I think the fact that you can only imagine that this drama was 'psychologically compelling' says it all, nick. the entire account of the programme (whose dialogue sounds hackneyed to me) is made up, and you've not even done a very good job of making it sound interesting. Could you at least have got a quote from the BBC on why they shelved it, as opposed to a quote from the in-no-way-bitter writers? because from the account you've given it actually sounds like the reason it was shelved is that it does nothing new, and tells the viewer/reader/whatever a story that's already very well-known and has been told countless times in print media and on TV.

Steve - what a stupid, blind fool you are - I'd like to hear your comment should you be on the tube should the Islamic terrorists bomb it next time, which they surely are planning to do. Britain as we know it is dead of it's own putrification from folks like you.

Steve, have you read the script? I'd be interested in reading it. I think perhaps your political dogma is causing you to vehemently write it off as badly written when you've only read a few lines of it.

Steve: "The reason this programme was shelved seems pretty clear - the writing was woeful, and it covers no new ground." And yet...Bonekickers...

Steve - the writing was 'woeful', was it? You've read it, then, or are you just assuming that if Nick Cohen likes it, it must be bad?

Well, alas we will never have the chance to decide for ourselves whether or not this drama was 'woeful'. Personally, I would have been interested in watching a dramatized account of the most devasting terrorist attack on British soil of recent years, despite your claim that this has been dealt with 'ad nauseum' on our screens. Maybe if they changed the identity of the bombers to neo-Nazis or the pawns of American oil executives it would have a better chance of being made by the BBC.

What I like best about this great article is the reference to "our" stories. The bombers were English, our people. Cohen seems to see this. The BBC seems almost racist in its assumption that "we" cannot offend "them." The bombers were not "them." That English people should not feel free to produce a film like this about other English people is insane.

I'd like to know where this ample evidence of the BBC being afraid to utter the word muslim can be found. Is it in your head, by any chance? Cohen's article isn't evidence since there are no reliable facts in it about the canning of this show. there are equally no actual facts in either your or xenophon's posts, despite what you claim - just a lot of idle speculation. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. i love the way i'm accused of having an agenda by people on here; the only agenda i have is that of taking issues with unrealible parts of Cohen's flawed argument. Can you provide me with facts on my other agenda? what is it?

So it’s OK for the BBC’s Spooks to have a storyline in which Jews (Mossad) run around London blowing people up and Bonekickers (BBC again) run a storyline in which a Christian beheads a Muslim, but not to allow this? I think the dialogue sounds hackneyed too, Steve. So what? That’s BBC house style for everything from Dr Who to the above-mentioned dramas. Throughout his piece, Nick Cohen has picked up one very salient – and distinguishing – point about this the script: it goes to the root causes of the jihad here, in China recently and the world over: religious fundamentalism. Many people have decided they don’t want to hear that and so gloss over it with arguments on imagined “grievances” on everything from “foreign policy” (despite the British jihad long pre-dating Iraq and Afghanistan – ask lifer Dhiren Borat, he’s got plenty of time on his hands now), “disenfranchisement” (despite Osama bin Laden being a spoilt brat playboy and one of the 7/7 bombers having £125,000 cash in his flat – isn’t “disenfranchisement” lovely?) and “disgust at Western decadence” (despite so much of the drugs that fuel this being grown in… Muslim countries such as Afghanistan). Channel 4 ran a drama recently, Britz, on Islamist terror in Britain and presented some of its characters’ reasoning for turning to jihad as being an increase in anti-terror legislation. The argument of the film: don’t try to tackle terror because that makes for more terror. What nonsense. What has jihad here got to do with jihad in China or Lebanon, where extremists have destabilised a once flourishing Middle East country? The common thread is most certainly not British government policy, as Britz director Peter Kosminsky would try to spin it in his clumsy propaganda film. But then re-writing history is Mr Kosminky’s forte, and don’t the Gliberal Establishment just love him for it. He'll never be short of commissions, that fellow. On a separate note, while I have some considerable time for Nick Cohen, it’s time he grew up and got to distinguish between Islamophobia and Muslimophobia. A phobia, as people keep pointing out, is an irrational fear of something. OK, Nick, let’s look at this: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” We know that if that sentence was re-written with the word “unbelievers” replaced by the word “Muslims” there would be uproar and prosecutions. So how is it irrational to object to it when the word isn’t “Muslims”? How does that amount to a “phobia”? Cohen also talks about the “tactless” Danish cartoonists. Sorry, Nick, not with you there. Jewish people wouldn’t start attacking someone verbally or physically for writing the word “God”, despite their religion requiring them to write the word as “G-d”. Jews don’t expect my life to be governed by Jewish custom so why are non-Muslims expected to live their life by the Islamic custom of not drawing Mohammed? We are not yet all governed by Islamic codes and customs, although some wish this, so please don’t help to bring it in via the backdoor by condoning the criticism of the Danish cartoons. The time to give up freedom of speech is when we’re in a Caliphate. Let’s not assist that to happen please, Nick.

