This is a story that I didn't mention at the time because it wasn't really a major thing. Just another example of the BBC's bias. However, last week the Daily Mail reported that the BBC were discussing whether or not Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear a cross during news reports.
MPACUK have now entered the debate by subtly claiming that such a move will cause problems for the Muslim community:
Is this a step towards minimising divisions, or is it merely another tactic that prevents exposure of such cultures leading in fact to greater chances of demonisation of such communities?
I honestly do not believe that MPACUK could possibly be referring to Christianity as a "community" that lacks exposure, nor is it one that has a chance of being "demonised". In fact, MPACUK regularly complains that Muslims are being "demonised" (exactly that phrase).
What's so absurd about this is that the BBC would never dream of actually banning a Muslim veil. When Peter Horrocks posted an entry into the BBC editors' blog defending the BBC's stance he made it completely clear:
We were asked the hypothetical question of what we would do in the event that a Muslim newsreader wanted to wear a head scarf or veil. I suspect that some of the newspapers that have been poking fun at our consideration of wearing crosses would find a veil-wearing newsreader highly newsworthy, to put it mildly.
He didn't answer the question, of course, because the answer is obvious. We all know what the outcry would be if a Muslim veil were banned. Only Christian symbols are bannable.