主播大秀

I think old Bernard was merely articulating what many millions were/are thinking.At 76 he had a good innings. Sorry to see another original funny man 'leave the building' i for one, of millions is sorry to lose him.
Good on ya Bernard lad.

The knighting of Salman Rushdie purely serving as a slap in the face to Muslims all over the world and to Britsh Muslims especially....what kind of good can a gesture like this bring about?!

The whole debate about Salman Rushdie is just getting silly. Religion seems to just promote intolerance, hatred and arguements which are based on myth and not fact.

The sooner the Atheist majority are heard, and we can stop the promotion of faith in our schools and the power the religous minority can hold the better.

Being insulted by a work of fiction is so silly that I am amazed that it even crosses the minds of people.

My, my, what a misguided debate on Salman Rushdie's knighthood.
Lord Ahmad is so misinformed it beggars belief. Rushdie has not only been a successful and rightly acclaimed novelist for work such as Midnight's Children which won the Booker 1981 and Booker of Bookers in 1993, but he has worked for the improvement of community relations in the 1970s in Camden. Furthermore, what people seem to forget about the Satanic Verses is that it is also a book about England, about London and racism in early 1980s Thatcherite Britain. What about his campaign for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, the work he has done to highlight the plight of other persecuted novelists?

What I find baffling in the extreme is that the 主播大秀 could not get better qualified people on to discuss this matter. The Labour MP had never read any of Rushdie's novels, Lord Ahmad had no clue about Rushdie, the only sensible comment was to be heard from the Oxford academic. Gavin Esler did a sterling job, but the panelists were woefully inadequate.

Methinks you made a Turkey of it tonight Gavin - Bernard Matthews !

The death of Bernard Manning and the rantings of a Pakistani Moslem Politician illustrates well how intolerance and Political correctness has embedded itself in England.
No wonder the majority of people in this country are tired of the knee-jerk reactions of SOME Moslems who look for an excuse to rant, rave and bomb. Some idiot will now seek Martrydom on killing Rushdie on a book he has most probably not read, neither has any Moslem. I was with totally Tariq Ramadam. Lord Armed was just "mouthing" the usual Moslem rhetoric. He actually mentioned Christianity. The difference is that we Christians don't take to the streets wishing to kill all non Christians. He should denounce his peerage in protest if he has any honour.

Then we get the sour-faced look of the woman presenter of the 主播大秀 Six o Clock News after hearing some of Bernard's "racist" jokes which 95% of the people laugh at and 100% of those Politically Correct, (a point Jim Bowen made) killjoys "tut" into their Musli. She was an excellent illustration of the current "Liberal" debate over the 主播大秀. I thought the interview with Mrs. Merton summed up Bernard's view of such nonsense. Bernard made us laugh and the rest of us out here in the country will continue to tell jokes about the Irish, Jews, Moslems and any other politically incorrect topic.
Thanks Bernard for making us laugh in what is becoming a mean spirited world. He was no different from Alf Garnett's prejudice with the point Johnny Speit was making was how stupid having such prejudice is. Alf would not make the 主播大秀 today.

Newsnight: debate on Salman Rushdie receiving an honour. Typical 主播大秀 Linge-up: 2 muslims, 1 non-muslim. That鈥檚 主播大秀 balance for you. What else can you expect from them?

I think Lord Ahmed should get his thoughts in order as a voting politician who should represent all people of whatever faith or occupation in the country he has adopted and been honoured by. Salman Rushdie has been knighted for his services to literature, we have a long standing creed of freedom of expression in this country which Ahmed does not appear to understand by supporting the Union Jack burning Pakistanis, Ahmed is a disgrace to this country and should not be a representative of the UK.

Mr.Rushdie's knighthood is an insult to all those who seek understanding in this world. There is nothing to be achieved by awarding slanderers like Mr Rushdie.

Whether or not Salman Rushdie deserves a Knighthood is dubious but it must relate to his work. The fact that some people don't like some of the things he has said, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews or atheists is irrelevant.

Freedom of speech (where it is a view or opinion, not intended to cause others to take action against any individual or group) should be cherished. If I silence the views of my brother then my own views are irrelevant.

