You hear this term used by many a correspondent that the security services have picked up comms 'chatter'.
Curiously enough the big ears of the US have picked it up 'chatter' this weekend suggesting further attacks in Europe from Al Qaeda sources.
The problem is, is it legitimate or do the Al Qaeda types, well versed in the game of chaos and stress associated, know that its cheap way of causing more alarm by spreading some electronic noise?
This is the conundrum that Western agencies face plus the lack of good on the ground tactical intelligence in their own patch makes it hard to filter and verify.
The terror group's Arabian Peninsula branch in Yemen, which has been linked to the attacks in Paris, has also told its members that Britain is a higher priority target then France - second only to America.
That cookbook job is fairly old. The airliner bomb is a holy grail attack but its also one of the hardest to carry off, much easier to go for the less secured. On the other hand flying BA & Easyjet in particular carries a marginally higher risk.
Surely Ryanair is riskier than both, although due to their batshit crazy pilots rather than mere terrorism.
They'll get you there, even if they land at the wrong airport. Very much in the mould of their chief....
I only ever flew them once.
Observations was it was a flying zoo. They had to start the safety brief 3 times as no one was listening. I never quite got over the constant adverts on the intercom, the flight attendant desperately trying to flog me a scratch card and the piece de la resistance...... The fanfare at the end " another Ryan air flight actually arrives". at which point the announcement had an slight issue and stalled and only continued a few seconds later with "on time"
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
So not stirring up hatred, and not for Poles, otherwise good answer.
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
What we need to do is either get them to leave the faith, to become notional Muslims without any true belief, or to get them to adopt them liberal Christian position that their scripture is not always literally true and certain parts should be overlooked. This will require a loud public debate where sacred cows are challenged, things that deserve mocking are mocked, and inconvenient truths about Islam are thrown in their faces. Telling people "well you're not one of the active terrorists, so all your other beliefs are fine" is not going to work.
I am very happy to see scriptural literalism challenged, and who better to do it than someone called Socrates? Once you have achieved all that, do you wish to join me in persuading the good people of the United States that the Bible is not literally true, that it's OK to teach evolution in schools, that abortion should be legal and that Obama is not the antichrist?
People who believe in creationism or wish to restrict abortion are no danger to me or mine.
People who wish to restrict abortion have been known to be violent.
A tiny minority of almost any political movement have been known to be violent. SPUC really isn't an organisation that worries me.
Apart from repealing the 2006 Incitement Act and tougher immigration restrictions what more do the 'something must be done' advocates (among whom I'm instinctively one) argue the UK Government should adopt by way of political, legislative, judicial or Ministerial action?
I seem to recall cyclefree (one of the site's most distinguished contributors) half promised a number of inititiatives before dashing off on Thursday but I can't recall seeing them. Perhaps Socrates or Sean Thomas, inter alia, might put some flesh to the bones.
Personally I would say that it is up to the followers of Islam to have a long good look at their sacred texts and expunge anything that can be interpreted as meaning 'strive to widen islam' from them.
That would be a far better pro-active rather than 're-active' response.
But it will never happen.
The corollary (please feel free to contradict me) is that Muslims are quite happy to maintain the status quo with regard to their religious texts so are prepared to let a significant minority wage jihad against the West.
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
A poster noting "British workers are hit hard by cheap labour" is stirring up hatred for Poles? This is the same sort of idiocy as Fox News saying that removing corporate tax loopholes is "class hatred".
What we need to do is either get them to leave the faith, to become notional Muslims without any true belief, or to get them to adopt them liberal Christian position that their scripture is not always literally true and certain parts should be overlooked. This will require a loud public debate where sacred cows are challenged, things that deserve mocking are mocked, and inconvenient truths about Islam are thrown in their faces. Telling people "well you're not one of the active terrorists, so all your other beliefs are fine" is not going to work.
I am very happy to see scriptural literalism challenged, and who better to do it than someone called Socrates? Once you have achieved all that, do you wish to join me in persuading the good people of the United States that the Bible is not literally true, that it's OK to teach evolution in schools, that abortion should be legal and that Obama is not the antichrist?
I don't know what your point is here. I agree many of those things also need to be argued. The difference is that lots of people in the US do argue such things in a loud and raucous debate. While the debate over Islam here is stifled in order to be "sensitive" and "respectful".
In a week like this, it is nice to find points of agreement -- so that can be my point. I'm glad you agree my list needs to be argued and I agree that the counter-argument to literalist Islam here is poor. Until the last boundary changes, I was in the constituency of Hampstead & Highgate. They've chosen Maajid Nawaz as the LibDem candidate for the next election. I think you'd like his position on these matters.
What we need to do is either get them to leave the faith, to become notional Muslims without any true belief, or to get them to adopt them liberal Christian position that their scripture is not always literally true and certain parts should be overlooked. This will require a loud public debate where sacred cows are challenged, things that deserve mocking are mocked, and inconvenient truths about Islam are thrown in their faces. Telling people "well you're not one of the active terrorists, so all your other beliefs are fine" is not going to work.
I am very happy to see scriptural literalism challenged, and who better to do it than someone called Socrates? Once you have achieved all that, do you wish to join me in persuading the good people of the United States that the Bible is not literally true, that it's OK to teach evolution in schools, that abortion should be legal and that Obama is not the antichrist?
People who believe in creationism or wish to restrict abortion are no danger to me or mine.
