On topic this seat looks like yet another worthy and pointless second for UKIP to me. The Lib Dems will presumably fall back sharply giving Labour and UKIP a boost but with enough of them turning blue to make the tories untouchable.
Would the Labour vote fall again? That would be fun so near an election. There must be a good chance UKIP could squeeze them.
South Cambs is much less fertile territory for UKIP than Newark (and that wasn't particularly fertile). UKIP was second here in the Euros, but didn't perform particularly well in the locals here (they didn't stand in all seats, and even where they did stand, didn't score too well).
I would guess you would see a comfortable Conservative hold, and a tussle for second place between the LibDems and UKIP (provided the former bothered to turn up and fight).
I find it very hard to work out what UKIP will do even seat by seat. In 2010 their votes allowed the return of 21 MPs whose views on Yerp, foreign aid, and immigration they presumably find pretty abhorrent.
If you consider matters on the basis of seats where the winner's margin over the Tories was less than UKIP's vote, you get this list:
Labour MPs elected by the UKIP vote: Julie Hilling Chris Williamson Natascha Engel Ian Austin Austin Mitchell Glenda Jackson Tom Blenkinsop Ed Balls Paul Farrelly Alison Seabeck John Denham David Wright David Winnick Valerie Vaz Alison McGovern
LD MPs elected by the UKIP vote: Annette Brooke Lorely Burt David Heath Stephen Gilbert Andrew George Tessa Munt
It is a list of many of the ghastliest federalists imaginable. Glenda Jackson? Austin Mitchell? Ed Balls? Valerie "Keith's sister" Vaz? All the above are in effect UKIP's MPs.
They got routed in Newark yet consider it a triumph so GOK what they'd consider a bad result in Cambs.
So EVERY UKIP vote would have gone to the Tories ? Yet PBTories are telling us all the time that half of UKIP voters come from Labour !
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Do you have the original sources for the implied claim that a Muslim teacher has done that? It's outrageous if true, but I can't find any results on Google for it.
"Well-placed sources have told The Mail on Sunday that the term ‘white prostitute’ was used to suggest to pupils that Muslim women were moral but non-Muslim women were not.
Oldknow Academy, which has around 600 pupils, is said to have been the subject of a gradual takeover by extremists, who allegedly pushed out head teacher, Bhupinder Kondal, because she opposed the ‘Islamisation’ of the school.
Officially, Mrs Kondal is on sick leave, and she refused to discuss the matter with The Mail on Sunday.
She was among four of the school’s six senior managers who have left in recent months.
It is also claimed that in one assembly, just before Christmas last year, a senior teacher led ‘an anti-Christian’ chant. He allegedly shouted at the pupils ‘Do we believe in Christmas?’, to which the pupils replied collectively ‘No we don’t"
Wow. I'm not a fan of Delingpole, but he's exactly right on this. If a white headteacher had referred to "black prostitutes" or led an anti-Muslim chant, it would be all over the news. People like NPXMP would be on here saying how disgusting it was. But when it's Muslims doing it, we just get silence. Muslims actually have to kill people for a negative incident to be reported with prominence on the BBC.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
Fair enough, but at least it would reassure people who had misgivings about Muslim extremism that their representatives were making an effort.
@Toryjim Regarding thin end of terrifying wedges, how do you think a lot of non muslims feel when they see reports of schools like this? Doesnt make you a bad person to worry that this might be the least of our troubles.
@isam Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
I do like the slight sense of naïveté that comes across from that. The idea that all racists are ogres, and easily identifiable as such and never make a plausible or coherent case. The dangerous racists are the Enoch type because they are seductive and because they make a plausible case. The problem is that if you make an argument from a false predicate you have a very bad argument, despite the internal logical consistency of the argument.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
It's a bit less pointless than it sounds in that the definition of "terrorist" organization is very flexible and can be adjusted at will by the secretary of state, and if you don't admit to it but they have evidence that you are then they can get you there and then for lying to them...
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
Fair enough, but at least it would reassure people who had misgivings about Muslim extremism that their representatives were making an effort.
@Toryjim Regarding thin end of terrifying wedges, how do you think a lot of non muslims feel when they see reports of schools like this? Doesnt make you a bad person to worry that this might be the least of our troubles.
No they wouldn't. They'd view it was silly pandering that wouldn't make any difference.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
Indeed reminds me of scenes from West Wing. However in those circumstances they are almost always asking a question they know the answer to already
I think the time has really come to insist that religious schools take 20% of their intake from outside the associated faith. I don't think this would be a problem for good Anglican, Catholic or liberal Muslim schools, but it would mean we could stop sending money to those spreading conservative Islam, which is just an intolerant, ugly and undemocratic ideology.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
It's a bit less pointless than it sounds in that the definition of "terrorist" organization is very flexible and can be adjusted at will by the secretary of state, and if you don't admit to it but they have evidence that you are then they can get you there and then for lying to them...
There's a terrorist in Pakistan/Afghanistan, one of his many aliases is a slight variation of my name.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Do you have the original sources for the implied claim that a Muslim teacher has done that? It's outrageous if true, but I can't find any results on Google for it.
"Well-placed sources have told The Mail on Sunday that the term ‘white prostitute’ was used to suggest to pupils that Muslim women were moral but non-Muslim women were not.
Oldknow Academy, which has around 600 pupils, is said to have been the subject of a gradual takeover by extremists, who allegedly pushed out head teacher, Bhupinder Kondal, because she opposed the ‘Islamisation’ of the school.
Officially, Mrs Kondal is on sick leave, and she refused to discuss the matter with The Mail on Sunday.
She was among four of the school’s six senior managers who have left in recent months.
It is also claimed that in one assembly, just before Christmas last year, a senior teacher led ‘an anti-Christian’ chant. He allegedly shouted at the pupils ‘Do we believe in Christmas?’, to which the pupils replied collectively ‘No we don’t"
Wow. I'm not a fan of Delingpole, but he's exactly right on this. If a white headteacher had referred to "black prostitutes" or led an anti-Muslim chant, it would be all over the news. People like NPXMP would be on here saying how disgusting it was. But when it's Muslims doing it, we just get silence. Muslims actually have to kill people for a negative incident to be reported with prominence on the BBC.
