[lit-ideas] Re: British support of Omar Bakri Muhammed
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:04:49 -0000
Simon thank you -- the car thing did sound odd but I was in a mad rush
(to go out again...; the cold weather's kept me indoors too much) so
didn't look anything up.
> It's a shame Bawer didn't spend more time on his research.
he doesn't seem to have spent *any*: he could have got more from the scumbag
tabloids (and, to its shame, The Independent)
Also note that Omar's wife most likely receives Child Benefit payments for her
children in with her benefit package, which 'is thought to' amount to £1,300
per month. Would it have been better for the children to starve?
Ah -- yes that would explain it. And regardless of "preference", this country
is pledged to care for children be they legally in this country or not -- and
if their parents receive benefits for that reason, so be it.
>I do have concern for Lawrence's reading.
Commendably mild, Simon
Judy Evans, Cardiff
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Ward
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: British support of Omar Bakri Muhammed
More innacuracies.
Bawer says that, "Even his car had been acquired free of charge under a
government program" Which is false. The Motability scheme requires payment. See:
http://www.motability.co.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?nodeid=89578
That took me three minutes to find on the net - most of it spent locating the
Telegraph article. It's a shame Bawer didn't spend more time on his research.
Also note that Omar's wife most likely receives Child Benefit payments for
her children in with her benefit package, which 'is thought to' amount to
£1,300 per month. Would it have been better for the children to starve?
I do have concern for Lawrence's reading.
Simon
Other related posts:
