‘It’s not at Ground Zero and it’s not a mosque’

These are the words of Sharif El Gamal the project developer of the, well, Islamic Cultural Centre? The sad thing is it is hard to know exactly what it should be called, given how the media have only referred to it as the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. The words used as the title of this post appear in a Daily Mail article, an article which allows El Gamal to give some details about the building. Yet once again the Daily Mail completely ignores the content of its own article and decides to use this as a headline: ‘First look inside the Ground Zero ‘mosque’: a fitness complex, a cook’s school, THAT prayer space… and a 9/11 memorial‘.

Where to start with this? Firstly, as cannot be repeated enough: it is not a mosque, and it certainly is not being built at ground zero. Secondly, the block capitalisation of ‘THAT’ is frankly disgraceful. The implication is that incorporating space in which to pray inside the building is what all the outrage has been about. The question that immediately springs to my mind is would things have been any different if such a prayer space didn’t exist? What if it was just an Islamic centre, would the right-wing press have responded any differently? I doubt it, given that there is no link whatsoever between Muslim New Yorkers who live, work and pray in the city and the largely Saudi Arabian ‘Muslims’ who destroyed the twin towers, yet a link has been created and has fuelled all of the protests and anger.

Who exactly has created this link? The Daily Mail is happy to blame it on others: ‘Some have called it an exercise in triumphalism, intended to plant Islam’s flag at the scene of the attacks and deliberately provoke Americans’ . They also go on to state that: ‘The building’s prayer space for Muslims – the part of the centre that has caused critics to brand it the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ – would be located on two levels in the basement’. Again, the Daily Mail is blaming someone else – critics have branded it, ‘some people have called it’. None of these phrases actually gives a real clue as to who these people are, but then we don’t need any, given that those responsible for creating the link and branding the building the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ are right in front of our eyes.

The headline clearly labels the building the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ and the first line of the article repeats the same old lie about it being built close to Ground Zero:

These are the first sketches of the Islamic centre to be built just yards from Ground Zero in Manhattan.

It is several blocks away, yet here the Daily Mail is claiming that distance is ‘just yards’. The Daily Mail is reinforcing the link that it is blaming on ‘critics’. This article – like so many printed in the Daily Mail – is a mixture of news and editorial comment. The real message is always conveyed in the headline and the introductory paragraph whilst the news is buried below. The writer has the audacity to blame critics for branding it ‘Ground Zero Mosque’, yet they are happy to use this as their headline. Likewise, they are also perfectly happy to repeat the lie about it being built ‘just yards’ from Ground Zero. It is dishonest, cowardly and hypocritical – it is, in short, so very ‘Daily Mail Editorial’.

The article as usual contains all of the contradictory information that demonstrates just how dishonest the headline and introductory paragraph is:

The futuristic-looking building is wrapped in a honeycomb of abstract shapes, with a core containing far more space for secular pursuits than religious worship…

The largest part of the building – four of 16 floors – would be taken up by a sports, fitness and swimming centre.

Another full floor would be occupied by a child care centre and playground.

Much of the rest of the building would be occupied by a restaurant, culinary school, artist studios, exhibition space and an auditorium for cultural events.

Yet the writer is still happy to call it the ‘Ground Centre Mosque’ and they’re still happy to lie about the location in which it is being built. The writer may have hidden behind the anonymous ‘Daily Mail Reporter’ but that will not stop them having to come to terms with the fact that they have sold their soul to write this stuff. I’d advise whoever wrote this to take on board the words of Stephen Fry:

I have never met a Mail journalist whose first words weren’t an apology. “We’re not all Paul Dacre types….” they mournfully beg us to believe. Well, leave before it’s too late! Just imagine that there really is a St Peter to greet you after death. Suppose he asks what you did with your life, your mind, your heart, your whole being and your immortal soul and that you have to reply you that wrote for the Daily Mail. Wow!

Judging Millions by the Actions of a few

Diversity is a bit of a swearword for the Daily Mail and its readership, and it is a word that is often used to make people scream in outrage and miss the real point of something. Take this story from today’s Daily Mail: ‘‘We don’t want to upset 9/11 families but we have to balance diversity’: Mosque near Ground Zero gets go-ahead‘.