This story is in one of the Mail papers. A pinch of salt might be appropriate!
I find it very hard to work out what UKIP will do even seat by seat. In 2010 their votes allowed the return of 21 MPs whose views on Yerp, foreign aid, and immigration they presumably find pretty abhorrent. ...
It is a list of many of the ghastliest federasts imaginable. Glenda Jackson? Austin Mitchell? Ed Balls? Valerie "Keith's sister" Vaz? All the above are in effect UKIP's MPs.
They got routed in Newark yet consider it a triumph so GOK what they'd consider a bad result in Cambs.
As others have said, you're on a different planet if you think Austin Mitchell is a "federalist"
But anyway you can't assume that the UKIP vote would solidly march off to the Tories, since every poll shows it's not the case. About half wouldn't vote and the rest would split 2-1 Tory. On the same basis I could claim that I lost in 2010 because of the green intervention, but one can doubt if they'd all have voted for me either.
FWIW I've discussed the issue this week in my blog:
Fair enough. However, if your leanings are towards euroscepticism and your party is locally a no-hoper, then a rational person would tend to vote for the most eurosceptic candidate. There can be very few people who agree with every point of their chosen party's manifesto. If you are green you would tend to see them voting LD, where there is local LD strength, as the next-best thing. If you are LD, you might vote Labour as being not-the-Tories.
We do not, on the whole, see UKIPpers doing this. They do not vote for the party whose agenda is closest to their own stated concerns. It's therefore a rational inference that the basis of UKIPpers' support for UKIP is something other than they profess.
Now it could be that this 'something other' is some principled reason. They strongly feel, perhaps, that the main issue facing the country day is that we are ruled by 12-foot Bilderberg lizards. Neither Ed Balls nor Antony Calvert would do anything different about this, being shape-shifting lizards themselves. It follows that it would matter little to them if they elect Antony Calvert rather than Ed Balls. Either way you get a lizard.
Probably the issue is not Bilderberg lizards, or Common Purpose, or the BBC, or the lack of trains painted in traditional colours, or the scruffiness of our casually-dressed minicab drivers. There must be some other reason, some view shared among UKIPpers that nobody else comes close to espousing and that only a UKIP MP would champion or intend to deliver.
We've seen intimidation and death threats over cartoons, the media playing along with censorship of cartoons of Mohammed (with his friend Jesus, although the latter was not censored), and this story, which should be top of the news agenda. We'll see how it's reported, but I have little faith [ahem] it'll be up to snuff.
Recall also the anti-white rapist gangs. Imagine if all-white gangs had been systematically raping Asian girls. Would the police have failed so badly and outright ignored request for help? Would the media have failed to point out the elephant in the room?
This story is in one of the Mail papers. A pinch of salt might be appropriate!
Whatever you think of the Mail's political slant, this is just burying your head in the sand so as to avoid inconvenient truths. They don't make up facts.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
I also learned they don't do sarcasm.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
I was travelling back from France years ago in a 2-seater sports car (note: 2-seater). The very stone-faced customs woman asked me and my passenger to get out of the car and then asked, stone-facedly: anyone else travelling with you?
It took the strength of Hercules, plus further brief examination of her stone face to answer only: no, just the two of us.
Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
Surely the solution is for the decent types to start taking on the vile ones themselves.
The lesson of Trojan Horse is that this simply doesn't happen. Thousands of 'decent types' clearly allowed their children to be exposed to extreme radicalisation and did very little about it.
The notion of a vast moral majority of tolerant, reasonable and socially responsible muslims is a bogus one, if this affair is in any way typical.
I think the time has really come to insist that religious schools take 20% of their intake from outside the associated faith. I don't think this would be a problem for good Anglican, Catholic or liberal Muslim schools, but it would mean we could stop sending money to those spreading conservative Islam, which is just an intolerant, ugly and undemocratic ideology.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
It's a bit less pointless than it sounds in that the definition of "terrorist" organization is very flexible and can be adjusted at will by the secretary of state, and if you don't admit to it but they have evidence that you are then they can get you there and then for lying to them...
Yes, as I understand it that's the idea. It means you've perjured yourself and they can expel you / imprison you / waterboard you without further ado based on that alone.
Mr. Jim, I thought that was going to be about the Argentine arseheads. You're right, it does look a bit ropey, likewise the Olympics. And the next two World Cups aren't in great places.
On the plus side, this probably makes our Olympics look even better by comparison.
She was among four of the school’s six senior managers who have left in recent months.
I've read that a number of these ousted educationalists have been given gagging payoffs, which is perhaps why it is difficult to get quotes and hard evidence.
And so our various governments haven't just failed to do anything to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism. They used our money to ensure it flourished.
So the question is, what do we do about it now? Do we just address the crocodiles attacking the boat, which is what we've been doing for years, or do we drain the entire swamp, as Michael Gove suggests?
It's also worth considering that the former argument is made on the basis of Islamic fundamentalism being so widespread in the UK that it's just too big a problem to tackle everywhere. The obvious starting place would be to stop allowing more people with these sorts of views from immigrating. If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
I also learned they don't do sarcasm.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
I was travelling back from France years ago in a 2-seater sports car (note: 2-seater). The very stone-faced customs woman asked me and my passenger to get out of the car and then asked, stone-facedly: anyone else travelling with you?
It took the strength of Hercules, plus further brief examination of her stone face to answer only: no, just the two of us.
Haha been there.
The worst thing I ever did was on a flight to Australia a few years ago, with a friend, who is white and a Kuffar non Muslim.
We sat their, he was drinking, I was on the fruit juices, and we were discussing my experiences with American airlines, and he said, "I've known you for years, and you've never struck me as religious, or passionate about Islam, why is that, I can't imagine you demanding beheading of people who insult Islam or being a suicide bomber"
I then said, "I could never be a suicide bomber, who would want 72 virgins, give me an experienced lady [moderated because the rest of the convo was very rude]
In hindsight, talking about suicide bombers, and 72 virgins on a plan, wasn't the wisest thing I've ever done.
Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
Surely the solution is for the decent types to start taking on the vile ones themselves.
The lesson of Trojan Horse is that this simply doesn't happen. Thousands of 'decent types' clearly allowed their children to be exposed to extreme radicalisation and did very little about it.
The notion of a vast moral majority of tolerant, reasonable and socially responsible muslims is a bogus one, if this affair is in any way typical.
I think that is a ludicrous conclusion to draw. Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
I think the time has really come to insist that religious schools take 20% of their intake from outside the associated faith. I don't think this would be a problem for good Anglican, Catholic or liberal Muslim schools, but it would mean we could stop sending money to those spreading conservative Islam, which is just an intolerant, ugly and undemocratic ideology.
Why not just phase out religious schools?
Because there's plenty of very good faith schools that, on average, perform better than non-religious schools, lots of parents are very happy with them, and they don't really cause problems. It would also be clearly politically infeasible to achieve.
However, a mandated 20% requirement could clearly close down the less pleasant ones, because few outside the faith would be willing to go there.
@isam Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
I do like the slight sense of naïveté that comes across from that. The idea that all racists are ogres, and easily identifiable as such and never make a plausible or coherent case. The dangerous racists are the Enoch type because they are seductive and because they make a plausible case. The problem is that if you make an argument from a false predicate you have a very bad argument, despite the internal logical consistency of the argument.
Enochs argument was that mass immigration would lead to segregation and ghettoisation that would lead to the tensions that cause extremism. It has happened, he was right
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
I also learned they don't do sarcasm.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
I once stayed with a very sweet guy in Texas who really liked guns. Earlier he'd had another friend staying with him who had come back late drunk and made a lot of noise getting into the house, before finally getting inside and falling asleep. This then got reported to the police who showed up and woke my friend:
Police officer: "Do you have any weapons in the house?" Helpful gun lover: Yes, Lots!"
This story is in one of the Mail papers. A pinch of salt might be appropriate!
Whatever you think of the Mail's political slant, this is just burying your head in the sand so as to avoid inconvenient truths. They don't make up facts.
She was among four of the school’s six senior managers who have left in recent months.
I've read that a number of these ousted educationalists have been given gagging payoffs, which is perhaps why it is difficult to get quotes and hard evidence.
And so our various governments haven't just failed to do anything to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism. They used our money to ensure it flourished.
So the question is, what do we do about it now? Do we just address the crocodiles attacking the boat, which is what we've been doing for years, or do we drain the entire swamp, as Michael Gove suggests?
It's also worth considering that the former argument is made on the basis of Islamic fundamentalism being so widespread in the UK that it's just too big a problem to tackle everywhere. The obvious starting place would be to stop allowing more people with these sorts of views from immigrating. If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
Its time to drain the swamp. Regardless of any "consequences" to cohesion. The Home Office has been completely inadequate in its response to fundamentalism and home grown terrorism. The French view of Londonistan is still very true today. The government and police are far too tolerant ofiIslamic fundamentalists who threaten our way of life.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
I also learned they don't do sarcasm.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
I once stayed with a very sweet guy in Texas who really liked guns. Earlier he'd had another friend staying with him who had come back late drunk and made a lot of noise getting into the house, before finally getting inside and falling asleep. This then got reported to the police who showed up and woke my friend:
Police officer: "Do you have any weapons in the house?" Helpful gun lover: Yes, Lots!"
[Police officer backs away nervously...]
I saw a sign in the US outside a house which read:
Armed guards three days a week: do you feel lucky?
We need a line in the sand, and to clarify what is sacred to Britain and cannot be diluted or diminished (such as freedom of speech, and the equality of people regardless of gender, colour, creed or sexuality).
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Or accused all Romanian men of belonging to ATM theft gangs...
Nobody has done this.
Sorry, your right, it was just the Romanian men who happen to live next door.
If you're referring to Farage, he didn't say that all Romanian men who move in next door belong to ATM theft gangs either.
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
I think that's an extremely poor excuse for the 'decent majority'.
If, as you contend, the decent people were in the overwhelming majority they should have been able to organise and get themselves into groups to fight this threat. They could have used legal representation and the widespread protections with regard to the rule of law and free speech that this country affords. They could have lobbied law makers and called in the press.
They did none of the above. The actions of the parents were virtually negligible.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
You misunderstand the intent.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
I also learned they don't do sarcasm.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
I once stayed with a very sweet guy in Texas who really liked guns. Earlier he'd had another friend staying with him who had come back late drunk and made a lot of noise getting into the house, before finally getting inside and falling asleep. This then got reported to the police who showed up and woke my friend:
Police officer: "Do you have any weapons in the house?" Helpful gun lover: Yes, Lots!"
[Police officer backs away nervously...]
I saw a sign in the US outside a house which read:
Armed guards three days a week: do you feel lucky?
I prefer the sign that said
"Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again."
Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
Surely the solution is for the decent types to start taking on the vile ones themselves.
The lesson of Trojan Horse is that this simply doesn't happen. Thousands of 'decent types' clearly allowed their children to be exposed to extreme radicalisation and did very little about it.
The notion of a vast moral majority of tolerant, reasonable and socially responsible muslims is a bogus one, if this affair is in any way typical.
I think that is a ludicrous conclusion to draw. Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
You are probably correct, Mr Jim, but what does that tells us? Who are the people that they are frightened of? Should such people be running schools or anything else for that matter? What are the police doing about such a situation?
Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
I think that's an extremely poor excuse for the 'decent majority'.
If, as you contend, the decent people were in the overwhelming majority they should have been able to organise and get themselves into groups to fight this threat. They could have used legal representation and the widespread protections with regard to the rule of law and free speech that this country affords. They could have lobbied law makers and called in the press.
They did none of the above. The actions of the parents were virtually negligible.
I think you need to look at the psychology of bullying and oppression. Why did the Apartheid regime last when whites were a minority? Why do dictatorships last? Why do bully's prosper? Life is never as simple as pure numbers.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
Surely the solution is for the decent types to start taking on the vile ones themselves.
