Maz

iTrader: (34)

Article in the Independent today about a new policy to censor books for Muslims (and Jews as it happens). The article would have you believe it's all about pandering to minorities and them muslims taking offence, however the reason this policy has been implemented is to maximise book sales abroad. Note the faint three lines in the opening text of the story. Furthermore there is no mention of Jews in the article. Nice bit of **** stirring in the wake of the French attack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...k-9976620.html

Devildog

Maybe have that chip repaired Maz?

Its causing your head to tilt so much you fail to see what's actually being said in the article

Tidgy

is all i'll say to that

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I'm well balanced. I've got chips on both shoulders.

Turbohot

That ^ looks so yummy, Tidgy! I'm defrosting a bacon packet for today's lunch. Look forward to it with a bit of brown sauce and toasted. just enough buttered bread slices. A mug of Yorkshire tea to wash it down as well.

Tidgy

just munching a bacon and egg sandwich

Turbohot

By the way, OUP is an idiot for suggesting something like that to the authors. Unbelievable for a well-known prestigious publisher.

Turbohot

Nice! I may have to refrain from involving egg into the equation as I overdid it last night with the chilli and rice I made last night. I was slightly sickly this morning, and I also found that my cat was sick in the living room. Unexplained parallel phenomenon as I don't think she overate anything last night. Anyway, I do look forward to a nice and crispy toasted bacon sarnie in a bit before I get out again. Yum, yum!

Tidgy

my cats always being a greedy barstid like that lol

mmmm, bacon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

That's all the press ever do these days Maz and as can be seen form some of the less desirable posters on SN it's working!

Maz

iTrader: (34)

The OUP state their reason as purely a financial one. They are an operating business so it's all about the line. From the article.

“There are few sectors of the UK economy with the capacity to grow and generate export earnings as impressive as education,” he said.
Mr Willetts, now a Conservative backbencher, however urged Britain’s education exporters to do more to “to seize the opportunities to stay ahead in the global race”.
The Government has a target of doubling British exports to other countries by 2020, which it is on course to miss by a large margin.
The recommendation by the publisher came to light during a discussion on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 13 January.
Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world, publishing around 6,000 new books a year across over 150 countries.
Its commercial activities employ 6,000 people and its profits fund Oxford University to the tune of millions of pounds a year.

Surely if they do something to maximise profit/sales it's a positive step. Besides I'm not sure it's anybody else's business if a commercial enterprise undertakes a step to gain market share. Why are Government ministers condemning the move? Muslim and Jewish spokespeople rushing to state their non offence of pigs/pork/bacon.
If the decision was one of pure censorship for the sake of it, that would have been wrong and deserved condemnation and bring to task.
Personally I don't see why they couldn't just adapt the books for each country. Then we could have carried on reading the three little pigs in peace.

neil-h

Thing is you'd have to be a complete simpleton not to realise it's pure profit maximisation.

If i want to sell screw drivers, I could make left handed ones and I could make right handed ones. Or i could make an ambidextrous one that suits both parties and half my manufacturing costs. Go figure.

Says it all really

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Lets pander to the Muslims:

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2769368.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1479978

JTaylor

OUP's suggested guidelines seem fairly sensible to me. First, they're not policies, they're not even a directive, they're "suggested guidelines", so their authors maintain their independence and can exercise their artistic integrity. If pig products are plot critical, then so be it. Second, the OUP's a profit making organisation and as such it's a perfectly legitimate suggestion to its authors that they keep their potential market as broad as possible; any sane business ought to be thinking along those lines. Finally, the Jewish question: the harsh reality is that they probably exert a disproportionate influence over OUP and account for a large minority of its clientele.

hodgy0_2

fvck me we have some super thick people on the forum

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp


REALLY REALLY FVCKING THICK - and fvcking dangerous too

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Notwithstanding the dubious sources referenced, weirdos/sickos abroad are less of problem than the domestic ones.

Turbohot

You're right. There's a massive difference between a 'policy' and a 'guideline'. It's also clear why they've suggested it i.e. for marketing purposes. In my opinion, it shouldn't even be a guideline or a suggestion. People of this world should be well-informed of what people eat; in different parts of the world. This sort of censorship will cause unnecessary ignorance on global level. That, as an impact, can potentially cause a loss of virtue at the cost of the OUP's financial profit greed.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I desisted from being as blunt as I can be but thanks for clearing that up Hodgy.

hodgy0_2

the problem is we have just seen a thick cvnt in the US (worryingly masquerading as a "security Expert") spouting utter nonsense about London and Birmingham

he has issued an apology, but I believe Fox News haven't bothered to publicise it in the US nor has he

(presumably it would set a precedent that they would have to apologise every time they allow rubbish to be spouted on their TV station - and that would result in 50% of the output simply apologising for the other 50%)

so we have a situation where the Meercans who watch that rubbish will 100% believe that crap - its gets perpetuated


people believe this **** - dangerous dangerous thick cvntish idiots

Devildog

Hodgy

You seem stressed. Or do you just have tourette's?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I'd guess he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

scoobyskool

iTrader: (1)

Actually it seems fox have sought to give gravitas to their error by getting nigel farage on there to affirm that there are areas of cities over here where muslims try to enforce sharia law from what i saw earlier but havent had time to watch the whole interview

Farage was targetted over here for stating the obvious on the day of the massacres about fifth columnists etc - makes you laugh that other parties choose days of terrible saturated news to release stories that are going to air but they would rather didnt but farage gets slammed for commenting on topic

I guess fox having him on is their attempt to partly justify their story with a british politician and for farage any air time is good time id guess

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9976907.html

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

LOL, yeah, yeah....and the muslim cleric never raped his daughter? That lass never died?

You're like the politician on the fast Show: "No it isn't! No it doesn't! No it won't! No it hasn't!"

Fukcing apologist.

ScoobyWon't

How about muslims pandering to other muslims? Or in this case, not pandering.

Muslim threatens muslim over his Je Suis Charlie sign displayed in 'Muslim Area'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-outside.html

hodgy0_2

yeah and Catholic priest have been raping boys too - what's your point, men rape!!!! simple

the fact is you linked to a pathetic website that perpetuates half truths, rumours and simple lies

the sad thing is, they are so easy to debunk - and shown for the rubbish they are, such a blatant lie I would not trust anything thet website says

Kwik

iTrader: (10)

This is just making me hungry.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Getting a bit hackneyed. I won't stoop to your level and reference child rape and infanticide to prove a point.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What's hackneyed?

And just because one bunch of pervs is doing it, does that make it RIGHT FFS??????

Carnut

A lot of the girls were 16-18 reading between the lines and were getting married to men in their twenties.
Have i misunderstood or do you agree with 16 year olds getting married to adult men?

JTaylor

That's the age of consent in the UK. You can get married at that age in Scotland and with parental consent in England and Wales. So what's the bit deal?