for a start, the sooks point. Spoooks ran tons of episodes with Muslims as the bad guys, something that is never mentioned by Cohen or indeed his fans. and the second point - I genuinely don't understand how this drama is the 'un-PC' account of the 7th July bombers. What, exactly, is different in this from the numerous accounts of their backgrounds that have been played out ad nauseam on our screens, in news reports, special investigations, etc, since 2005? What is being left out of those reports? the young men are refered to as Muslim in the reports. Their upbringings are amply mapped out. What did this imaginary programme have that's so daringly un-PC? nothing in Cohen's article makes that clear. The fact is that there doesn't appear to be any new material in this programme, which wasn't well-written. the audience is already fully aware of all the facts concerning this case. So there seems to be a rather more obvious reason why it was canned. Because it would have been a waste of money and resources.

"I'd like to know where this ample evidence of the BBC being afraid to utter the word muslim can be found. Is it in your head, by any chance?" Well no actually: in the beginning was the Draft Report... UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Home Office 2004 1. Prepare and circulate to Departments advice on Muslim sensitivities and appropriate non-inflammatory terminology to be used in referring to Muslim issues. 2. Prepare communications plan aimed at combating distorted public and media perceptions of Islam and Muslims... 3. Build capacity amongst information services like Muslim Council of Britain Direct, in providing accurate representation for mainstream Islam (i.e. representatives and experts) in the mainstream media. Policy objectives include persuading young Muslims that they can be Muslim and British.... the term `Islamic fundamentalism' is unhelpful and should be avoided, ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/ report/2004/muslimext-uk.htm#poa Next the implementation: 1) '"Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘jihad,' ‘Islamic' or ‘fundamentalist.' The word ‘jihad' is to be avoided altogether ... One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term ‘Islamic terrorism' to be replaced by ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'." The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2007 2) 'Whitehall draws up new rules on language of terror' Alan Travis, home affairs editor, The Guardian, Monday Feb 4 2008 "Phrasebook designed to avoid blaming Muslims for extremism' ... to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities ... Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi fundamentalist but instead to refer [only] to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/ 2008/feb/04/uk.terrorism 3) "The Government is renaming Islamic terrorism as 'anti Islamic activities' The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief." Daily Mail, January 17, 2008 Do you expect anyone to believe the Beeb is not cognisant with, and slavishly adhering to, government 'guidelines'?

Steve, shurley shome mishtake.

I just read a reprint in today's Jerusalem Post. The thing that immediately hit me was the direct similarity between this and the EU survey on anti-semitism done in 2003. The results there had to be leaked. Why? Because, unlike the expectations of the apologists in charge, the rise in modern anti-semitism wasn't from neo-Nazis but from the Left and the Muslims they protect. A phobia (www.dictionary.com) is "a persistent, irrational fear..." When there are facts that clearly show cogent and intelligent reasons to be afraid, it's not a phobia.

Dhimmitude Sucks - Muslims did not start WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, civil wars in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, etc. Throughout history, misguided people of all religions have killed in the name of religion. If you are interested, I would be happy to recommend some books/articles to read concerning events in contemporary history, such as the riots that led to the killings of Muslims (by Hindus) in India, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. These events may not receive the same amount of media coverage as "Muslim terrorism," but that does not make them less relevant. Hitler claimed his policies in the name of Christianity. The British invoked god into the reasons they did what they did. Bush does it too. Remember when President McKinley was commanded by God (via a dream) to bring Christianity and civilization to the Philippines? We got Jews killing and stealing land right now because God said it was theirs. This one-sided blaming of Muslims for committing crimes in the name of their religion is disingenuous considering the role of Christianity and Judaism.