Oppression and tyrany by individuals or groups who want to make others live as they see fit to reinforce their own identity or seek some benefit over others is wrong. Whether it's western governments exploiting cheap labour in poor countries, oppressive dictatorships beating its people into submission or ignorant religious idealists dicating the lives of others, then we must stand up to them.

I laughed loudly when I heard that that racist bigot who claimed to be a 'comedian' had finally popped his clogs! There was really nothing funny at all about a self-proclaimed, proud-to-be racist who sought throughout his lifetime to make racism respectable in the comic hall.

I strongly disagree with the curious posting from "Graham T Barrie". Manning certainly did not articulate the beliefs of so-called "millions", because there are not millions of racists in Britain. Though, I concede that he may well be one of them! I think most reasonable people found the way that Manning relentlessly attacked other people solely on the basis of their nationality, race, sexuality and gender crude and tasteless. He was a racist bigot who masqueraded as a so-called comedian because he cynically calculated (like most other immoral people who trivialise racism with jokes)that through the medium of comedy - as opposed to that of politics - he could get away with saying a lot more.

I have no problem at all with comdeians basing their performances on race, gender or sexuality - there are many great, genuine comedians who manage to pull that feat off very well. I don't even have a problem with comic acts that occasionally cause "offence" as Bernard Manning's frequently did. My fundamental problem is with a man who was proud to be an unrepentent racist, and who also associated himself during his lifetime with others who were, and remain, racists.

Genuine comedians have something subtlely intelligent, challenging and even provocative to say in the way that they craft their jokes, and their genius also lies in their ability simultaneously to do this and also make people laugh. All that Bernard Manning ever did was to crudely exploit the base racial prejudices and hatreds that lurk within the minds of some inadequate sections of our population, and parade these visceral hatreds as somehow being respectable and amusing. This was not the trade of either an intelligent, thoughtful man or of a genuine, great comedian, and many within his profession quite rightly spotted him for the racist fraud that he was, and accordingly shunned him. He will not be missed or mourned by me, and the World is probably just a little better off now with one less bigot stalking in our midst.

Lord Ahmed condemns the knighthood for Salman Rushdie as a provocation to Muslims, but does he stop to think that demanding the government comply with his views is equally provocative to those of us who believe in freedom of expression and a liberal society? I have never had a racist sentiment in my life but I found myself shouting "Get back to Pakistan" at the television. If he can turn me into a racist what effect might his words have on the Bernard Manning tendency? Social cohesion should be a two-way street. Society in general is always being asked to make allowances for other cultures. It is time those other cultures showed equal understanding and tolerance of the indigenous European culture, otherwise cohesion doesn't stand a chance.

Mental imagery leading up to the punch line determines whether a joke is 'seen' as funny or not and the chuckle button is activated accordingly.

The 'human' characters used as the butt of any joke are simply out of focus figments thrown up in the mind of the listener and the identities of real people, of whatever race, religion, sexual orientation, black, white, fat, thin, deaf, blind, dumb or whatever, don't even enter the reckoning.

The Gavin Assler/porridge joke was admittedly about a specific Scottish individual, but as one person cannot possibly constitute a 'Race' by defintion then it couldn't be described as 'racist'.
He couldn't help laughing nonetheless.

From Wat i understand Islam and Mohamed are not to be blasphemed moderate muslims probably would not say or do anything about it extremist will say and do something about it.

salman rushdie being awarded nighthood will upset all muslims causing some moderate muslims to go extremist the ones who make these decisions must know this will happen beforehand parts of the satanic verses blasphemed Islam.

maybe it should have been stated that he was awarded nighthood for the bookes everybody are happy with but not for the satanic verses then moderate muslims will have not have nothing to complain about.

Comedians play on the logical indeterminaces of natural language just as politicians do. That's why comedy and politics are so closely linked.

Po-faced politicians pretend that it isn't so, but our lives would be so much better if a sound education in science rather than law or humanities was the ticket to public service.

