Thanks folks. That's really pretty insensitive of Dawkins, isn't it?

Sure was. He is trying to back track now.

No it's normal for Dawkins. I don't know why anybody takes any notice except LBC on a quiet news day with their blanket cover policy. Still seems to reel everyone in though.

The IRA was a sect according to Cristo. Really? Idiot. Stick to show biz gossip, lovey.

Really?

One bloke and a green jag the last time I saw him outside CarpetRight in Peterborough.

I suppose you didn't notice the unmarked car full of special branch officers then.

Not doing there job properly then as I literally bumped into him as he and Norma came out of the store. Good 'family values' to see him buying cheap old tat carpet like the rest of us.

I know what you mean about Dawkins, but I think this was particularly insensitive of him this time around.

A caller was making out that only muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Europe. The caller was trying to shield/narrow down the chances of his "point" being shot down ( no pun intended) and he was asking what other groups have done terror attacks. IRA is one of them, as is the separatists ETA that want parts of the South Of France and Northern Spain to become separate from both countries.

The caller was generalising and didn't have anything to say when those rebuttals were pointed out to him.

The IRA and ETA were/are political groups, they are not "sects".

He wasn't asking about sects, the caller was trying to portray that only muslims commit terrorist attacks and he was obviously trying to fend off hearing who else does commit terrorist attacks by trying to narrow it down to other religions but why was he negating the IRA, ETA, and individuals like Copeland and Brevik?

Styker you must know there's an LBC Politics thread as deemed appropriate by the mods. So this comment isn't dragged up on my say so.

I do, its just the other poster commented first on here so If I responded in the other thread, he/she may not have seen it. Any continued comments I'll put into the politics thread.

Still fairly new here, so not totally au fait with the do's and don't. I was just commenting on what Cristo said so can't see why I shouldn't post about it in this forum. Anyway, Cristo did say refer to that Irish group as a "sect". I found it amusing how ready he was to shout down that one particular caller but was "ever so 'umble" when dealing with others from a different background.

A quick tip for you Hey Ho, and any other poster not aware of how this forum works. In all circumstances you should obey the instructions of a non-mod.

@Hey Ho, If you read this, that caller you seem to be defending got most of the air time in that exchange with him and the other caller. I do not agree that the IRA were a sect.

It's even easier to understand than that, unless you want the real mods to withdraw your posting rights (as they put it), and it's nothing to do with anyone on here -

Chit-chat here.

Politics on the other one.

Is there a political reason why Kay Burley isn't on LBC anymore?

She's too left wing for LBC.

I didn't think she ever expressed a political view.

She's a champagne don't-know (or possibly a champagne doesn't-give-a-toss!)

You must have forgotten to put on your 'irony' hat this morning, Martin!

Good luck with that one. It's already been contravened since your post.

I'd have thought it's okay to make a small, political point in passing. Whereas it's not okay to carry on a sustained political discussion on 'Chit-Chat'.
Isn't that what the moderators originally said?

The mods have made it clear that politics are for the other thread, and that those who repeatedly disobey can and will have their posting rights taken away.

I'm posting this because a couple of newer posters seem uncertain as to what is supposed to go where.

It isn't down to me, I'm just relaying what the mods say. So don't shoot the messenger.

(Personally, I'm glad that politics aren't allowed on here, other than the occasional line).