The lesson of Trojan Horse is that this simply doesn't happen. Thousands of 'decent types' clearly allowed their children to be exposed to extreme radicalisation and did very little about it.
The notion of a vast moral majority of tolerant, reasonable and socially responsible muslims is a bogus one, if this affair is in any way typical.
I think that is a ludicrous conclusion to draw. Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
You are probably correct, Mr Jim, but what does that tells us? Who are the people that they are frightened of? Should such people be running schools or anything else for that matter? What are the police doing about such a situation?
Mr Llama, I don't demur but that is the heart of the debate we need to have.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
Another attractive post from you - really glad you joined PB. Have you thought of standing for the Tories somewhere (if you don't already)? As with DavidL, I'd have difficulty in resisting a tactical vote for you if you were the main competitor to a UKIP candidate in the Helmer mode.
I'm struggling with this voting Tory to stop Ukip stuff. To me bothering about Ukip is rather like swatting flies in the jungle when there is a tiger running at you. The don't have an MP, will struggle to get many next year and their topping of the poll in the EU elections means what? There'll be one or two more people carping from the sidelines in the European parliament. Meanwhile the Tories can get on with their plan to dismantle the public realm. Fiscal consolidation without tax rises, 'the weightless state', 'any willing provider' and a race to the bottom on corporation tax that should leave Branson, Green et al salivating. The Tories are the greater threat to a social democratic revival in the UK. In Tory held seats Labour should get on with trying to get it's vote share up 10% points and if Ukip depress the Tory vote, all well and good. In Labour held seats it's a different matter.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Conservative Islam isn't known for its flexibility.
It's a possibility - would jive with the stuff about having a balance of men and women coming from senior Tories. I'm not sure there would be much in it for her, though - I doubt she'd get a post at the very top of the table (whereas you could see Hague getting President of EUCO) and unlike Hague (and short-term, probably Osborne) she has a decent shot at the leadership if Cameron goes down in 2015.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Conservative Islam isn't known for its flexibility.
Incorrect, it's flexible when it needs to be, just not about the things we'd like it to be flexible about.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Surely revocation of citizenship is the way to ensure truthful answers. If a person who has agreed to the terms is found to be in violation their citizenship should be revoked and they should be deported. If people want to live here then they agree to live by our principles, not by ones which keep women locked up in closets and at the back of classrooms. If they don't do so or don't agree then why should we allow them to enter the country?
We need a line in the sand, and to clarify what is sacred to Britain and cannot be diluted or diminished (such as freedom of speech, and the equality of people regardless of gender, colour, creed or sexuality).
We already have that, it is even written into law. What we don't do is enforce it if we might be accused of racism or, to use the ghastly phrase, islamophobia.
That preacher who, eventually, got slung out of the Finsbury Park mosque because his sermons were judged to be too hateful took his preaching into the street. The Metropolitan Police used to close the roads to traffic so that he could continue commit offences under the Public Order Act and stood and listened to him do it. A more clear case of aiding and abetting an offence you could not wish for.
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Conservative Islam isn't known for its flexibility.
Edmund is right. I'm sure if the reason for lying was to further some kind of jihadist ideal then flexibility would beeasy to come by.
Another very interesting article from Dan Hodges. As so often, he over-simplifies to make his point, but as is often the case, he has an interesting point.
It won't go down well with the usual suspects, I think I can safely predict!
Michael Howard stepped down from his job as Chairman of Arena Racecourses a little while back. Laying the ground maybe..
For EU commissioner? He's a member of the House of Lords, I assume that disqualifies him?
Didn't disqualify Baronness Ashton.
Right, they can pick pretty much whoever they like, although I don't think they've ever had a serving monarch.
So that's why King Juan abdicated?
Interesting thought. I'd have to check the specific wording of the treaties but I would assume that divine right of kings trumped the spitzkandidat mandate.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
Another attractive post from you - really glad you joined PB. Have you thought of standing for the Tories somewhere (if you don't already)? As with DavidL, I'd have difficulty in resisting a tactical vote for you if you were the main competitor to a UKIP candidate in the Helmer mode.
I'm struggling with this voting Tory to stop Ukip stuff. To me bothering about Ukip is rather like swatting flies in the jungle when there is a tiger running at you. The don't have an MP, will struggle to get many next year and their topping of the poll in the EU elections means what? There'll be one or two more people carping from the sidelines in the European parliament. Meanwhile the Tories can get on with their plan to dismantle the public realm. Fiscal consolidation without tax rises, 'the weightless state', 'any willing provider' and a race to the bottom on corporation tax that should leave Branson, Green et al salivating. The Tories are the greater threat to a social democratic revival in the UK. In Tory held seats Labour should get on with trying to get it's vote share up 10% points and if Ukip depress the Tory vote, all well and good. In Labour held seats it's a different matter.
bothering about Ukip is rather like swatting flies in the jungle when there is a tiger running at you.
Up to a point I agree with you. UKIP did no better than fourth in all but three constituencies in 2010. Their best result by poll share was 6% at Christchurch, which looks quite good until you consider they finished a huge 23,000 votes behind the winner.
The fact is that they are noisy but irrelevant, both a children's crusade yet also unattractively angry. They are blissfully unaware that the party is being run to settle scores, express vitriol and enable troughing. There can be no other reason why a shyster like Neil Hamilton could receive such a welcome. Hamilton gets UKIP, gets what UKIP is for and about, and he fits right in like something that is well greased sliding into something else.
NPXMP can only be talking about locals, where they have councillors but inshallah no councils. I abhor Labour but would vote for them to stop a UKIP councillor.
There were some quite interesting contributions on the Today programme (must remember the "me" ) this morning which in fairness did seek to open the story up well beyond the Cabinet Splits line.
The question to me is the extent to which we are prepared to tolerate multiculturalism and accept that other cultures have a different view on, say, gender equality than we do. David Blunkett also made the point that the question raises issues for Academies who are outwith local authority control and are not obliged to follow the national curriculum.
