Coates and Tim Montgomerie.

    You are guilty. You are guilty of not following your own editorial policies on appropriate posts. You are guilty of allowing racism on your website. You are guilty of allowing hateful posts on your website. You are guilty of allowing islamophobia on your website. You are guilty of not banning those who make racist and islamaphobic comments. You are guilty of accusing muslims who complained to Orange of being muslim extremists (ie terrorists or terrorist supporters). You are guilty of pretending this is about freedom speech.

  83. Chairwoman — on 20th August, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    Anonmouse – I am not sure if I am appalled more by your bad manners ot your innaccuracies. As a young woman I was told ‘Civility costs nothing’.

  84. Chairwoman — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

    Anonmouse – obviously that should have said ‘or’ not ot.

  85. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:07 pm  

    “Anonmouse, if you read his blog you will see that he is a fundamentalist, right-wing, pro-life Christian who lives in America.”

    Hi Katy – I will take your word for it; I dont want to read his website in any great detail considering what an offensive bigot he is.

    I will say this clearly for everyone reading. I am not a racist. I am not an anti-semite. I’m not even an anti-Israeli. What I am is someone who believes in peace and justice. These are two things that zionist israeli governments, led by some zionist terrorist prime ministers (fact), have deprived palestinians of for far too long.

  86. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

    “Anonmouse – I am not sure if I am appalled more by your bad manners ot your innaccuracies. As a young woman I was told ‘Civility costs nothing’.”

    Apologies.

  87. Chairwoman — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:11 pm  

    Anonmous – Accepted

  88. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:13 pm  

    Samuel Coates:

    Will you respond to Katy’s comments which show that you breach your own policies as to comments:

    “Katy — on 19th August, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    This Holubz bloke isn’t Israeli or Jewish, if his website is anything to go by. He seems to be in favour of converting people to Christianity.

    Whatever else he might be, he is clearly a loon, and if Conservative Home don’t consider his comments to be acceptable as he posted them, I would have thought they should delete them altogether, not amend them to make him look less loopy and offensive than he is.”

    According to your own conservativeHome policy you are meant to DELETE his post and BAN him from posting. Why instead did you modify his comments to make them acceptable? Do you sympathise with his theme?

  89. Don — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:23 pm  

    Isn’t it a pity how religion comes between people? If it weren’t for the islam thing, I suspect Holubz and anonmouse would get on splendidly.

  90. Sunny — on 20th August, 2006 at 4:43 pm  

    This is just why being asian doesnt qualify you for being muslim. Every muslim knows white people are muslims too. They would never make that slip.

    Anonmouse your stupidity knows no bounds. Yes I know there are white Muslims. But that wasn’t the point of my sentence above. It was referring to white people in general.

    Secondly, your friend ‘Khalid’, hiding behinding an anonymous identity calls me a racist. That’s funny. Who am I being racist again exactly? The Muslim race? And how? By saying Wilson may be a twat but I defend his freedom of speech? Rather like how I think Hizb ut Tahrir might be idiots but I defend their right to freedom of speech?

    Many of those on the MPAC forums are just frustrated little kids like yourself who don’t really think their bullshit through. They just like coming out with it.

  91. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 5:22 pm  

    Sunny, please amplify your explanation beyond “white people in general” and address the issue that the article, in the pursuit or integrity, should have disclosed you were not muslim given that it was an article about asian muslims and here you are an asian sikh (not disclosed in the article) giving views about asian muslims. Most readers would assume you were an asian muslim.

    I do not know ‘Khalid’ and so im not sure why I should answer on his behalf. Personally, I have no reason to think you are racist based on the article in question and I do not know Khalid to question him further on your behalf. I notice that he, or someone else, also mentions on mpac that you removed one of your articles at the behest of some of your readers that I assume wanted you to remove it. I have no idea if this accusation from him is true either and would welcome your comments.

  92. Chairwoman — on 20th August, 2006 at 5:41 pm  

    Can everybody please stop calling everyboday else ‘stupid’? While we may not all agree with each others’ views, and though we may consider each other misguided, I really don’t think lack of intelligence is an issue on this site.

    Thank you.

    *gets coat and shuffles off*

  93. Sunny — on 20th August, 2006 at 5:44 pm  

    here you are an asian sikh (not disclosed in the article) giving views about asian muslims.

    As others have already pointed out in the forum, I track media consumption habits and report on ethnic media for ‘Asians’. That includes Muslims. Two of my regular columnists are Muslims. We cover the ethnic media, including Muslim media. So the idea that I cannot comment on how young Muslims are responding to mainstream media coverage is silly. It implies that non-Muslims can never commentate on what British Muslims are doing, unless a select bunch of internet activists consider them to be experts. It also implies Muslims who are professionals in fields other than religion should not be allowed to commentate on the basis of their religion. It is absurd.

    also mentions on mpac that you removed one of your articles at the behest of some of your readers

    I wrote an article on the Lebanon conflict which was a bit hurried and inadequate. I deleted it off my own accord. Since then we have covered the Israel/Lebanon conflict numerous times. Do a search. It was a silly attempt at mud-slinging.

  94. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 5:48 pm  

    “The article, in the pursuit or integrity, should have disclosed you were not muslim given that it was an article about asian muslims and here you are an asian sikh (not disclosed in the article) giving views about asian muslims. Most readers would assume you were an asian muslim.”

    This still stands unaddressed.

  95. Sunny — on 20th August, 2006 at 5:56 pm  

    I thought the answer would be obvious. My religion does not come into it when I’m talking about the media consumption habits. Because the latter is my speciality.

  96. Anonmouse — on 20th August, 2006 at 6:39 pm  

    This is from your perspective but the fact remains that most readers of the article about asian muslims would assume you too were an asian muslim. The journalist who wrote that article and the BBC have not displayed sufficient integrity in getting an asian sikh to discuss asian muslims to a wider audience without ensuring that audience are also aware you are not an asian muslim. I’m sure the BBC will agree that they should have disclosed this.

  97. ed — on 20th August, 2006 at 8:10 pm  

    Well at least he spelt consultation right, unlike PP.

  98. TheGrace / النعمة — on 1st September, 2006 at 4:42 pm  

    Warm welcome to Alnemat TheGrace Arabic Christian Internet Magazine, We love you! Please visit us at:

    http://www.TheGrace.com

    http://www.TheGrace.net

    http://www.TheGrace.org
    سلام لكم في محبة الله.نتأمل زياراتكم الكريمة لموقع النعمة موقع مجلة النعمة يقدم كلمة الله الكتاب المقدس الإنجيل رسالة السيد يسوع المسيح قراءات مختارة مواضيع مصيرية قصص واقعية شهادات شخصية ترانيم ممتازة ردود مؤكدة كتب بنّاءة رسوم تسالي تأملات يوميات
    Bible Read search in Arabic Studys Stories Testimonies Acappella Hymns and Poems Answers Books Links Daily devotions Acappella Music Graphics /Alnemat Journal Arabe Chrétien La Grâce la Revue Arabe sur Internet offre La Sainte Bible Al-Injil L’Evangile de Jésus Christ gratuit, Bienvenue a La Grâce.

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.