News2 mins ago
Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab
to front the news of the Nice massacre?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - //Sameena Ali-Khan is one of the main presenters of ITV News Central, she is not only a lovely and talented presenter, but also a Muslim, but I have yet to see her wearing a Hijab while presenting the news, that is the difference. //
Why is that 'the difference?
Is Ms. Ali-Khan more 'lovely' or more pertinently a better presenter because she does not wear a hijab?
It should not be an issue - that is the entire issue being debated.
Why is that 'the difference?
Is Ms. Ali-Khan more 'lovely' or more pertinently a better presenter because she does not wear a hijab?
It should not be an issue - that is the entire issue being debated.
Talbot - //Personally I have no issue with the truth, however uncomfortable that may be - but this is not 'the truth' it is a nasty unfounded racist slur
What? //
What on earth does 'what' mean?
Do you not understand the point I have made? If not, please say so and I will attempt to elucidate further.
What? //
What on earth does 'what' mean?
Do you not understand the point I have made? If not, please say so and I will attempt to elucidate further.
Talbot - //Good grief man, explain how this is a racist slur? //
OK, you don't understand - fair enough -
What you are saying is that Mikey is willing to condemn Caucasian child molestors, but less willing to condemn Muslim child molestors.
That states that you believe that Mikey makes a distinction - that Muslim abusers are less deserving of his condemnation.
Apart from being utterly without foundation - that is a personal slur on the integrity of a long-standing AB'er and should not go unchallenged by any AB'er who believes that such abuse is not appropriate.
I hope that has cleared up any misunderstanding.
OK, you don't understand - fair enough -
What you are saying is that Mikey is willing to condemn Caucasian child molestors, but less willing to condemn Muslim child molestors.
That states that you believe that Mikey makes a distinction - that Muslim abusers are less deserving of his condemnation.
Apart from being utterly without foundation - that is a personal slur on the integrity of a long-standing AB'er and should not go unchallenged by any AB'er who believes that such abuse is not appropriate.
I hope that has cleared up any misunderstanding.
jambutty - //But I too have noticed that mikey is always more tolerant on threads condeming muslim perpetrators - FACT ! And I am not trying to make waves. //
I have made my view clear - it really is for mikey to address any issues raised about his personal approach to the subject - I have merely objected to the personal abuse of an AB'er - as I would to any abuse of any AB'er.
I have reported Talbot's post, and we will await a decision from the Ed.
I have made my view clear - it really is for mikey to address any issues raised about his personal approach to the subject - I have merely objected to the personal abuse of an AB'er - as I would to any abuse of any AB'er.
I have reported Talbot's post, and we will await a decision from the Ed.
SP, //Should black presenters be stood down if there's a report on shooting of American police, where the shooter is black?//
This isn’t a racial issue.
Factor-Fiction at10:01. As I said, I watch Channel 4 News regularly. I wasn’t ‘offended’ (that word is overly used and overly abused) by this report – but I did wonder if, in the current climate, it might have been rather more judicial to ask someone else to present it. I think Channel 4 had a purpose in making its decision – just as I think this reporter has a purpose in wearing he headscarf when presenting the news. It’s not something she wears as a matter of course.
This isn’t a racial issue.
Factor-Fiction at10:01. As I said, I watch Channel 4 News regularly. I wasn’t ‘offended’ (that word is overly used and overly abused) by this report – but I did wonder if, in the current climate, it might have been rather more judicial to ask someone else to present it. I think Channel 4 had a purpose in making its decision – just as I think this reporter has a purpose in wearing he headscarf when presenting the news. It’s not something she wears as a matter of course.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, Mikey is reluctant to criticise Muslims - in fact 'reluctant' is kind. Let him be offended if he wants to be otherwise another thread is likely to go down the drain. //
That is a matter of perception - on your part as well as that of Talbot and jambutty.
To advance that as a 'fact' as the other two have done, is simply not acceptable - but as you advise, mikey is more than capable of fighting his own corner. I have made my view clear, as I would about any such slur of any AB'er over any issue.
We shall see what develops.
That is a matter of perception - on your part as well as that of Talbot and jambutty.
To advance that as a 'fact' as the other two have done, is simply not acceptable - but as you advise, mikey is more than capable of fighting his own corner. I have made my view clear, as I would about any such slur of any AB'er over any issue.
We shall see what develops.
andy-hughes
Talbot - //Good grief man, explain how this is a racist slur? //
OK, you don't understand - fair enough -
What you are saying is that Mikey is willing to condemn Caucasian child molestors, but less willing to condemn Muslim child molestors.
That states that you believe that Mikey makes a distinction - that Muslim abusers are less deserving of his condemnation.
Apart from being utterly without foundation - that is a personal slur on the integrity of a long-standing AB'er and should not go unchallenged by any AB'er who believes that such abuse is not appropriate.
I hope that has cleared up any misunderstanding.
No it hasn't ... explain how this is a racist slur?
Talbot - //Good grief man, explain how this is a racist slur? //
OK, you don't understand - fair enough -
What you are saying is that Mikey is willing to condemn Caucasian child molestors, but less willing to condemn Muslim child molestors.
That states that you believe that Mikey makes a distinction - that Muslim abusers are less deserving of his condemnation.
Apart from being utterly without foundation - that is a personal slur on the integrity of a long-standing AB'er and should not go unchallenged by any AB'er who believes that such abuse is not appropriate.
I hope that has cleared up any misunderstanding.
No it hasn't ... explain how this is a racist slur?
I can't be bothered with this thread. If it helps I recall that when the Rotherham child abuse threads were in full flow it consisted of Pakistani and other muslims being prosecuted for raping white girls and other abuses by the 'gangload'.
When it transpired that the Labour Rotherham council were accused of being complicit in the 'cover up' the ABer suddenly lost his voice. The Labour Council of course comprised mainly of muslims.
He was very vociferous in the complicity of the Yorkshire Police in their lack of action as well as informing us of his dubious Labour MP's book on Cyril Smith written by Danzuk.
I am not going back there but feel free to investigate if what has been said may have more than an element of truth by jambutty,naomi and Talbot.
W
When it transpired that the Labour Rotherham council were accused of being complicit in the 'cover up' the ABer suddenly lost his voice. The Labour Council of course comprised mainly of muslims.
He was very vociferous in the complicity of the Yorkshire Police in their lack of action as well as informing us of his dubious Labour MP's book on Cyril Smith written by Danzuk.
I am not going back there but feel free to investigate if what has been said may have more than an element of truth by jambutty,naomi and Talbot.
W
jambutty - //Still a fact andy no matter how much you warble on. //
If you don't understand the difference between a perception - your interpretation of someone's viewpoint, and a fact - evidence that the viewpoint is unwavering, and evidenced on a regular basis - then that is your problem to deal with.
If you don't understand the difference between a perception - your interpretation of someone's viewpoint, and a fact - evidence that the viewpoint is unwavering, and evidenced on a regular basis - then that is your problem to deal with.
jambutty - //I do not have a problem. //
I disagree - but essentially, that is a matter of perception.
You think one thing, I think another - but I would not be so lofty as to state that my view is a 'fact' when clearly it is not.
Perhaps you could extend that courtesy to mikey when commenting on his expressed views?
I disagree - but essentially, that is a matter of perception.
You think one thing, I think another - but I would not be so lofty as to state that my view is a 'fact' when clearly it is not.
Perhaps you could extend that courtesy to mikey when commenting on his expressed views?
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
How it Works9 mins ago
Reputable Models Can Come From...
Crosswords16 mins ago
Home & Garden30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.