There are real tensions between the desire for strongly motivated individuals to set up their own schools which they genuinely believe will give their children the right start in life and the sort of detailed regulation that would determine dress codes, sex segregation, the range of religious teaching and who is allowed to visit the school and speak to the pupils.
My own view is that we need to be more robust in standing up for what we believe in and make it clear that this is a major part of being British is all about but I fully recognise that a major part of being British is being able to believe what you like. I would try to square that circle by saying whilst you can believe what you want you do not have the right to express those views to children for whom you are in loco parentis. But I would not pretend it is easy or that where to draw the line is straightforward.
Decent people often don't stand up because it makes them a target not because they agree with bad people.
I think that's an extremely poor excuse for the 'decent majority'.
If, as you contend, the decent people were in the overwhelming majority they should have been able to organise and get themselves into groups to fight this threat. They could have used legal representation and the widespread protections with regard to the rule of law and free speech that this country affords. They could have lobbied law makers and called in the press.
They did none of the above. The actions of the parents were virtually negligible.
Hmm, well, I don't know what your experience of having a child at school is, but I find it very hard to get detailed answers to the question: "What did you do at school today?"
Very few children are going to return home and say that they think their rights under articles 2 and 18 of the universal declaration of human rights have been breached, so how would you know?
Also, the whole point for religious people of targeting children in schools is that the children do not know that what they are being indoctrinated with is unusual, so they are not particularly likely to report back on this as being exceptional to their parents.
And of course we must remember that the political orthodoxy is to fine parents whose children are not obedient to school discipline, so encouraging your child to be free-thinking could be dangerous for you as a parent.
There is a lot of trust involved in sending your child to school. The real question in my view is why it is that any of the teachers involved who were forced out did not speak up, or were not listened to. It has unfortunate parallels with the Stafford hospital, where nursing staff frequently raised the alarm but were not listened to by senior management.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
Indeed reminds me of scenes from West Wing. However in those circumstances they are almost always asking a question they know the answer to already
Then there is the question : are you engaged in espionage or were you a member of the National Socialist party during the second world war?
Personally I think Americans generally have raised paranoidish tendancies - going back a long way.
Interesting thought. I'd have to check the specific wording of the treaties but I would assume that divine right of kings trumped the spitzkandidat mandate.
You wont find anything about spitzkandidats in the Treaties!
If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
More accurately that should say something like:
If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, and are scrupulously honest to the point of knowingly blowing up your citizenship application you don't get to come here.
Get them to swear an oath on the Holy Koran. If they hold barbaric views for religious reasons, they're likely to be the devout types that believe lying goes against Allah.
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
Conservative Islam isn't known for its flexibility.
Edmund is right. I'm sure if the reason for lying was to further some kind of jihadist ideal then flexibility would beeasy to come by.
I agree that the 1-2% of Muslims who are militant jihadists might do this, but the scale of our problem comes from the fact that a much bigger share of Muslim immigrants (maybe 40?) are just conservative Muslims. This allows a much larger ecosystem of intolerant Muslims from which jihadists can recruit from.
Interestingly, while reading about Islamic teaching on lying, I have come across the story of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. He was a Jewish poet that disliked Islam, and regularly insulted and criticised Muslims. Of course, Mohammed was a holy noble man, and, like Jesus, forgave and loved his critics, and encouraged his followers to do the same.
Just kidding. Mohammed ordered his followers to kill the guy and celebrated them once they had done so:
@Morris_Dancer "Too often politicians pass new laws instead of simply enforcing those that exist"
There is a good reason for that. For politicians, it is a good way to be seen to be "doing something". It has a further benefit for judges and lawyers, in that it complicates the law so that few of the general public can fathom it's intricacies. This in turn means that vested interests get to drive a coach and horse through the loopholes. Everyone is a winner......except of course those who can't afford representation.
Ukip - their conundrum is that by being nastier they get more attention. For a fourth party you could say any attention is good attention. However if most people have now decided they don't like Ukip under FPTP they're in big trouble. I think Farage has made a big mistake. He was already getting plenty of publicity so he didn't need to talk about preferring German to Romanian neighbours. They already have a USP. That we can only control our borders by leaving the EU. Point that out calmly to people and it's undoubtedly popular. Under a new perhaps female leader they might prosper. But the damage to the brand may be done. Their only hope of progress is PR.
If the state did not fund 'faith' schools then it would be very hard for a school to teach 'us and them' attitudes and propoganda. Maybe because of demographics you would still get the odd case but not nearly so much as now . What a bloody stupid concept it is to base your schooling on what 'man in the sky' your parents (in most cases pretend to)believe in
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Or accused all Romanian men of belonging to ATM theft gangs...
Nobody has done this.
Sorry, your right, it was just the Romanian men who happen to live next door.
If you're referring to Farage, he didn't say that all Romanian men who move in next door belong to ATM theft gangs either.
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
I'll drop the poor attempt at sarcasm then and stick to the Farage quote instead:
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
Interesting thought. I'd have to check the specific wording of the treaties but I would assume that divine right of kings trumped the spitzkandidat mandate.
You wont find anything about spitzkandidats in the Treaties!
And it turns out there's a lot less than you'd expect about the divine right of kings.
Another very interesting article from Dan Hodges. As so often, he over-simplifies to make his point, but as is often the case, he has an interesting point.
It won't go down well with the usual suspects, I think I can safely predict!
I dont get why Cameroons & Blairite cuckoos think they can tell UKIP what they think and why they think it
What I do know is it is that kind of attitude that has seen UKIP membership hit record levels
@Morris_Dancer "Too often politicians pass new laws instead of simply enforcing those that exist"
There is a good reason for that. For politicians, it is a good way to be seen to be "doing something". It has a further benefit for judges and lawyers, in that it complicates the law so that few of the general public can fathom it's intricacies. This in turn means that vested interests get to drive a coach and horse through the loopholes. Everyone is a winner......except of course those who can't afford representation.
Aaaaaargh! Stop it, Comrade. Again you have posted a comment that I broadly agree with. If this keeps up I shall have to take down the 18th century map of Sussex from my study wall and replace it with a picture of Marx.