Alas, and ironically, pursuit of truth lacks common/public appeal - it's too arcane, elitist, and 'boring',

salaman Rushdie is really a guy whose nature has become to torture the Muslims.i think the belonging of the religion to directly the emotions.if someone says a thing which is against the spirit of the religion , it definitely hurts the others who believe in this religion.salaman Rushdie has said many things which hurt the Muslims .i think the decision of his knighthood has definitely hurt the Muslims

mushtaq khan mooliani
Layyah Pakistan

On Humour, The I/P Conflict, Proportionality and Base Rates

Q1 How many Jewish Peers are there?

The UK Jewish population is reported as being under 300,000 (i.e. less than 1/2 a percent of the population). If their higher than base rate representation in the Lords is a function of greater ability in some areas in this groups, all well and good. If true, is this genetic?

Q2 How many Jewish whites live in New York City.

One has to do a little arithematic here as the Non-Hispanic White figure is only available for the Counties, but they are there on the US Census Bureau pages if you look. These indicate that the non Hispanic White population of NYC (it came as a surprise a few years ago that Hipanics often record themselves as White) is about 2.7m. A respectable source (see below) puts the Jewish population of NYC as about 2m (largest Jewish city after Tel Aviv). That would seem to make 2/3 of the whites in NYC Jewish and non Jewish, Non Hispanic Whites a minority given that 11% of NYC is Asian, and that Blacks amount to over 2m as do Hispanics.

This would seem to suggest that there are good grounds for some of our group, i.e. 'racial' stereotypes would it not? Another is the widely held belief that Blacks are much more highly represented in crime, mental illness and poor school behaviour and performance than whites. It is also true that Muslims are *under* respresented in crime. It is not racist to say this, it is just statistically true.

Since we talk in terms of class memberships all the time (from apples to zebras) it isn't racist, sexist, or anti-semitic to point out statistical sound group characteristics, it's just wrong to use the quantifier ALL rather than SOME to range over class memberships when talking about functional relations.

If groups feature disproportionately in any walk of life that in itself is not to be decried, but it should be investigated as that's what scientists and reasonable, enquiring people do, they look for non chance functional relations. Groups can and do legitimately lobby for their own interests, and as that's not illegal to do do, there can be no talk of 'conspiracy'. But railing against others for being 'anti-semitic', 'racist' or 'sexist' (see below for a hint about group diferences in brain/behaviour gender) for highlighting empirical facts about class/group difference, is not only dishonest, it's anathema to science ('pursuit of truth', Quine 1951;1990;1992) and is osmetimes just plain stupid. Such responses are becoming ever more common alas, and if left unchallenged would proscribe epidemiology and genetics (exactly what the Sovierts did in 1936/7 when they banned genetics and educational psychology). This was Lysenkoism.

I offer this as food for thought in our ever more 'politically correct', confused times. It's OK to campaign for money for breast cancer if it brings in research money as there's a higher genetic risk amongst the Ashkenazi, but it's not OK apparently to point out other disproportinalities (e.g. Blacks and prostate cancer risk, or Jews and NCAH see link).

Isn't it time for some more rational behaviour, or have we now gone so far down the dysgenics route that that's just too much to ask?

Bernard Manning was a true comedian of the people -- all the people.
The point is that (as humour should be) every category of person was the butt of his jokes, but his jokes were at nobody's expense.

He was a great focus of our collective contempt for political correctness fascists such as the hate-filled bigotry of Ben James (above).
James' post is disgusting in being also highly distasteful disrespect for the newly dead, and it encapsulates the hatred for the mass of ordinary nice folk by those who now run government, media and education.
We will all be rejoicing when they cast off their collective mortal coil.

'on humour' Adrienne?

Just about the only amusing thing about your most recent post is its startling similarity to one of your many, many your postings only last Monday.

Are we to take it that you are on some sort of spin cycle? (At least I fed you a line for a joke there, if you do want to do something even mildly amusing).

I look forward to to your comments on tonight's programme (on, in turn, 'anarcho-capitalism', 'demographic decline', and then 'heritability of intelligence', if last Tuesday is anything to go by).

(Unless the joke is a satire of BBc repeats, of course...)