For starters, the planned Mosque is actually 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, so it isn’t literally being built on the rubble of the World Trade Centre. The Mosque is also merely part of a much larger ‘proposed 13-storey Muslim community centre, which will include a swimming pool, gym, theatre and sports facilities’. The purpose of the proposed building is to:

meet a growing need for prayer space in Lower Manhattan as well as provide a venue for the dissemination of mainstream Islam, to counter extremism.

They have previously said they picked the spot precisely because of its location near Ground Zero.

Building a mosque ‘where a piece of the wreckage fell…. sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, told the New York Times last year.

‘We want to push back against the extremists,’ Feisal, 61, added.

So it is really an attempt to demonstrate that there is a significant difference between mainstream Muslims and the minority of extremists, its location is supposed to be significant. Unfortunately, the Daily Mail has picked up one word (diversity) and used it to imply that this is just another act of appeasement, and one that is disrespectful because it is being proposed very close to where they blew up the Twin Towers. The diversity comment was made by Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer who supports the project:

‘I don’t think anybody wants to do anything to disrespect those families. They made the ultimate sacrifice,’ he said.

‘At the same time, we have to balance diversity and look for opportunities to bring different groups together.’

…’What I want people to do is to take a look at the totality of what they are proposing,’ Mr Stringer said. ‘What we’re rejecting here is outright bigotry and hatred.’

Bringing ‘different groups together’ seems like a pretty good idea, for how else are we supposed to combat extremism? Sadly, the response by the families – and I can understand their anger in a way – is to lump all Muslims together:

Rosemary Cain, whose fireman son was killed, said: ‘I think it’s despicable. That’s sacred ground. It’s a slap in the face.

‘How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there?’

And this attitude is what we find in the comments:

I could go on, but it just too depressing watching an entire culture being demonised for the violent actions of a few deluded people.

NHS picking on poor white Christians

You just knew that the Daily Mail wouldn’t be able to leave the Christian Nurse banned from wearing crucifix story alone. First they got a Muslim to be outraged on behalf of Christians, now they have found some evidence that Muslims get special treatment in the NHS and that Christians really are being victimised: ‘NHS relax superbug safeguards for Muslim staff… just days after Christian nurse is banned from wearing crucifix for health and safety reasons‘.

The story is based on the news that female Muslims will ‘be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty. This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be “bare below the elbow” after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths’. Furthermore the Mail points out that it has also relaxes its ‘no jewellery’ rule by allowing Sikhs to wear bangles, as long as they can be pushed up the arm during direct patient care.

The article then wheels out the normal Christian organisations and nurse Shirley Chaplin of banned crucifix fame to argue that this is absolute proof that the NHS is picking on Christians and bending over to other faiths. But is it?

The truth of the matter – as to be expected with a Mail article – is very different. Firstly, this isn’t necessarily a relaxing of ‘superbug safeguards’, rather it is a compromise based on best practice. For example, the Daily Mail links female Muslim modesty with poor hygiene – the comments underneath the article are full of people who claim that they will now refuse to be treated by Muslims in case they catch superbugs. However, if you actually read the article it is clear that we are not talking about long sleeves in the traditional sense. If a female Muslim wishes to cover her arms they can use disposable ‘over-sleeves’, which come with strict hygiene instructions for their use.

As the Daily Mail points out, the over-sleeves are available on the Internet for £7 for a pack of 200, so it’s hardly going to break the NHS financially.

Secondly, the bracelets that are worn for religious reasons must be pushed up the arm and secured in place for hand-washing and direct patient care.

The key word here is compromise. Shirley Chaplin refused to compromise, even though the NHS offered her different ways of wearing the crucifix that would be acceptable. Furthermore, the crucifix is a religious accessory, not necessity, and you could argue not a particularly good one. I have a great deal of sympathy for female Muslims, as an atheist I find their treatment by the religion abhorrent. I have witnessed first hand the repression of female Muslims, and to equate the forced religious repression of female Muslims to a Christian woman who merely wanted to wear a crucifix is pretty depressing.

If some simple compromises can be made – with hygiene at the forefront of considerations – that allows female Muslims to pursue a career in the NHS, then what can the problem be? Make no mistake, this Mail article is as usual a crude attack on minority faiths that tries to rile up yet more hatred and intolerance of other religions. Like the BNP the Daily Mail really believes that it is white Christians who are really the victims here, as always in New Labour’s Britain, irrespective of reality.