Politicians do nowadays seem to have this belief that saying something is equivalent to doing something and that passing a law against a particular behaviour means that such behaviour will cease. However, there is a difference between the criminal and the civil law that you seem to gloss over.
Enforcement of ones rights in civil cases is indeed a matter of money, save the small claims courts. IN the Criminal Law rights are enforced by public policy by public agencies - this is the area that seems to be grossly failing and failing due to its abandonment of the principle that all are equal before the law.
I'll drop the poor attempt at sarcasm then and stick to the Farage quote instead:
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
He didn't make a distinction between the two groups. At no point did he say that "normal and fair minded people" excluded Romanians.
As for why normal and fair-minded people would have the right to be concerned about a group of Romanian men (rather than Romanian people), it's because there's quite a few criminal gangs in London that are composed of Romanian men. And they would have the right to have concerns about that. It doesn't mean they should judge them as being criminals. Just that they have the right to be wary about the possibility.
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Or accused all Romanian men of belonging to ATM theft gangs...
Nobody has done this.
Sorry, your right, it was just the Romanian men who happen to live next door.
If you're referring to Farage, he didn't say that all Romanian men who move in next door belong to ATM theft gangs either.
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
I'll drop the poor attempt at sarcasm then and stick to the Farage quote instead:
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
Did he say "Romanian people" ?
Why do people of all political persuasions prefer to live next door to Germans than Romanians?
Ukip - their conundrum is that by being nastier they get more attention. For a fourth party you could say any attention is good attention. However if most people have now decided they don't like Ukip under FPTP they're in big trouble. I think Farage has made a big mistake. He was already getting plenty of publicity so he didn't need to talk about preferring German to Romanian neighbours. They already have a USP. That we can only control our borders by leaving the EU. Point that out calmly to people and it's undoubtedly popular. Under a new perhaps female leader they might prosper. But the damage to the brand may be done. Their only hope of progress is PR.
Another very interesting article from Dan Hodges. As so often, he over-simplifies to make his point, but as is often the case, he has an interesting point.
It won't go down well with the usual suspects, I think I can safely predict!
I dont get why Cameroons & Blairite cuckoos think they can tell UKIP what they think and why they think it
What I do know is it is that kind of attitude that has seen UKIP membership hit record levels
You don't seem to understand the concept of comment and analysis. Nobody is dictating anything, in the way that cartographers map rather than shape the geography.
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Or accused all Romanian men of belonging to ATM theft gangs...
Nobody has done this.
Sorry, your right, it was just the Romanian men who happen to live next door.
If you're referring to Farage, he didn't say that all Romanian men who move in next door belong to ATM theft gangs either.
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
I'll drop the poor attempt at sarcasm then and stick to the Farage quote instead:
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
Why do people of all political persuasions prefer to live next door to Germans than Romanians?
Everybody knows Germans have cake mid-afternoon and probably have some left over, who knows what Romanians have got?
@Morris_Dancer "Too often politicians pass new laws instead of simply enforcing those that exist"
There is a good reason for that. For politicians, it is a good way to be seen to be "doing something". It has a further benefit for judges and lawyers, in that it complicates the law so that few of the general public can fathom it's intricacies. This in turn means that vested interests get to drive a coach and horse through the loopholes. Everyone is a winner......except of course those who can't afford representation.
Aaaaaargh! Stop it, Comrade. Again you have posted a comment that I broadly agree with. If this keeps up I shall have to take down the 18th century map of Sussex from my study wall and replace it with a picture of Marx.
Politicians do nowadays seem to have this belief that saying something is equivalent to doing something and that passing a law against a particular behaviour means that such behaviour will cease. However, there is a difference between the criminal and the civil law that you seem to gloss over.
Enforcement of ones rights in civil cases is indeed a matter of money, save the small claims courts. IN the Criminal Law rights are enforced by public policy by public agencies - this is the area that seems to be grossly failing and failing due to its abandonment of the principle that all are equal before the law.
Depressingly the tories got criticised for not having much stuff in the Queen's Speech by the media and ,even more depressingly, the tories tried to rubuke the claim and make out they had more than Labour did in 2009 instead of just saying 'yes thats right and its a good thing'
Ukip - their conundrum is that by being nastier they get more attention. For a fourth party you could say any attention is good attention. However if most people have now decided they don't like Ukip under FPTP they're in big trouble. I think Farage has made a big mistake. He was already getting plenty of publicity so he didn't need to talk about preferring German to Romanian neighbours. They already have a USP. That we can only control our borders by leaving the EU. Point that out calmly to people and it's undoubtedly popular. Under a new perhaps female leader they might prosper. But the damage to the brand may be done. Their only hope of progress is PR.
Ukip - their conundrum is that by being nastier they get more attention. For a fourth party you could say any attention is good attention. However if most people have now decided they don't like Ukip under FPTP they're in big trouble. I think Farage has made a big mistake. He was already getting plenty of publicity so he didn't need to talk about preferring German to Romanian neighbours. They already have a USP. That we can only control our borders by leaving the EU. Point that out calmly to people and it's undoubtedly popular. Under a new perhaps female leader they might prosper. But the damage to the brand may be done. Their only hope of progress is PR.
@isam I agree that things haven't been tackled properly for too long however I've worked with dozens of Muslims and all of them have been decent and ordinary and no different to the rest of us.
Yes that charter suggestion was nuts and would exacerbate the issues. It would solve nothing, could make things worse and looks very much like the thin end of a terrifying wedge.
Ah the Enoch was right canard.
That charter reminds me of American airport staff who on my frequent visits to America ask me
"Are you a member of a terrorist organisation"
If I were, would I really admit to you?
No, but if you are, it adds "lying to the US CBP" to the rap sheet and gives them a handy throw away chip in negotiations + a reason for immediate deportation based on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt
"How long do you think a white teacher would last in a British primary school if he were to tell his class of seven-year olds that all non-Christians were "filthy heathens"? Or if he referred to black people using the "n-word"? Or he accused all Muslims of being frustrated terrorists?"
Or accused all Romanian men of belonging to ATM theft gangs...
Nobody has done this.
Sorry, your right, it was just the Romanian men who happen to live next door.