Steve Moxon, totally agree. Ben James' spiteful "blog" showed total disrespect for the dead and falls into the usual excuse of labelling anyone who expresses such jokes as a racist.
As far as I am aware Bernard never excluded Moslems, Jews, The Irish etc. from his club nor shunned or campaigned against them being in this country. You may recall Charlie Williams, the black commedian from Yorkshire, who used to use his colour as a self effacing comment upon Blacks with his "Don't upset me or I will come and live next door to you".
Yes there will be many Ben James' about who are always willing to take offence and put themselves on the moral highground with the likes of us being accused of being racist, an accusation on which I do take offence.
Now have you heard the one about the Irishman, Scotsman and Englishman?

#24 - First, just because you read many of these blogs doesn't mean that everyone does. My comments are rarely meant to be be amusing or entertaining, so your remarks are largely unhelpful non sequiturs.

My comments addressed principles common to all 4 topics.

Rushdie has been rewarded for what some, rightly or wrongly, see him becoming famous for writing a controversial book which vilified Islam. This works to Israel's advantage at the expense of Muslims in some people's eyes. Muslims account for a much larger proportion of British society than Jews do (getting on for 8x more in the younger age groups). This is likely to further inflame Muslim-Non Muslim hostility and most people will not see how Israel is advantaged through that.

Cameron appears to be asking for votes to do even less in the way of government (which is chutzpah). To me this is equivalent to furthering 'Jewish' anarcho-capitalism (liberal democratic, free market with minimal regulation in case that needs spelling out). I think this bad for Britain based on what we have seen of it since Thatcher. Some do not see this for what it is.

The support of the International Community in favour of Israel's interests in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clear. It's national policy. We have an over-representation of Jewish Law Makers and an under respresentation of Muslim Law Makers. Given that the Middle East is the world' tinder box geo-politically I don't consider any of this amusing. I do think there are problems here with how we deal with classes, and that that is the root of much conflict.

Bernard Manning was well known for making 'racist' jokes which were amusing as they were seen as not being far from the truth. Humour has its effects because jokes often harbour unpalatable truths.

Whilst I may well have repeated points which I have made elsewhere, I reckon they need repeating in order to drive home that we are reinforcing some social injustices whilst letting others go unpunished.

We do live in a dysgenic times, we are dumbing down our population and people need to look into how it happens and what they are voting for.

Whilst none of what I've said is meant to be amusing, I fear much of it may yet to sink in.

So, on a friendly, and light hearted note, enough of the snide and cynical remarks already - they're a little dumb ;-).

yay not banned anymore.

how nice to see trafalgar square. It was designed by the duke of wellington to be easily blocked by a few soldiers lest any rabble congregating there decided to march on parliament. This is also why westminster parliament has one side to the river as wellington saw that any position that could be surrounded can be defeated. The river would always be an escape route. He also moved the public meeting place to Hyde Park in the theory that any revolutionaires marching on parliament from there would give the troops ample notice and the marchers would have to march quite a long way ...past several pubs... perhaps in the rain.....

just goes to show freedom just doesn't happen. it is designed.

I was bl**dy infuriated by Lord Ahmed鈥檚 comments about Salman Rushdie鈥檚 knighthood, although not so infuriated as to want to harm him.

What Ahmed and his ilk won鈥檛 accept is that freedom of speech is meaningless if we can鈥檛 lampoon and express disrespect for any ideas, religious or otherwise.

Muslim spokesmen, like Ahmed, invoke the wrath of 1.5 billion Muslims to silence critics of Islam. This works at the 主播大秀 as was shown in a recent review of bias in broadcasting when 主播大秀 executives admitted that they would show images of a Bible being thrown away, but not of a Koran. Similarly the American photographer Andres Serrano can present the photograph 鈥淧iss Christ鈥� as artwork (a crucifix in a jar of the artist鈥檚 urine) but no artist would dare do a 鈥淧iss Mohammad鈥�. In a recent Channel 4 debate on the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, John Snow asked the audience to vote if they wanted the cartoons to be broadcast on the program, or not. The programmers ignored the affirmative vote and the cartoon images were not broadcast. Were they counting on a negative vote, I wonder?

We fear Muslim reaction to the type of criticism that we tolerate of our own belief systems. We should expect Ahmed to express outrage that adherents of a medieval religious ideology threaten an innocent man.

