indeed!
The times and the Telegraph are 'okay' out of those four, the other two are your typical tabloids, though I always felt the telegraph was our countries equivalent to fox news, and the times has slowly been heading that way too.
Eh? I'll admit I've been out of the country a lot recently but when did The Guardian turn into a tabloid?

kara's post wasn't very clear on his point, but one thing was clear, he as many MANY before him is talking about rights, when this has never been the issue, no mater how badly he or many other people might be trying to stawman it into that.
You've missed the point completely then.
If you are trying to say "Because you do A, you shouldn't do B" you can quickly find an example of A for almost any person or group of people that gives you an excuse to say that they shouldn't do B.
And that's why it's a specious argument. You're trying to defend the claim that because Islam doesn't allow people into Mecca then no Muslim has the right to complain about the lack of tolerance over the Ground Zero mosque nonsense. But the simple fact is that I could easily make that into an argument about anything you want to do.
You consider yourself an American so......
You consider yourself a Libertarian so......
You consider yourself a Freespace fan so.......
It's a silly method of arguing, especially as it requires a generalisation about people's beliefs. How do you know that those Muslims do have an issue with people being allowed into Mecca? Maybe they wouldn't mind it. You simply do not know but have made the generalisation that since they are Muslims they are part of a religion that agrees with it and therefore must pay the price. You should see how easily I could turn that around to point out things you can't talk about simply because you are American.
I mentioned rights simply because they are analogous to the situation. Just because you do A doesn't mean you lose the right to do B. Similarly just cause the group you belong to says/believes A doesn't automatically mean you can't do B.