If you're referring to Farage, he didn't say that all Romanian men who move in next door belong to ATM theft gangs either.
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
I'll drop the poor attempt at sarcasm then and stick to the Farage quote instead:
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
Why do people of all political persuasions prefer to live next door to Germans than Romanians?
Everybody knows Germans have cake mid-afternoon and probably have some left over, who knows what Romanians have got?
So do the Portuguese. Indeed tea drinking (with, I am sure, the accompanying cake) was introduced into this country by Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese wife of Charles II. Yet I hear that the Portuguese are no longer welcome immigrants in areas of East Anglia. Cake, and tea, may not be the driving issue.
Comments
@Toryjim Regarding thin end of terrifying wedges, how do you think a lot of non muslims feel when they see reports of schools like this? Doesnt make you a bad person to worry that this might be the least of our troubles.
Yes but the solution to Muslim extremism isn't to whack the decent types and hope it scares the vile ones into line.
I do like the slight sense of naïveté that comes across from that. The idea that all racists are ogres, and easily identifiable as such and never make a plausible or coherent case. The dangerous racists are the Enoch type because they are seductive and because they make a plausible case. The problem is that if you make an argument from a false predicate you have a very bad argument, despite the internal logical consistency of the argument.
Asking straightforward questions which to most are straightforward (and faintly ludicrous) are precisely those which might gast the flabber of any actual miscreant.
Flying to America is so much fun for me.
"Do you have any weapons?"
Me: Why, what do you need?
We do not, on the whole, see UKIPpers doing this. They do not vote for the party whose agenda is closest to their own stated concerns. It's therefore a rational inference that the basis of UKIPpers' support for UKIP is something other than they profess.
Now it could be that this 'something other' is some principled reason. They strongly feel, perhaps, that the main issue facing the country day is that we are ruled by 12-foot Bilderberg lizards. Neither Ed Balls nor Antony Calvert would do anything different about this, being shape-shifting lizards themselves. It follows that it would matter little to them if they elect Antony Calvert rather than Ed Balls. Either way you get a lizard.
Probably the issue is not Bilderberg lizards, or Common Purpose, or the BBC, or the lack of trains painted in traditional colours, or the scruffiness of our casually-dressed minicab drivers. There must be some other reason, some view shared among UKIPpers that nobody else comes close to espousing and that only a UKIP MP would champion or intend to deliver.
I leave it to you to work out what that might be.
We've seen intimidation and death threats over cartoons, the media playing along with censorship of cartoons of Mohammed (with his friend Jesus, although the latter was not censored), and this story, which should be top of the news agenda. We'll see how it's reported, but I have little faith [ahem] it'll be up to snuff.
Recall also the anti-white rapist gangs. Imagine if all-white gangs had been systematically raping Asian girls. Would the police have failed so badly and outright ignored request for help? Would the media have failed to point out the elephant in the room?
Extremism has to be tackled.
It took the strength of Hercules, plus further brief examination of her stone face to answer only: no, just the two of us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-27761723
Surely the solution is for the decent types to start taking on the vile ones themselves.
The lesson of Trojan Horse is that this simply doesn't happen. Thousands of 'decent types' clearly allowed their children to be exposed to extreme radicalisation and did very little about it.
The notion of a vast moral majority of tolerant, reasonable and socially responsible muslims is a bogus one, if this affair is in any way typical.
Usually when you get asked an inane question, there is another officer, usually in plain clothes, somewhere near bye judging your reaction.
On the plus side, this probably makes our Olympics look even better by comparison.
It's also worth considering that the former argument is made on the basis of Islamic fundamentalism being so widespread in the UK that it's just too big a problem to tackle everywhere. The obvious starting place would be to stop allowing more people with these sorts of views from immigrating. If you try to become a US citizen, you are questioned about your views, to make sure they're in accordance with constitution. We should do the same with liberal democratic norms. If you don't believe in the equality of men and women, democratic pluralism, freedom of speech and criticism, you don't get to come here.
The worst thing I ever did was on a flight to Australia a few years ago, with a friend, who is white and a Kuffar non Muslim.
We sat their, he was drinking, I was on the fruit juices, and we were discussing my experiences with American airlines, and he said, "I've known you for years, and you've never struck me as religious, or passionate about Islam, why is that, I can't imagine you demanding beheading of people who insult Islam or being a suicide bomber"
I then said, "I could never be a suicide bomber, who would want 72 virgins, give me an experienced lady [moderated because the rest of the convo was very rude]
In hindsight, talking about suicide bombers, and 72 virgins on a plan, wasn't the wisest thing I've ever done.
However, a mandated 20% requirement could clearly close down the less pleasant ones, because few outside the faith would be willing to go there.
Police officer: "Do you have any weapons in the house?"
Helpful gun lover: Yes, Lots!"
[Police officer backs away nervously...]
Armed guards three days a week: do you feel lucky?
We need a line in the sand, and to clarify what is sacred to Britain and cannot be diluted or diminished (such as freedom of speech, and the equality of people regardless of gender, colour, creed or sexuality).
Here's a question: if you have to knowingly lie about what someone said to justify your belief system, your belief system is a crock of shit, isn't it?
Appears the schools put on hastily put together "christian assemblies" when they found out OFSTED were coming.
I think that's an extremely poor excuse for the 'decent majority'.
If, as you contend, the decent people were in the overwhelming majority they should have been able to organise and get themselves into groups to fight this threat. They could have used legal representation and the widespread protections with regard to the rule of law and free speech that this country affords. They could have lobbied law makers and called in the press.
They did none of the above. The actions of the parents were virtually negligible.
"Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again."
Religions are very flexible, they can generally find justifications for things like that if they're helpful to the spread and/or funding of the religion.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275419/how-the-tea-kippers-hijacked-ukip-and-turned-it-into-a-toxic-brand/
Conservative Islam isn't known for its flexibility.
Incorrect, it's flexible when it needs to be, just not about the things we'd like it to be flexible about.
Fundamentalists of any sort are rarely "flexible", be it in religion or politics.