Is their any reason to treat Muslim beliefs with any more reverence that those of these groups (listed below), apart from fear of violent repercussion? And if violent repercussion is a valid reason to elevate Muslim sensibilities over those of Christians, for example, then what are the long-term consequences of such behaviour?

1. Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses who have repeatedly, over the last 100 years, predicted the end of the world (originally using calculations based on the geometry of Egyptian Pyramids 鈥� by some accounts). Ha ha ha 鈥�.

2. The Mormons whose religion is based on the translation, from Egyptian, of tablets presented to Joseph Smith by the angel Gabriel. The original tablets were subsequently lost, of course. Yeah right!

3. Scientologists, who base their beliefs on the science fiction writings of L. Ron Hubbard鈥檚 writings. Snort!!!

4. Space-alien worshipers in Oregon (my wife鈥檚 uncle was part of this) who waited for years for an alien spaceship to arrive and take them to a heavenly paradise (until they all ran out of money and had to get jobs). Just sad really鈥�

Adrienne, with a world government as you would apparantly have it where everyone had representation according to their numbers, the world legislature would sap Britain blind sending most of its wealth to the less affluent billions all over China, India, Africa, and the rest of the third world. Britain's very ability to produce wealth at all would be diluted beyond function as would that of those economies which generate most of the world's wealth, especially the United States. You'd like that last part wouldn't you. Socialists and other later day Robin Hood types always feel it is unjust for someone to have more than someone else. Too bad we can't take the teeth and claws out of the lions so that the wildebeasts don't fall prey to them. If the lions starve, let them learn to eat grass.

Why should Britain be allowed to vote for a disproportionate minority of Jews to govern just because they have convinced the electorate that they are the best qualified choices when there are so many under represented minorities such as Moslems who do not show their faces in Parliament in equal numbers. How unfair not to have a "rainbow coalition" governing the country.

Has it ever occurred to you that Britain was right to confer Knighthood on Salman Rushdie if for no other reason than merely because it could as an exercise of what's left of its sovereignty? That Pakistan or someone else is offended by it is just too bad. Lots of people including leaders of other countries say a lot of things I don't like. I don't like it when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants a world without America but it's just so much talk...until he starts building an atom bomb to bring it about. That's when it's time to start thinking seriously about a pre-emptive war to crush him and his religious fanatic bosses.

"Jewish anarcho-capitalism (liberal democratic, free market...)" Oh you must be referring to the fact that in Britain, there are still vestiges where people can actually make a profit and keep some of it, speak their mind and not be put in prison for it, can actually be allowed to think and act on their own behalf even if it isn't for the greater good of society. Have no fear, Brussels will soon fix that. The rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands was just a temporary setback for Eurocrats. Before you know it, British taxpayers will be footing the bills for projects like one to build a cultural center in rurual Slovenia in exchange for a vote to increase French farm subsidies in some back room deal. Eurocrats will sooner or later kill all capitalism and other freedom off in Europe, it's as good as a done deal.

How frustrating it must be for you one-worlder types to know that the United States will never be enslaved by a world government and that it has not only the means but the will to use them to prevent it even if it means everyone dies in the process. That in part was what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about, a clear demonstration in case anyone would ever have any doubt that Americans still have enough red blood in them to fight and die to retain their own sovereignty, even if nobody else does. Emasculated at birth, Europeans will never understand America.

Americans will never understand history.

So America will reign supreme to the end of time? Sounds to me like an ancient static mind.

Well i really tried, on two occasions, it must have been the retelling of a classic Bernard Manning joke or my rant about the muslims wishing to burn books again, proberbly both.

Can i say this, the post at sixteen is a disgrace, and i am offended by it, but thats his opinion and i suppose he's entitled to it, i on the other have an opposing opinion but hey, double standards do exist and we have to deal with them, certainly on here at least.
testing one two three, testing , end of test.

I read about "Americans...fight and die to retain their own sovereignty" (Mark). Don't they also kill, kill, kill to bring "democracy" to the World. The Middle East is in ruins because of Messrs Bush and Blair. This week we have Olmert visiting his American allies, in order to get approval, cash and weapons so as to "help" the Palestinian "Moderates" annihilate the "Terrorists", Hamas, the democratically elected government of Palestine. His intention is to continue the destruction of Palestine, and its colonization. Gavin Hessler gave plenty of time to Olmert's spokeswoman, but did not deem it necessary to challenge her and her government who have instituted a violent Apartheid regime in Palestine, thus practising terrorism.

