Go on then - why?

NF regularly talks about Muslims because he knows it plays into the fears and prejudices of the majority of listeners. Same for the paper editors. Print anything negative about Muslims, doesn't matter what it is or how inaccurate. All helps to whip up mistrust and I'll feeling and is not good for anyone in the long run. Well it is good for those who profit from spreading fear.

I'm not sure why, apart from personal dislike, you vilify Ferrari . What about the rest of the media, including other presenters on LBC, who rabbit ceaselessly on about Muslims?

Sure I have said this before but my LBC listening is confined to NF and some JOB. Bear in mind this is the LBC thread. See you don't disagree with my point but you seem to have a problem with me expressing it.

It seems rather unfair to pick on Ferrari when you don't know what others are doing. Perhaps you'd be justified if you widened your points of reference.

When an extremist group starts massacring people in the middle east by the thousands or shoots up a magazine or bombs a concert or blows up a couple of tube trains and a bus or stabs an unarmed man to death in the street in the name of jesus and no one from the church comes forward and publically condemns it then get back to us on how unfair it is about Islam being put under the microscope.

Thanks for the advice on what I should post about and when I should listen but for now I shall comment about what I hear on LBC.
Why am I not justified in commenting on what I listen to?

The incredibly rude short shrift given by Nick Ferrari this morning to the vastly experienced Baroness Neville-Jones was very disappointing. I can listen to NF at length most mornings of the week, but was interested in what the Baroness had to say. NF wouldn't let her speak, as it seemed that the Baroness might have had points of view (mostly involving security) not supporting those of NF. I don't suspect she will be back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulin..._Neville-Jones

I can certainly see your point, BR, and fully support your stated right to comment on LBC-related issues.
It might be worth bearing in mind, though, that the media (in general) often employ strategies of direction (and mis-direction), whipping up outrage in the process, in order to deflect our focus from other important issues.

Very true. There is the Tory election spending story and the climbdown over schools which barely get a mention.

As an example of widening points of reference, if you haven't already watched this, I recommend it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow

… to name but two!

I was neither criticising nor giving advice but merely pointing out that it seems unfair to single out one presenter when, for all you know, they might all be at it.

It should be interesting if Shelagh, who generally has strong views on religion, comments on Allah blessing us from the side of a bus. Personally I think we need all the blessings we can get!

Meanwhile, from cutting-edge 'journalist' James O'B: "Do we feel sorry for Prince Harry?"
Um…pardon?

You still haven't said why I should not comment on NF apart from it is unfair because I don't hear everyone else. Follow that logic then nobody should comment unless they listen 24/7 to LBC.

Jesus wept! I didn't say you shouldn't comment! I merely suggested that you might get a different perspective if you had employed the yardstick of other presenters remarks against which to judge what he says. I'm dropping this because it's getting silly.

That would make sense if a ll muslims were terrorists. They are not. If you are saying that no muslim leaders have condemned terrorist action then you are very wrong.

But why should I measure NF and his remarks against anyone else's? It is simple. He says stuff on LBC, I comment on a LBC thread about what I have heard. No wonder you want to drop this.

Obviously most muslims are not terrorists or sympathisers, just as most left or right wing militants don't cause riots. But there's enough of them that paying closer attention is in the country's self interest. And as for condemning, sure - when they're prompted to and often with the caveat of it "its terrible, but you must understand blah blah..." and we get a lecture about how the invasion of iraq/afghanistan/wherever kicked it all off. Strange how the US bombing of Serbia didn't kick off some Christian terrorist campaign though isn't it.

It is a shame BanglaRoad that you applied different rules to Mike Rackabit than the ones you want for yourself.

Oh dear. Talking about banned members is against the rules. Once again you pop up to have a dig at me but contribute nothing about the station. Becoming rather a habit from you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...9ia6js71u4n29&
Hopkins going to keep her word. Not that she is attention seeking, perish the thought.

Indeed, Bangla. I remember another occasion when a forum member used the ploy of insufficient listening time needed to qualify for passing comment here. At the time, a request for guidance on the required hours went unanswered.

In football parlance you are playing the man rather than the ball. Any chance of a reply to my point?

Katie Hopkins is good value. And whatever you think of her at least she is capable of treating callers with courtesy unlike other's like JOB.