Well, your pal Joe Noory may be as nutty as you but he isn't nearly has funny (and his blog isn't as pretty). I note that in the BBC webpage he complaine about (the one with details of the times and places of the anti-Aisrael demos in a sidebar) the time and place of the pro-Israel demo was in the main text, and remained there after the side bar had been removed. So, the supporters of Israel who already had the best advertising slot got themselves into such a tizz over any suggestion of promoting the counter demonstrations that they howled at the BBC until the other mentions were removed. Ooh, yes, sounds like clear anti-Israeli bias to me. And I neither know not care where the ignorant Noory lives, but here in Britain there are still people who use the BBC teletext service.

Actually, he can be funny. Describing the Stop The War Coalition as a "communist front organisation" must have the thousands of self-styled Marxist supporters of the war giggling, as they seem to consider the Stoppers to be traitors to communist solidarity against fascist tyranny and all that. The Muslim Association of Britain may be a "terrorist front organisation" for all I know, but the British government (well-known for their love and support for terrorists of all kinds) seems to disagree with him. Which is why they are allowed to hold rallies. As is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a "Zionist front organisation". Though for some reason Noory omits that description. Too busy with his fantasy that the BBC habitually supports "communists" and "terrorists".

Funny in a someone-make-sure-he-takes-his-meds way.

Still, his blog has a nice picture of Floyd Landis (which Kesher Talk signally lacks).

"The Muslim Association of Britain may be a "terrorist front organisation" for all I know, but the British government (well-known for their love and support for terrorists of all kinds) seems to disagree with him. "

Well, that's part of the problem.

There are numerous examples of BBC bias, and I've linked to them before. I might collect some links for you if I have a minute.

"the thousands of self-styled Marxist supporters of the war giggling, as they seem to consider the Stoppers to be traitors to communist solidarity against fascist tyranny and all that."

Well, they do, but they know they are well in the minority on the Left, and they aren't giggling about it. The Marxist war supporters don't claim the others aren't Marxist, but it's not the other way around.

"As is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a "Zionist front organisation". Though for some reason Noory omits that description. "

Not a Zionist "front," a proudly Zionist organization. Doesn't need to be a "front" because it's not pretending to be anything else. You do project a lot, don't you?

"signally"? Floyd Landis is all over the place, so he's not breaking news. I'm not into biking. So why should we have a picture of him?

"Well that's part of the problem."

O...K... So now we don't just have an anti-Israeli bias in the BBC, but the British government, the only one apart from the United States to side with Israel in refusing a ceasefire in Lebanon, the only one to join the US in invading Iraq; now the British Government is a supporter of Islamic terrorism? Now, truly, I know you've finally lost contact with reality.

The British government has allowed all sorts of open jihadist groups to grow in numbers and strength. Like Europe, it hasn't integrated them well into British society.

Britain has a deep strain of philo-Arabism going back to Richard Burton and Gertrude Bell and of course TH Lawrence, Prince Charles being the latest. I have no idea why this is. I'm sure someone has written a book about it. Britain put the Wahabis on the throne of Arabia (arguably the most disastrous decision of the 20th century).

So it will put up with a lot of sedition and plain terrorist financing and organizing inside its borders, because it "doesn't want to offend" and because it romanticizes "the other." It considers changing its national flag so it won't offend Muslims. I mean WTF???

The active allying with the US is mostly Blair's doing, and when he is out of office it might stop.

If we gave any serious consioderation to changing the flag it's news to me. Sounds like something the Daily Mail would come up with. (Mind you, as you so often quote Melanie Phillips, maybe that IS where it came from.)

"The active allying with the US is mostly Blair's doing, and when he is out of office it might stop."

One can only hope so. And the sooner the waste of DNA is out of Downing Street the better.

You're right - it was the Church of England debating whether to change the flag of St George to the flag of St Alban - and it was in the Daily Mail!

But there were some more official incidents of going overboard to avoid offense.

Up here in Scotland (Robert Burns, tartan, haggis, national flag the saltire aka St Andrew's cross) we don't take kindly to people mixing up Britain (= UK, national flag the Union Jack, or more correctly the Union Flag unless you're a ship) and England (= that bunch south of the border, national flag = cross of St George). We write sarcastic letters to their newspapers. We play "Highland Cathedral" outside their bedrooms at high volume. We feed them nothing but Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars bars until Amnesty International make us stop.

But you're an American, and when you guys do it it's kinda cute. Like when you mix up London Bridge and Tower Bridge. Or ask if the tap-water's safe to drink. Or get all mixed up trying to ask the way to the Glasgow suburb of Milngavie (which is pronounced "Mull Guy").

Just don't expect us to take the Daily Mail seriously. We've got rubbishy papers of our own (the Daily Record). The Mail is only good for wrapping up deep-fried Mars bars.