C Cameron;
The opportunity Iraqis were given to create a democratic society was an additional benefit given them as the result America overthrowing Saddam Hussein, an opportunity they would not have gotten any other way. Too bad if they couldn't take advantage of it, ultimately that is up to them and if they blow it, well that's just too bad. The obvious real reason for the invasion was that the American government believed Iraq was or would have become an unacceptable threat to America's security. President Bush made it very clear that it was not yet at that time but he and his advisors were very worried about the possibility of a nexus between state sponsors of terrorims like Iraq and Al Qaeda coming into being and he correctly prevented it. By the way, at the time of the invasion, EVERY major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had some form of WMDs specifically chemical and biological weapons and we still don't know definitively to this day if it was true even though there has been no subsequent hard evidence of it.

The Middle East is in Ruins? Surely you must be joking. The real destruction hasn't even begun yet. Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, those are mere preliminary skirmishes. As the fear that Iran is about to acquire the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon grows to a crisis, there will be military conflict like that region hasn't ever seen. Look at news footage of the bombed out cities of Germany resulting from World War II and you may get a glimmer of what is to come for the Middle East. Don't look for Europe or America to be immune from such destruction either, there will be opportunities for the other side to strike in ways we can't prevent before they are defeated.

#29 Mark. You don't appear to have responded to what I have actually said, instead you have responded to what you think I said, so I can't reply in detail. My initial response to you was to be very long, but perhaps that would have been counterproductive.

One point though, I predict it will be China that rules the world. The USA will decay through dysgenesis even before we do here. That was why I provided this link. It does not seem to have been understood (see video).

I only hope that you will have many happy 'wildebeest', and that they will not troubled too much by 'lions'.

Adrienne, China rule the world? This is the same dumb thinking I've been hearing all my life from respected economists and futurologists. Once around the 1960s it was going to be the USSR which would overtake the US. Then it was to be Japan, remember that? That was in the 1980s and we were told they were 10 feet tall. Around 15 years ago, European economists were confident it was to be the EU. Now it's China. But the facts are dead set against them in many ways. The current rate of growth is unsustainable. They are eating up the world's resources at an alarming rate and are now the number one producer of green house gases, yet as they continue to suffer the effects of global warming, they will not agree to cut back CO2 and therefore neither will the US commit to it. They are bankrupting their markets, the EU among them, the markets they depend on as an export driven economy to survive. They have polluted their country so badly it is almost uninhabitable already, they still have 700 million people who live on under $2 a day and another 200 million who are very underemployed. What do you think they will do when they find out that they will not be among the privileged to enjoy the benefits of the new China. There is reason to worry about social upheaval, economic calamities on their casino-like stock market and shaky banking system. They have an aging population and many of their elderly will suffer expensive to treat long term chronic illness resulting from indoor and outdoor pollution, poor diet, poor hygiene, and cigarette smoking. They are terminally corrupt, so much so that the government has to execute the worst offenders just to maintain credibility in the financial world. There's the possibility of a trade war with the US if it doesn't upvalue its currency and allow American financial services like insurance companies and banks to do business there. I could go on and on but the one thing that is clear is that China will NEVER come close to catching up to the US. And their population does continue to grow as the one child per couple policy seems to be falling by the wayside. It was said a long time ago that at their rate of growth, if the Chinese were to march into the sea four abreast, the line would never come to an end. That is undoubtedly still true. And India is not far behind in almost every way I mentioned and in even more ways. Don't be fooled by the shiny skyscrapers in a few cities and their modern motorways and factories, most of the country is not like that. Furthermore, most of their economy is built on producing inexpensive mass produced labor intensive products, in other words cheap junk (I'm including television sets and pcs in that) and even there, most high tech engineering for it is done elsewhere. The long term outlook for China is a word is BLEAK. So if you are pinning your hopes on the Chinese communists (communist in name only) capitalist devils to overtake the American capitalist devils, you are in for a big disappointment.