Surely revocation of citizenship is the way to ensure truthful answers. If a person who has agreed to the terms is found to be in violation their citizenship should be revoked and they should be deported. If people want to live here then they agree to live by our principles, not by ones which keep women locked up in closets and at the back of classrooms. If they don't do so or don't agree then why should we allow them to enter the country?
That preacher who, eventually, got slung out of the Finsbury Park mosque because his sermons were judged to be too hateful took his preaching into the street. The Metropolitan Police used to close the roads to traffic so that he could continue commit offences under the Public Order Act and stood and listened to him do it. A more clear case of aiding and abetting an offence you could not wish for.
Edmund is right. I'm sure if the reason for lying was to further some kind of jihadist ideal then flexibility would beeasy to come by.
It won't go down well with the usual suspects, I think I can safely predict!
Up to a point I agree with you. UKIP did no better than fourth in all but three constituencies in 2010. Their best result by poll share was 6% at Christchurch, which looks quite good until you consider they finished a huge 23,000 votes behind the winner.
The fact is that they are noisy but irrelevant, both a children's crusade yet also unattractively angry. They are blissfully unaware that the party is being run to settle scores, express vitriol and enable troughing. There can be no other reason why a shyster like Neil Hamilton could receive such a welcome. Hamilton gets UKIP, gets what UKIP is for and about, and he fits right in like something that is well greased sliding into something else.
NPXMP can only be talking about locals, where they have councillors but inshallah no councils. I abhor Labour but would vote for them to stop a UKIP councillor.
The question to me is the extent to which we are prepared to tolerate multiculturalism and accept that other cultures have a different view on, say, gender equality than we do. David Blunkett also made the point that the question raises issues for Academies who are outwith local authority control and are not obliged to follow the national curriculum.
There are real tensions between the desire for strongly motivated individuals to set up their own schools which they genuinely believe will give their children the right start in life and the sort of detailed regulation that would determine dress codes, sex segregation, the range of religious teaching and who is allowed to visit the school and speak to the pupils.
My own view is that we need to be more robust in standing up for what we believe in and make it clear that this is a major part of being British is all about but I fully recognise that a major part of being British is being able to believe what you like. I would try to square that circle by saying whilst you can believe what you want you do not have the right to express those views to children for whom you are in loco parentis. But I would not pretend it is easy or that where to draw the line is straightforward.
Very few children are going to return home and say that they think their rights under articles 2 and 18 of the universal declaration of human rights have been breached, so how would you know?
Also, the whole point for religious people of targeting children in schools is that the children do not know that what they are being indoctrinated with is unusual, so they are not particularly likely to report back on this as being exceptional to their parents.
And of course we must remember that the political orthodoxy is to fine parents whose children are not obedient to school discipline, so encouraging your child to be free-thinking could be dangerous for you as a parent.
There is a lot of trust involved in sending your child to school. The real question in my view is why it is that any of the teachers involved who were forced out did not speak up, or were not listened to. It has unfortunate parallels with the Stafford hospital, where nursing staff frequently raised the alarm but were not listened to by senior management.
Too often politicians pass new laws instead of simply enforcing those that exist.
Personally I think Americans generally have raised paranoidish tendancies - going back a long way.
I agree that the 1-2% of Muslims who are militant jihadists might do this, but the scale of our problem comes from the fact that a much bigger share of Muslim immigrants (maybe 40?) are just conservative Muslims. This allows a much larger ecosystem of intolerant Muslims from which jihadists can recruit from.
Interestingly, while reading about Islamic teaching on lying, I have come across the story of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. He was a Jewish poet that disliked Islam, and regularly insulted and criticised Muslims. Of course, Mohammed was a holy noble man, and, like Jesus, forgave and loved his critics, and encouraged his followers to do the same.
Just kidding. Mohammed ordered his followers to kill the guy and celebrated them once they had done so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf
There is a good reason for that. For politicians, it is a good way to be seen to be "doing something". It has a further benefit for judges and lawyers, in that it complicates the law so that few of the general public can fathom it's intricacies.
This in turn means that vested interests get to drive a coach and horse through the loopholes.
Everyone is a winner......except of course those who can't afford representation.
What a bloody stupid concept it is to base your schooling on what 'man in the sky' your parents (in most cases pretend to)believe in
"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door."
This was quickly followed in the Telegraph racism denial ad by reference to the Met finding on ATM crime and Romanian crimes.
So, fair cop that I linked the two above into a single sentence that was never said by Farage, not that I ever suggested he had.
I'm sure you have a perfectly benign explanation why Farage would draw a distinction between normal and fair minded people and Romanian people; and why the former should be concerned about the latter. And I'm sure that benign explanation would go to the heart of your own belief system.
Of course he couldn't resist the Chukka jibe at Ed.
What I do know is it is that kind of attitude that has seen UKIP membership hit record levels
Politicians do nowadays seem to have this belief that saying something is equivalent to doing something and that passing a law against a particular behaviour means that such behaviour will cease. However, there is a difference between the criminal and the civil law that you seem to gloss over.
Enforcement of ones rights in civil cases is indeed a matter of money, save the small claims courts. IN the Criminal Law rights are enforced by public policy by public agencies - this is the area that seems to be grossly failing and failing due to its abandonment of the principle that all are equal before the law.
As for why normal and fair-minded people would have the right to be concerned about a group of Romanian men (rather than Romanian people), it's because there's quite a few criminal gangs in London that are composed of Romanian men. And they would have the right to have concerns about that. It doesn't mean they should judge them as being criminals. Just that they have the right to be wary about the possibility.
Why do people of all political persuasions prefer to live next door to Germans than Romanians?
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole
Labour HQ spikes force away a homeless man and his dog. http://bit.ly/1s03aEo
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/09/UKIP-Set-Their-Sights-on-May-2015-Election
The smearers ignore that bit.
"Food bank demand up 54% in 2013"
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/09/food-bank-demand-up-2013-charity-report
As my (Californian) wife delights in reminding me, that means our daughter has a majority of American blood...
And the government can take much of the credit. You must be overjoyed!
"UK child poverty plans doomed to failure, report says"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27734513