Search results

It really isn't. His point is that the BBC is INFESTED with limp-wristed, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading, weak-willed liberals, who epitomise all that is wrong with Britain today, and are afraid to call a spade a spade.

But they have NOT said ANYTHING about 'having a stance of wanting to be fair to ISIS'. You and the Independant have made that part up. This is what he actually wrote (as well you know): ""The BBC takes a common sense view when deciding how to describe organisations, we take our cue from the...

But if the reporting is about a bombing, or a gun attack, the person is referred to as an Islamic State bomber / gunman / assailant / terrorist, etc. Those terms fairly clearly identify what that person is, do they not? Why would you not want them identified? It makes absolutely no sense.

Can you explain more fully please, what your problem actually IS with this standpoint? The group is called 'Islamic State', or referred to by the acronyms ISIS, or ISIL. Its a name - using that name, doesn't infer approval of the group, in any way, shape or form - it merely correctly identifies...