Thanks to uncompromising faux victims like Shirley Chaplin and the Daily Mail’s skewered attacks on Muslim nurses there are now people who claim they will refuse to be treated by Muslims in the NHS – be they doctors or nurses. I wonder if I’m alone in my personal observations that people I overhear are becoming increasingly less tolerant and more openly hostile to people of different nationalities, colour or faith. How long before racism becomes acceptable in public? How long before the majority of white British people really believe that they are victimised and that they have to fight back?

Funnily enough I didn’t see the Mail cover this story recently, which seems strange considering they should be taking a large chunk of credit for it:

Police are searching for a gang of about 20 Derby men after an attack on a Muslim couple on a train to Nottingham.

Abida Malik said the men called her and her husband Asif Ahmed terrorists. One man put Mr Ahmed in a headlock saying he was making a citizen’s arrest.

The PC Brigade & Dr Taj Hargey

The PC Brigade, is there nothing this band of bandits will not ban? I had thought from reading newspapers that Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin had been told to remove her crucifix necklace for Health and Safety reasons, that the NHS Trust she worked for had a blanket ban on all jewelry. But I was wrong, turns out it was the PC Brigade, at least according to Dr Taj Hargey, who the Daily Mail is keen to point out IS A MUSLIM NO LESS!

Surely he must be absolutely right then, because why else would a Muslim stick up for Christianity? Maybe, just maybe he is just your typical religious nut who thinks that they deserve special treatment because they have ‘faith’ in a system of pointlessly repressive beliefs. ‘What has Britain come to when it takes a Muslim like me to defend Christianity?‘ wails Dr Hargey, before identifying the real culprit:

As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity.

For me, all true religious faith, if practised with benevolence and humility, can only strengthen our society. To undermine religion is to undermine society itself.

It is no coincidence that as Christianity is repeatedly attacked, so the social fabric of Britain becomes increasingly frayed.

As we lose our strong moral compass, family breakdown and violent crime are at record levels, while our once famous sense of community spirit is evaporating.

In the face of this kind of aggressive secularism, Christians and Muslims should be natural allies…

Equally despicable, however, is that these politically correct busy-bodies don’ t even have the courage to be open about their fanatical loathing of Christianity.

Instead, they often cravenly cite ‘health and safety’, that catch-all term so often clutched at by bureaucrats when they want to shut down something they disapprove of.

Well, what a way to roll out cliched and brainless arguments: society is lost without religion: prove it. Seems to me that we’ve had religion since ancient times and beyond and throughout history it has been one long list of wars, repression and genocide. This isn’t even mentioning the large amount of wars that have purely been about religion, about whose sky fairy is the best.

Consider which society you think best:

Society A: Young girl has sex and gets pregnant, family are utterly ashamed and send girl away to have child secretly and never mention it again, girl is damned in eyes of family. Scenario Two, girl so scared of consequences she is forced to insert a knitting needle into herself to terminate baby.

Society B: Young girl has sex and gets pregnant, she is able to see Doctor in confidence and get all the support, advice and help she needs from a range of sources. She can keep the baby and not be as outwardly shamed as Society A, or she can have an abortion and relevant counselling if needed.

Which seems most civilised, the one in which natural bodily functions, urges and above all youthful mistakes are punished by shame, damnation and rejection; or the one in which humanity steps in and lends some support to a fellow human being?

I know which society I prefer, and it isn’t the one that allows religion to determine what is and isn’t moral. Morality is not determined by religion, petty values, lack of freedom and sincerely held prejudices are determined by religion. As is the right to exemption from criticism. For example, if you are the head of an international paedophile ring you can expect to be vilified by the press, hunted by the world’s police and arrested. Unless, of course, your organisation is a religion, in which case you might be asked to ‘repent’ but you’re otherwise left alone to continue your systematic abuse of children.

The rest of Dr Taj Hargey’s article is the sort of drivel that you’d expect to be published in the Daily Mail: everyone’s attacking religion, especially the poor Christians, no one respects religion and on and on. But, what does he really expect? Perhaps if organised religion hadn’t spent the last few thousand years acting like a bunch of utterly immoral shits then we might have a fonder view of it. Perhaps if Christianity turned the other cheek and actually attempted to live by its tenets then we’d have respect for it.

