Well, yeah; I didn’t start this discussion; I merely joined in what others had started.

Anyway, I’m glad you’ve all agreed that I am, as ever, absolutely right about everything. Now, about those economic reforms….

I think you overstate the case, but basically I agree. I’d like to see all major religions being thoroughly trashed in the media on a regular basis. At the moment only Christianity ever gets that treatment, presumably (and peversely) because this is notionally a Christian country. Despite Mel’s histrionics it’s wrong to suggest that Judaism (as a religion) gets taken to the cleaners with any regularity, and this is a religion which genitally mutilates babies (it’s not alone in that but still…) I think it’s fair to say that the more extreme parts of Islam get (deservedly) bashed pretty frequently, but I agree with S2 that more mainstream Islam could easily do with the odd good kicking.

As for the Telegraph: I wasn’t trying to be tribal, but you did keep mentioning the BBC by name (okay, to be fair, maybe because everyone else did), as if they were to blame: actually, it was a freelance writer (who also works for the BBC) and the article was published in the Telegraph as well.

> Again, will you attack the Telegraph in the same way?

Yes, of course. Why would you think that that’s so unlikely? What tiresome tribal reasoning we see in politics. Right-wingers must never criticise the Telegraph and left-wingers must stand united with the Guardian. I really have no time for such bollocks.

Perhaps I should have spelt this out earlier, but I didn’t realise I was making an even vaguely controversial point. All I’m saying is that, post-Rushdie, virtually no media organisation ever dares publish anything that could be even obliquely construed as anti-Islam or anti-Koran. Personally, it pisses me off, because the media’s capitulation to the threat of threats encourages the culture that makes the threats. Of course, it’s easy for me to say: I’m not the editor who could end up with a fatwa on my head. But still. To point out this fact isn’t a right-wing thing. Famed commie Iain Banks mentioned it in The Business. And Rushdie, hardly a right-winger, has been known to mention it now and then.

No, I completely disagree. Is your argument really coming down to complete hypotheticals? Much as it pains me to say it, the UK is, culturally, a Christian nation: most of us have some exposure to the Bible, whether it be at school (I know I did, despite never going to a church school) or just from the media and culture in general. Similarly, as I was trying to point out above, no culture today uses "old-testament style brutality" (unless my understanding of, say, Israeli law and order is completely and utterly wrong), as it’s "safe" to use the phrase without immediately bringing a group of people to mind (unless you’re Mel). The same is not true of Sharia law.

If you think that the BBC invented or altered the meaning of the term "neo-conservative", then you might want to look at Wikipedia

Again, will you attack the Telegraph in the same way?

Also, if you do wish to conclude this, (as Matt points out) you also have to conclude the same thing for the Daily Telegraph.

I just think the current evidence doesn’t come close to showing this. As I’ve pointed out the Old Testament is a damn brutal book, as just about everyone in the UK knows. I fail to see why appealing to this well-known truth is "disrespectful" to anyone. If Jews can’t cope with people occasionally pointing out the fact that the OT is brutal, then they should get a new holy book. Of course the sensible majority can, but MP is an exception.

Mel’s further suggestion (I know that you’re not with her on this S2) that the phrase "Old Testament Brutality" implies "Jewish Brutality" is simply breath-taking in its disingenuity. How the fuck this demented frothing maniac gets to pretend to be a serious journalist I can’t imagine. ‘snot fair.

Why on Earth not? They do exactly that with all sorts of words and phrases, such as "terrorism", "insurgency", "militant", "fundamentalist", "neo-conservative", "quality entertainment", "free of advertising".

Meanwhile, you seem to have progressed from claiming that everyone has a rough idea of the content of the Old Testament and that people therefore understand what is meant by "Old Testament brutality", which is true, to claiming that "Old Testament brutality" is a common everyday expression, which isn’t.

Anyway, let’s just imagine that the phrase "Sharia-style brutality" had been used by a substantial portion of the British population for the last, say, twenty years. Reckon the BBC would use the expression? I don’t. The broad point here is that the BBC have a lot more respect for some holy books and religions than others.

> If it really bugs you …

It doesn’t. If you read my comment, you’ll see that I agreed that Phillips was broadly wrong on this one, and merely pointed out that, in amongst the wrong bits, she had made one correct point. And it is correct, as no-one here, you included, has yet disputed.

> … to try and score a partisan point.

Really? Which party would that be?

In which case you somewhat make the point I and others have been trying to make: "Old Testament-style brutality" has a meaning in modern English devoid of looking at some particular religious group and saying: "Look, I mean, like them there savages!" This is the mistake Mel made, and it’s something not true of mentioning the Koran. Hence, yes, the BBC wouldn’t dare. But then neither would the Telegraph (love the way everyone has ignored my point that they published this piece too) or anywhere else, except, as Andrew says, perhaps Mel herself (as it’s okay to hate Muslims, apparently).