After the BBC change the story line of a Casualty episode to make Animal Rights extremists the bad guys instead of Muslims, should we be pleased?

Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail has written a piece on the story from the perspective of the BBC's reluctance to engage in any controversy concerning Muslims. But what does the BBC's decision to make Animal Rights activists the bombers instead say about the relative merits of the extremists in both the veggie and Muslim communities?

There are two reasons for why the BBC may be keeping clear of Muslim stories: one, they fear reprisals or two, they genuinely have more respect for the Muslim religion than they do for any other, say Christianity.

It is hard to believe that the number of Muslims in the BBC has risen so high and has so much influence that they now control the Beeb's editorial. So the only conclusion we can make is that the BBC is afraid of the Muslims extremists, and more so then that of the Animal Rights extremists.

Now if I was a member of the ALF community, which I am not, and think they are a horribly misguided morally and tactically, how would my ego be affected by the Beeb's relative opinion of my lot and the Muslims? Should I be insulted that I was not generating a significant amount of fear through my acts of aggression or that, in some way, my cause is more respectable then that of religious violence?

Maybe the irrational behaviour of religious fanatics is so far removed from basic human morality and their goals and rewards so insatiable, because they are delusional, that the methods and goals of Animal Rights Extremists, which are at their heart is a desire to stop the suffering of real and sentient creatures, the BBC has rightly given the veggies a tick in the box of sanity.

On the other hand, the BBC's Casualty editorial staff might just be a load of moral and intellectual cowards.