Or perhaps, we do generally respect Christianity and other forms of religion in Britain, but sometimes a religious person is completely unreasonable in not removing an article of faith that has no place in an hospital ward, just as no piece of jewelry has no place in an hospital ward. This then leads to intolerance from idiots like you, who cry discrimination, when really, if you look at it from a neutral point of view: discrimination is written into your holy books, not NHS Trust health and safety guidelines.

All I know is that every time I read a pointless article like this written by some trumped-up religious bell-end It certainly makes me less tolerant towards the mindless ‘faithful’.

Mac is not being ironic

On second thoughts, I think we can conclude that Mac isn’t being ironic.

‘Yes, sir. Somali pirates – we stopped them, gave them food and water, explained their human rights… then guess what?’

‘Attention children. To set the mood Miss Spilsbury will strip off to demonstrate upside-down pole dancing whilst snorting a line of coke…’

That Mac Cartoon

OK, the Mac cartoon equating immigrants to animals has done the rounds and you’ve probably seen it by now. It has been retweeted around the twitterverse since @dailyquail tweeted it last night and has done the rounds via Liberal Conspiracy and Pickled Politics. Still, I feel it is important to at least mention it here for those of you that have missed it:

It isn’t subtle, it isn’t pleasant and above all: it just isn’t funny. It still staggers me that every year the Daily Mail brings out a ‘Best of Mac’ book just in time for Christmas. I guess you can laugh at Mac and buy the book every year, but only if you’re a racist. I’m sure people who regularly look at Mac’s cartoons would be able to point out a lot that really are just designed to stir up hatred of ethnic minorities, but I have one example that stood out enough for me to cover it quite some time ago:

In reality Mac does little more than sketch the worldview of the Daily Mail, if you enjoy a Mac cartoon it’s because you enjoy reading the Daily Mail and both tally with your own view of the world. You probably think immigrants are no better than animals, and the idea of a multicultural marriage is as laughable or grotesque as marrying a sheep.

However, perhaps I’m not giving Mac enough credit, as a commenter on the Mail website muses:

This is hiliarious because you see the difference between humans and sheep are cultural differences. It’s not like they are another species, it’s just cultural. Mac is so funny lampooning how insane the right-wing are when they equate gays/other races with animals, it’s funny.

This is supposed to be a satire on pretty much the entirety of the Mail’s output, right?

– Ari Ovin, Berrichon du Cher, 11/2/2010 14:50

Nice of the Daily Mail to let that comment through.

Asian clothing part of ‘Muslim invasion’

There are stories on the Mail website that you just know are going to attract vast amounts of outraged comments – it is both utterly predictable and depressing in equal measure. Today’s story for attracting racism, ignorance and above all paranoia is: ‘Asda launches Asian clothing in first ethnic fashion line by a High Street brand‘. The story is deemed so important that it gets a large space on the website as the top story selected as ‘Editor’s six of the best’, which I guess just about sums up the priorities of Paul Dacre when it comes to reporting ‘news’.

Naturally the comments are full of paranoid racism from scared Daily Mail readers who see this as another step in the Islamic takeover of Britain. Many commentators state that they will boycott Asda because they want British goods in British shops, which I really think sums up the ignorance of those readers – boycotting an American superstore selling goods sourced from all over the world (including the majority of electronic products produced in China) hardly seems the quintessential British shopping experience.

But then again, maybe it is. The Daily Mail often look fondly back to the days of empire, but isn’t this clothing range a direct product of empire? Our multicultural society was built by empire, as was our appetite for foreign products and produce which we still very much enjoy today. Whilst we may no longer rule vast parts of the world, we still enjoy the spoils of slave labour as sweatshops around the world make our clothes, accessories and electronic goods. As I have argued before, if we really wanted ‘British jobs for British workers’ we should demand an end to this exploitation of foreign labour and insist that eager Britons be given a chance to work in a ‘British Sweatshop for British workers’.