Returning to find out where the discussion had gone after my previous post I discover, like Chinese whispers, it has morphed into something that seemingly has no connection with Salman Rushdie or Bernard Manning but reflects participants own fixations. Before I retire baffled to bed I cannot resist correcting Mark's comment that "EVERY major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had some form of WMDs". Despite claims by Blair and apologists for the war to the contrary, the Russians did not believe Saddam had WMD and Putin publicly contradicted Blair on the subject at a news conference screened, I think, by Panorama. Now, can we get back to Rushdie/Manning?

SteveB21
The point is moot however it is also a matter of public record that Putin warned Bush before the invasion that his intelligence service had learned that Saddam Hussein was planning to attack the United States on American soil. Putin, an ardent opponent of the invasion would not have made that up. As for WMDs, my own hunch was that the CIA had a pretty good hunch because they knew how much VX precursor they'd sold and shipped to him and how much the UN inspectors had found, therefore what couldn't be accounted for. You'd have to have been an idiot to have trusted that Iraq had destroyed any of it without documentation as they claimed and believed that they'd only destroyed what they had been forced to. Same for the anthrax spores they'd sent and shown him how to culture. There was also no reason why the CIA and other American intelligence services shouldn't have believed Britain's dodgy dossier, after all Blair believed it.

Mark #35

"They are bankrupting their markets, the EU among them, the markets they depend on as an export driven economy to survive."

China is an evolving Stalinist/Maoist country. It wages economic and demographic warfare. It is a geo-political major player, but goes about it cleverly. It has introduced effective long term eugenics legislation which will further improve the country's IQ (which already leads the world). Ours is in decline through mechanisms which I've now explicated many times in Newsnight blogs over recent weeks.

Given the correlation between mean national IQs and GDPs you are just wrong. Cognitive ability (human capital) drives economies. Reduce that and you reduce GDP.

The USA is in decline, so are we. Most of the developed 'liberal democratic', anarcho-capitalist, post-demographic transition, service sector, female dominated (note), countries have well below replacement level fertility which they try to compensate for via open immigration. Unfortunately, in the long run that just exacerbates their problems as these are largely more low-skilled workers which are already being over-produced by differential fertility (driven by emancipation of women without massive state measures to compensate for the downside). This needs to be looked at carefully in terms of how hyperbolic discounting works in conjunction with cognitive ability.

I've explained all this before but it clearly has not sunk in. I've even been criticised for being repetitive. You do not seem to have followed the links or if you have, you have not seem to have grasped the behavioural economics. You seem to want to argue rather than learn. In my view that's a sign of our dysgenic times.

Adrienne, China is a political dictatorship with a laissez faire capitalist economy in some sectors, and waning government control in others. It is agressive yes. So is the US. I don't know how you correlate IQ and GDP but the US attracts some of the brightest people in the world and its GDP continues to grow at a modest steady maintainable pace. China has nothing really like Silicon Valley for example. I lived in Silicon Valley for about 5 years and I don't think there is anything else like it anywhere. China does not have a single indigenous Microsoft, Intel, Apple Computer, IBM, Boeing, General Motors, General Electric, etc. Most of the technology they have has either been deliberatly transfered to them from the US and Europe or is at a relatively primative level. Japan is far ahead of them too. China does not have a single indigineous Matsushita, Sony, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Toyota, Honda, Nikon, Toshiba etc. We send our manufacturing to be done there because life is cheap, there are no environmental or worker protection laws that are enforced, no law suits, and most of the workers are paid next to nothing. When they start earning more and get protections, we will ship production somewhere else still cheaper and less regulated.

You have not answered a single point I made as to why China cannot continue to grow indefinitely at its present rate. The entire nation has become one monsterous toxic waste dump. I've got reports from people who visited there a year ago telling me that in the cities they went to, you could not see halfway down the block at high noon on a sunny day because the air pollution was so thick. And this is not just oil and coal combustion biproducts, it's the most noxious industrial waste there is. About a year ago, the entire city of Harbin was without water for an extended period because of an industrial waste accident. That is likely just the beginning.

Watch and see what happens in the next economic downturn in the US when demand for China's products here slackens. I wouldn't risk money in their stock market when it does.

