1. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203160 by Meeee on July 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm

PaulJ:

I am sorry for the generally angry tone of my first post, but this kind of thing gets me angry. Very angry. Perhaps I am in a higher state of tension at the moment because I have essentially been punishing myself by checking the Daily Mail's website a few times a day. The stories are amazingly biased, they *refuse* to print retractions even when their stories are proven completely false. For example, they had a story about a UFO encounter over Wales where, they claim, a UFO shot straight at a police helicopter that was forced to dramatically swerve out of the way. The story has since been updated in other websites (such as the BBC), where they show that the "UFO" was a balloon with a candle attached released from a nearby wedding. The comments on their stories from readers are amazingly ignorant also. You can understand why I am immediately suspicious of *any* story that originates from there, especially when it involves religion (if it is about Christianity, the story is heavily biased in their favour, if it's about any other religion, it's heavily biased against them).

This article is just another example of misleading language used to incite anger where it is unnecessary. I claimed that there was no actual outrage expressed in the article, you cite two examples where the words "outage" and "anger" are used. I understand that, but it is simply misleading hyperbole from a newspaper with an extremely obvious agenda.

The journalist uses the terms "sparked outrage" and "sparked such anger", but look at the actual words being said by the only Muslim quoted in the article:

'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

'It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'

Does any of that sound like a man who is outraged? Does it even sound like a man who is *angry*? I claim that it does not. At best, it sounds like advice that errs heavily on the side of caution or slight criticism. However, the reporter has heavily twisted these words and created the image of Muslims seething with rage, tearing up cards, and calling the local council with screams of anger.

And ignoring *all* of this, the link provided by mummymonkey (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp) shows that the Mail's article is extremely misleading.

Basically what I'm saying here is don't believe the journalist, look at the facts. If you read the content of the article instead of the emotion of the article, you will see that they are wildly different.

*EDIT for answering something else without making another post*

nalfeshnee:

I am in agreement. I fully consider religious people open to mockery. I am firmly on the side of evidence and scientific process.
My line about mockery was in strict regard to this article. There is nothing there that deserves mocking, in my opinion, other than the "journalism" present in the article.

2. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203113 by Meeee on July 2, 2008 at 11:29 am

I am absolutely astounded at the responses here. I truly am. There were similar responses in the comments section at the Daily Mail (and *yes*, I *did* just compare most of you to your average Daily Mail readers).

Read the article again, the Mail's one. Read it and think clearly on what it actually says.

Firstly, it says that some shopkeepers have refused to put the card up in their windows. Ignoring the fact that this has now been proven false, this is entirely within their rights to do so. If the shopkeepers do not want to stock bread for whatever reason, that's their call; don't use the shop.

Secondly, there is no "outrage" expressed within the article, other than in the headline. There is only a polite suggestion that the muslim community probably wouldn't welcome the card. There was no outrage, no protests, no "the police are offending our beliefs!", nothing. Just the suggestion that since the cards are going to go ignored by a certain community, they'll be wasted there. That is a logical suggestion.

Thirdly, nowhere in the article does it suggest that the card has been removed from circulation. An (incredibly polite, compared to other such situations) objection was raised, the issue is being looked into. That is *all* the article said. And, like most of the "outrage" style articles the Daily Mail pumps out, it turned out to be mostly false.

I registered this account solely to submit this comment. The sheer amount of illogical conclusions raised by the comments here actually astonished me:
1) Postcard with dog on it is printed
2) Muslim suggests that maybe muslims won't put it in their shops
3) Police force takes on board this suggestion
Conclusion: Muslims are forcing the police to withdraw a postcard based on their beliefs and they should be ignored and mocked, the police are once again caving into religous pressure, the muslims are taking over the country etc etc...

Even a *child* could see that these conclusions are not logical. The sheer lack of critical thinking on this website of all has honestly shocked me. Especially since it comes from a Daily Mail article.