However, commentators on the Daily Mail website don’t try and consider the bigger picture unless it is part of some paranoid alternate reality where Britain is under siege by Muslims. The kind of world where parents are guilty of naming their child ‘Mohammad’ and the English Defence League are seen as defending Englishness rather than destroying it. In the world of the paranoid Daily Mail reader everything is being eroded by foreigners and a clothing line is just another step along the conveyor belt heading towards the apocalypse:

Sue Daley

All the classic hallmarks of the chronically misinformed Daily Mail reader – the mythical ‘influx’ of foreigners, the ‘not being allowed to say you’re Christian’ rubbish, the conversion of churches to mosques and quaint British villages to Islamic hotbeds of awful foreignness. It doesn’t matter that the world in her head doesn’t exist, she can get it confirmed by just picking up a copy of the Daily Mail or visiting the Mail website. After all, the Daily Mail is home to ‘Mad” Melanie Phillips who has received endorsement from the BNP and even today has spent another column attacking multi-culturalism for ‘destroying Britishness’.

As usual the old argument about ‘integration’ is wheeled out, but as I’ve argued before, do any of us really integrate into society? Immigration is not a crime and many Britons enjoy the freedom to migrate to other countries – just check out the amount of ex-pats commenting on the Mail website – so why does the Daily Mail treat immigrants as criminals? Why does to people on the Mail website feel so threatened by a clothing line? The answers, of course, lie in the reasons I’ve tried to outline before: we must feel threatened by the disenfranchised and powerless so that we don’t start properly assessing the deeply unjust society we live in and begin to threaten those who are in power and ultimately responsible for the world that we live in.

Intolerance? We’ll show you intolerance!

I’m an atheist. I do not think that this is a big deal, for me it seems the only logical position to take if you actually engage your brain and look at the matter of religion with any kind of objectivity. In some ways I have a problem with the whole label ‘atheist’, why does anyone have to make a declaration that they are not a believer in religion? I don’t believe in fairies, Santa Claus or Unicorns, should I also have some kind of label to indicate this as well?

The reason the label exists is to imply that atheism is some kind of significant choice, as if everyone has undergone a soul searching battle between belief in religion and the barren wilderness that atheism is so often painted to be. The label tries to validate religious belief by implying that if you do not believe then you deserve some kind of label so everyone knows that you are an outsider, that you are somehow different to them. I personally have very little tolerance for religious people in as much as if they knock on my door and try to convert me (which seems to happen about 4 times a year in Wales) I’ll make it pretty clear to them – in polite terms – that I think they’re not in touch with reality and that I treat the bible like any other work of literature – fiction.

However, the vast majority of religious people are peaceful human beings who are not out to do me any harm and I have to try to understand that the power of religion lies in indoctrinating the young, so most people hold these beliefs because of the way that they were nurtured and it is difficult for them to change. I therefore try to sympathise with religious people, I may not agree with their beliefs but if I was to try and force my worldview upon others I would become as intolerant as some religious people are and consequently no better than them.

Intolerance is something that Muslims are supposed to practice according to the Daily Mail and its readers, so you’d imagine that Daily Mail readers would take the high ground and be tolerant of others, otherwise two wrongs wouldn’t make a right would it? Naturally, Daily Mail readers are about as tolerant towards Muslims as Hitler was towards disabled, Jewish, immigrant gypsies: ‘Muslim woman banned from wearing a ‘burkini’ in a French swimming pool‘. Now the headline (for a change) is actually a fair summation of the article: a swimming pool in France has banned a Muslim item of clothing from a swimming pool. Of course, the Daily Mail readers are keen to praise the French for ‘not bowing down’ to evil Muslim women who want to cover up whilst swimming.

Now, again, in my opinion women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want, but at the same time, by wearing this swimming costume I am not being inconvenienced in any way whatsoever, so why would I want to ban it? Daily Mail land is a strange place, on the one hand a women wearing a skimpy swimsuit is probably a slut and is asking to be raped, whilst a women who – for her faith – wants to remain largely covered whilst swimming must be banned for… well, for what exactly?

I pity the poor women who have to wear these outfits, it makes me sad that religion causes human beings to deny their essential being (in as much as they have to hide their physicality from the world) so why would I want to add to their perceived misfortune by demanding that the authorities ban articles of clothing that make an enjoyable pastime like swimming accessible to these women?

Daily Mail readers are misanthropes, they want everyone to wallow in misery, regardless of whether the activity benefits or hinders them. This article is about a human being having the ability to swim taken away from them because the French authorities are trying to battle intolerance with intolerance. Yet the comments under the article seem to imply that the French have found the cure for cancer:

So, France respond to a swimsuit that is representative of religious oppression and intolerance… by acting intolerantly and repressively by banning it… and Daily Mail readers cheer.

