Pandering to the Muslims again!
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 sh!t stirring in the wake of the French attack.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...k-9976620.html |
Originally Posted by Maz
(Post 11603238)
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 sh!t stirring in the wake of the French attack.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...k-9976620.html Its causing your head to tilt so much you fail to see what's actually being said in the article :lol1: |
|
Originally Posted by Devildog
(Post 11603241)
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 :lol1: |
Originally Posted by Tidgy
(Post 11603242)
|
Originally Posted by Turbohot
(Post 11603245)
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.:cool:
|
By the way, OUP is an idiot for suggesting something like that to the authors. Unbelievable for a well-known prestigious publisher.
|
Originally Posted by Tidgy
(Post 11603246)
just munching a bacon and egg sandwich :D
|
Originally Posted by Turbohot
(Post 11603251)
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! :luvlove:
mmmm, bacon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, |
Originally Posted by Maz
(Post 11603238)
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 sh!t stirring in the wake of the French attack.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...k-9976620.html |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 11603273)
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!
“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. |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 11603273)
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!
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. Conservative MP Philip Davies was angry that others cultures were being taken into account by the publisher, however. He called for the Government to intervene and ban OUP from asking its authors to cater to Muslim sensibilities.“The political correctness brigade appear to have taken control of our schools,” Mr Davies told the Daily Mail newspaper. “The Secretary of State needs to get a grip over this and make sure this ridiculous ban is stopped at once.” |
Lets pander to the Muslims:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2769368.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1479978 |
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. ;)
|
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 |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 11603288)
Lets pander to the Muslims:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2769368.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1479978 |
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 11603292)
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. ;)
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11603300)
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 |
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 sh1t - dangerous dangerous thick cvntish idiots |
Hodgy
You seem stressed. Or do you just have tourette's? |
Originally Posted by Devildog
(Post 11603336)
Hodgy
You seem stressed. Or do you just have tourette's? |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11603324)
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 people believe this sh1t - dangerous dangerous thick cvntish idiots 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 |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11603300)
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 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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 11603409)
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. 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 |
Originally Posted by Tidgy
(Post 11603242)
|
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 11603409)
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. |
What's hackneyed?
And just because one bunch of pervs is doing it, does that make it RIGHT FFS?????? |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11603446)
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 Have i misunderstood or do you agree with 16 year olds getting married to adult men? |
Originally Posted by Carnut
(Post 11603934)
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? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands