Skin colour or physical appearance is for life and is NEITHER chosen NOR an idea would have been better. But you misread the sentence. It is fine as it is because it makes clear my intended meaning via the comma after chosen. Guzzi Le Mans-owning Kiwi – because the nouns Guzzi and Le Mans need to be linked to the gerund, owning, to form a compound adjective, I believe. Americans often take the rule a stage further and would write: Guzzi-Le-Mans-owning. But I think that looks too ugly and it would be taken as read that Guzzi and Le Mans are part of the same adjective, so linking them is not necessary. Other marks are OK (except the comma after Sorry. I was not saying Sorry, I thought he was an Aussie. I was saying that I am sorry that I thought he was an Aussie. Different sense entirely.) But you should take into account the fact that I am not editing copy because I am trying to post quickly so that Elsie doesn't go off on one because I have got out of synch.
It's not really for journalists to propose solutions. We are not elected to do so. You are totally correct: we like stirring things up - and we live in the gutter because that's where the ruling classes keep the dirty secrets we think should be aired for ALL to see. Journalists represent the fourth estate - after the monarch, church and government, represented by the judiciary - and our role in a democracy is to point out problems and to keep an eye on the executive to make sure it doesn't exceed its powers and doesn't allow things such as internal corruption to neuter its effectiveness. How could we possibly be expected propose effective solutions to the country's worst ills, still less bring them about? Politicians can't even achieve that with all the power invested in them to use the huge resources and vast amounts of data at their disposal? We have to ask piddly little questions under the Freedom of Information Act every time we need some really important information to keep them in line - and even that's a relatively recent piece of legislation. Moral of all this? Don't ask too much of journalists. We are doing our best to protect your freedoms and we really believe in democracy, that power is safe in the hands of the people and that minority interest groups should be afforded full and equal protection under the law. But we do not believe they any of them has a case for special treatment merely because THEY alone believe they should, especially if they press their case while holding high-powered rifles and rocket launchers. They're in a minority after all!
Shock horror the shop worker who saved customers was Muslim. The family of the gunman at the supermarket have spoken out against him stating these are not the acts of a Muslim but an extremist. So I count that as several decent Muslims contrary to what others have said on this forum.
Done. Missed a comma. Sorry. Idiot Muslim on The Big Question calling Charlie Hebdo racist for attacking the RELIGION of Islam!
I agree. The man was a hero but he is in a very small minority in my experience. Try to watch The Big Question on BBC1 now. Very good debate. Muslim guy is refusing to answer questions and lots of people supporting my view that racism and criticism of religions are totally separate things.
Former jihadist from The Quillam Foundation articulates a very good argument on The Big Question. Rabbi and chaplain make good points too. I think the former Muslim jihadist is my new hero (sorry your time at the top of the pile was so short Elsie). But I fear that it can only be a matter of time before he is silenced by the people he criticises so eloquently.