Muslims have been dehumanised to such an extent that a women who lives in a supposedly liberal and civilised society cannot go for a swim in a large swimming costume without hordes of right-wing shitkickers demanding that she be banned from doing so – without a hint of irony. Muslim women are repressed by their religion and Daily Mail readers can’t wait to join in with a good kicking: ‘You what? You want to swim? Not in that costume. Now fucking get it off or get out of the pool’.

And I thought Muslims were supposed to be the intolerant and backward ones.


Some might suggest that this website is intolerant or preaching intolerance towards Daily Mail readers / writers. I think that is probably a fair accusation, but at the same time I have never demanded that the Daily Mail be banned or that Daily Mail readers should all be punched, hard, in the face – no matter how much they deserve it.

Somebody shoot me now!!!

It doesn’t take much to get the average Mail Online reader frothing at the mouth and hammering the red and green arrows. Normally a good story to elicit this kind of response combines PC-gone-mad and Muslims, today the Mail have come up with a real winner: ‘Very PC police force issues its WPCs with Muslim headscarves complete with badge for mosque visits‘. The article basically says that:

Women police officers are being issued with headscarves to wear when they visit a mosque.

They are expected to put the scarfs on shortly before they enter the mosque, in keeping with Islamic custom.

I’m no fan of organised religion, but if people are stupid enough to have cultural / religious values that they want respected and I have to enter their property then I guess I have no choice but to respect their regulations. Most Daily Mail commentators fail to grasp that there is a big difference between the social expectations of behaviour that come from living in the UK and expectations that can be made on private property. If I was to enter a Daily Mail reader’s house I would have to abide by their rules, as it is, after all, their property that I am entering. Their house rules could be entirely different to general British custom, so according to Mail logic their customs are evil and PC-gone-mad and the implication is that they should become one of us, or leave the country.

The wearing of a small, cheap item of clothing in a very specific place as a small, painless mark of respect seems perfectly reasonable, and hardly a sign that British culture is about to be destroyed, but you wouldn’t think that way if you read the Daily Mail:

This is an absolute disgrace!!!

– Tony, uk, 27/7/2009 18:55

Welcome to the loony country of BRITAIN

– nostradamus, SWINDON ENGLAND, 27/7/2009 18:54

…. while we’re at it maybe the Lord Chief Justice should replace his wig with a Henry Lloyd baseball cap ……. worn back to front of course ….

– cubone, UK, 27/7/2009 18:42

We are in Britain. Do things the British way.

– Jeff, Norfolk, 27/7/2009 18:42

Spot the pretty blatant racial overtones from ‘cubone’ (voted nearly 200 in the green), aren’t you a real credit to the Daily Mail readership. Some of the comments that have been voted up speak volumes for the intellectual capacity of the average Daily Mail reader:

government is creating too many rules and has become messy.

– Kin, Barnet, 27/7/2009 18:37

Kin, Barnet, manages to get that wonderfully thought-provoking and important comment voted over 1000 in the green. No surprises what comments are attracting huge red votes:

Why not? If muslims get really startled seeing woman without a headscarf entering the mosque, let’s not start making problems and wear one. The same thing, for example, is Milan Duomo or Vatican Basilica where you are not allowed to enter in shorts… Don’t know, why, though, but basically, it’s the same tradition, just for muslims, it’s head, for catholics – legs…

– Maris Crane, Guildford villages, 27/7/2009 18:44 607

Surprised they weren’t doing this anyway. Personally I think this is right, since it is for entering a place of worship.

– Susan, Edinburgh, UK, 27/7/2009 18:33 1547

Seems quite sensible.

– Don, London, 27/7/2009 18:27 1542

To be fair, this isn’t a bad idea it shows respect for the muslim religion whilst showing a symbol of authority for the local police. A correct show of “diversity” in my opinion.

– Nick, Worcester, 27/7/2009 18:23 1494

And finally, another comment that is currently 624 in the green:

Somebody shoot me now!!!

– Bill, Walsall, UK, 27/7/2009 18:21

This must mean that over 600 Daily Mail readers would rather be shot than live in a Britain where the occasional police officer will enter a Mosque wearing a scarf. I just hope those readers have the courage of their convictions and will shortly be willingly executed.