Actually, if you observe,(don't take my word for it) it is driven in the main by people of Pakistani origins (admittedly, not all- but the radical element), they are the ones who are behind the systematic attempt of arm twisting the authorities, in influencing and engineering the islamification of matters not only in Britain but around Europe, Most of the radicalisation comes from Pakistan, it is behind the most "extreme" version of Islam, this has its origins in its obsessional 'hatred of India'& the Kashmir issue and in order to defeat India in every aspect, it uses the 'Islam' card with the rest of the Islamic countries to support it to be able to stand up to India.It's real aim is to be a dominant 'Islamic Power' in the world to drive the Islamification of the World.

At the same time it pleads to the west for aid and protection using 'India' as a threat card and has been getting away with it for almost 60 years, China is also behind Pakistan, as it also seeks India's destabilisation for its own dominance in that part of the world.It is good that America and the West have finally seen through this smoke and mirrors performance.

In my belief, and this has been since the 1980's onward when I said that forget the Middle East, South Africa as the starting points for a possible WWIII, but it will be Pakistan,if it remains unchecked it will cause major problems to the world's security,(but as I wasn't an expert people laughed it off, those close to me who remember what I said and disagreed at the time are a touch pink)

Pakistan is the double edged sword, that is involved in the 'Halal' of the western world as well as India.

Getting back on the subject............. 

Cartoons and books featuring pig characters, Winnie the Pooh, Three Little Piggies, etc., are widely available in Arabic in video and bookstores in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East.  Disney Channel broadcasts Winnie the Pooh in Arabic in the Middle East.

The insanity of European political correctness is that it demands self-imposed restrictions that are not required of anybody in the immigrants countries of origin, it panders to the most extreme end of the radical fringe.  

"As for Elizabeth I, me thinks you may have been too influenced by the movie"

Someone else's turn for the lashing this morning, eh? So, Mission Impossible, what do you think of Elizabeth I from what you know of the historical record?

By the way, we British, when we're not having a "dig", normally spell "me thinks" as one word, like this: "methinks". But methinks you knew that already.

atheling ... I am at a loss to understand where you get the impression I am seeking a "flame" (as you put it) with you.

You and I speak the same language but clearly there is mutual incomprehension going on.

I believe the points I have raised in my comments below are all valid, and occasionally funny. You have chosen not to materially address or rebut any of them, instead you prefer to make comments about me. If the Hewlett-Packard comment hurt you, then that is mainly because you are far too sensitive to what we Brits call "a dig." A 'dig' is a rhetorical teasing technique to wind people up and test their mettle. On this measure, you don't appear to have any.

It would also appear you now think almost everyone commenting here is silly, or immature; at least, if your recent posts are indicative. I once had great respect for you, but that is rapidly evaporating.

As I have commented already, you Americans are (typically) so touchy and lacking in grace, one has to learn to walk on egg-shells just to keep you happy. You people tend to brood at the slightest offence.

And if you think that is just my viewpoint, then you need to familiarize yourself with what people were writing about typical American attitudes between circa 1870 and 1940.

Nothing has changed!

Frankly, this is beneath you (I think). You flatter yourself if you think your silly attempt to start a flame with me is effective.

I never saw that film; I saw "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson.

Yawn.

I am always happy to make you laugh atheling; a nervous laugh perhaps?

Yes, we seasoned blog afficianodos have seen that same miniscule list quoted a thousand times. It appears every time someone tries to make the point you have just attempted.

I voted for Margaret Thatcher (first two elections) and I don't recall shuddering when I did so, but I do recall shuddering at the sexist and mocking remarks she made about the male gender during her premiership. They were highly inappropriate.

I have had to make this same point before on BJ, during an earlier discussion. Queen Victoria was NOT our leader. She was a revered figurehead who happened to be our monarch when Britain was in her ascendancy; there is a large difference between the two roles.

As for Elizabeth I, me thinks you may have been too influenced by the movie: Elizabeth, which was directed by Shekar Kapur and starred the excellent Cate Blanchett as our first (and only) great Queen. Sorry to disappoint you, but that movie was not meant to be historically accurate; rather an idealization written from the perspective of our current, feminized age. They had to do this to please those paying customers in the most feminized nation on earth: the United States of America.

"Elizabeth" Movie Review

Seems your emotions go all wobbly when someone properly challenges false assumptions about the "power of women."

Ms. Carly Fiorina made a bit of a mess of Hewlett-Packard didn't she? Any comments?

By the way, why do you think American women are so aggressive?

"Touched a nerve?" Hardly. It made me laugh.

Pretty clumsy attempt. Try another round.

BTW, it seems that in your history, some of your best leaders have been women:

Elizabeth I

Victoria

Margaret Thatcher.

Makes you shudder, doesn't it?

Aha ... touched a raw nerve did I?

Admit it girl, you American babes sure know how to "wear the trousers" in the good-ol' USA. Trouble is, such power can make you either the best, or the worst of women.

We have a big problem if on the one hand we have Hillary Clinton, and on the other we have women in Burkahs!

That means our debates about women's proper role in society will have to swing from one extreme to the other, right?

Islam has nothing to do with our internal issues, so why bring it in? Islam is a mental sickness so why use it?

I don't know about you atheling, but I have seen many different cultures at first hand, and those who have steadfastly avoided turning women into "surrogate males who just happen to menstruate" have not ended up abusing or mistreating them.

It would appear you still have too many Marxist memes floating around in your grey (gray) matter.

I have been wondering myself.
Muslims believe the same thing and that's why their societies are so rational </sarc>. Keep those babes in burkahs!

You have to laugh though oiznop. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

I can't help feeling that all this "insanity" began when we started to give women equal political power.

Only someone with a woman's mind would think it necessary to remove pigs from an ancient story, and replace them with foxes, in the hope that by doing so they won't offend the sweet foreigners they have invited into their national home on false pretences.

Never forget the etymology of hysteria.

Clearly, we are learning much about the capacity of human groups to go completely nuts when they are divorced from reality for long enough.

Since foxes are related to dogs, wouldn't they be considered unclean as well?

....STOP THIS F-ING INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!