Has anyone noticed the similarity between Dame Jade Goody and Sir Salmon?

Both have brought a lot of money to media interests, both get death threats, both induce burning protests in ex-colonies, both went to elite universities, both get considerable coverage of what they do in public, both have interesting "partners", both have rudely challenged "sacred cows".

Mark #39 "I don't know how you correlate IQ and GDP.

Exactly, and that alone tells me that you haven't been following what I've been posting to these Newsnight blogs. If interested, read a few more of them from the last few weeks, along with links to those to CIF.

on one hand PM Blair is claiming it is the fight to win the heart but on other hand he is exploiting every moment to hurt the feeling of muslim community.(awarded Suleman Rushdie)

In the past Blair such tactics only proved more tention and casualty of British soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many peoples are asking the same question when there is a urgent need to win the trust of both sides. why our government is leaving vaccum by rewarded the most controversial and hatred personality in the other part of the world. We appreciated Ian Botham remarkable efforts to raise fund for cancer research. But Rushdie has been rewarded for hurting millions of people, created misunderstandings and his twisted literature to make money.

on one hand PM Blair is claiming it is the fight to win the heart but on other hand he is exploiting every moment to hurt the feeling of muslim community.(awarded Suleman Rushdie)

In the past Blair such tactics only proved more tention and casualty of British soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many peoples are asking the same question when there is a urgent need to win the trust of both sides. why our government is leaving vaccum by rewarded the most controversial and hatred personality in the other part of the world. We appreciated Ian Botham remarkable efforts to raise fund for cancer research. But Rushdie has been rewarded for hurting millions of people, created misunderstandings and his twisted literature to make money.

I hate to interfere in the private spat between Adrienne and Mark (which now seems to have petered out anyway), but really, Mark, nobody believed Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 except the American neo-cons looking for an excuse for an invasion and even Bush has now had to admit they were wrong.

By the way I think it was Dispatches not Panorama that screened the Putin/Blair press conference I referred to in my previous post - sorry, Channel 4!

SteveB21 #44
I'm not going to re-read my own postings here so at the risk of repeating myself, I remember very clearly what President Bush said in the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq and he never claimed any time I heard that Iraq was directly involved with 9-11.

Here's what he did say as I recall it. He said that the US was very worried about a "nexus" developing between Al Qaeda and state sponsors of terrorism like Iraq. He said that were WMDs such as those believed to be in the possession of the Iraqi government or which they would get into their possession one day in the future be given to Al Qaeda terrorists, they would find their way to the US to be used here. President Putin's warning to the US that Iraq was planning an attack on the US on American soil is a matter of public record. So is the evasiveness and obfuscation of Iraq in cooperating with the UN inspectors as late as late fall/early winter of 2002. I recall the data disc which was supposed to have all information regarding Iraq's WMDs given to the UN but had nothing new. And I recall the delays of UN inspectors getting access to buildings suspected of housing WMDs and materials as convoys of trucks came and left mysteriously. I also recall that the US waited until the last possible moment as the weather was changing for the worse in the region making combat in chemical weapons gear impossible and I remember the grudging half hearted claims by Hans Blix that the Iraqis were beginning to cooperate. It was too little too late, the invasion was 100% correct. The difference between American opponents of the invasion now and European opponents all along is that Americans are frustrated that the aftermath didn't work out better than it did while the Europeans would have been indifferent to or even happy to have seen an Iraqi WMD attack on America. We know Europe is America's enemy and we will not forget it, you can count on that.

I think it's time the British public woke up to the fact that Rushdie is nothing morethan a vain minded, publicity seeking, egotistic traitor! This man has stated live on British television that he "Isn't British!" and that he was either "Pakistani or Indian!" The interview was made during the 70's on a weekend morning 主播大秀 (Pebble Mill) asian programme, the clip was recently aired on a short film documentary on 主播大秀2 just before Newsnight. I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I think it was called 'Asian Lifes' chronicalling the life of a particular asian personality - I think it was Meera Syal,(sorry, got a very bad memory!)

But, the comments are accurate and true. Just like Roald Dahl said; "Rushdie is a TWIT!" This man, is a traitor to the British public, strip him of his knighthood.