Great for you. It is a danger to me and mine. My parents worked on the 1967 Abortion Act and my dad still works in the field in the US. There have been 8 people killed in recent years by anti-abortion violence in the US.
(Although I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain how that isn't terrorism, and certainly can't be considered Christian terrorism.)
The sort of anti-abortion extremists you talk about are certainly both terrorists and motivated by their brand of Christianity. There's no need to get defensive just because you used bad examples earlier and were called out on it.
What we need to do is either get them to leave the faith, to become notional Muslims without any true belief, or to get them to adopt them liberal Christian position that their scripture is not always literally true and certain parts should be overlooked. This will require a loud public debate where sacred cows are challenged, things that deserve mocking are mocked, and inconvenient truths about Islam are thrown in their faces. Telling people "well you're not one of the active terrorists, so all your other beliefs are fine" is not going to work.
I am very happy to see scriptural literalism challenged, and who better to do it than someone called Socrates? Once you have achieved all that, do you wish to join me in persuading the good people of the United States that the Bible is not literally true, that it's OK to teach evolution in schools, that abortion should be legal and that Obama is not the antichrist?
You are a moron, tho, aren't you? I mean, you do accept that?
If we can agree that as a basis, debate can proceed.
Why, Sean, it is an honour to be insulted by such a long-standing member of the community here! I realise I don't normally post very often, so it warms me to read your words. I feel properly welcome now, one of the gang.
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but it was the Hindu Tamils who invented suicide bombing.
And modern terrorism was (arguably) invented by Irgun.
Nevertheless, in recent years, it's fair to say that the most popular brand of terrorism is Islamic fundamentalism related.
I would note that one of the major reasons why Islamic terrorism has been so prevalent in the last 15 or so years has been that the high price of oil has resulted in large sums of money has gone from the House of Saud to Wahabbi groups. Essentially, they've bribed the firebrands to carry their terror abroad.
If the oil price remains low, there will be much, much less money available for radical Islamist groups.
Last week's murderers rejected France. Like almost all other terrorists of whatever kind they were relatively young, testosterone-filled men who felt no connection with the society in which they lived. I am not sure how a vocal, no holds barred debate about Islam changes that. We should have it anyway, of course; but don't expect it to make much difference.
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
So not stirring up hatred, and not for Poles, otherwise good answer.
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
Erm the 'tinyurl' thing is (or was) requested by the rules of the site - hardly an indictment of me if I'm the only one to adhere to it. And unless you're saying those images are inauthentic then does it matter a fig whose website they happen to be hosted on?
And the Poles are Europeans the last time I looked, but I suppose you think that the claim that they are 'after' my job was intended as an endearment. UKIP ran with their campaign and did quite well out of it, but please - let's not pretend it was anything other than an attempt to foster deep resentment and suspicion of The Foreign.
An incredible display of solidarity ,support for the Republic,and defiance in the face of terrorism,not sure it will do much to deter the fanatics who perpetrate these crimes. But still very moving to see a nation acting as one.
As for Ryanair,no problem,they are cheap and cheerful,WYSIWYG,avoid all the sneaky charges and they get the job done. I used to fly regularly from Liverpool to Belfast,just for a one day meeting and it cost more to park my car at Lpool than to fly.Also,they have a very modern fleet of aircraft,which are obviously worked hard,but they appear well looked after.
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
So not stirring up hatred, and not for Poles, otherwise good answer.
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
Erm the 'tinyurl' thing is (or was) requested by the rules of the site - hardly an indictment of me if I'm the only one to adhere to it. And unless you're saying those images are inauthentic then does it matter a fig whose website they happen to be hosted on?
And the Poles are Europeans the last time I looked, but I suppose you think that the claim that they are 'after' my job was intended as an endearment. UKIP ran with their campaign and did quite well out of it, but please - let's not pretend it was anything other than an attempt to foster deep resentment and suspicion of The Foreign.
It was a genuine question about the tinyurl thing.
Otherwise you are flailing. "Please - let's not pretend that the elephant is anything other than the larva of a very large kind of butterfly."
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
So not stirring up hatred, and not for Poles, otherwise good answer.
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
Erm the 'tinyurl' thing is (or was) requested by the rules of the site - hardly an indictment of me if I'm the only one to adhere to it. And unless you're saying those images are inauthentic then does it matter a fig whose website they happen to be hosted on?
And the Poles are Europeans the last time I looked, but I suppose you think that the claim that they are 'after' my job was intended as an endearment. UKIP ran with their campaign and did quite well out of it, but please - let's not pretend it was anything other than an attempt to foster deep resentment and suspicion of The Foreign.
It's no secret that UKIP wish to end free migration from the EU. That's only "stirring up hatred" against Poles if you think Harold Macmillan was "stirring up hatred" against Asians by ending free migration from the Commonwealth.
Apart from repealing the 2006 Incitement Act and tougher immigration restrictions what more do the 'something must be done' advocates (among whom I'm instinctively one) argue the UK Government should adopt by way of political, legislative, judicial or Ministerial action?
I seem to recall cyclefree (one of the site's most distinguished contributors) half promised a number of inititiatives before dashing off on Thursday but I can't recall seeing them. Perhaps Socrates or Sean Thomas, inter alia, might put some flesh to the bones.
1) Severely restrict conservative Muslim immigration through various measures - Get rid of marriage visas for arranged marriages - Bring back primary purpose rule - Require interviews on political views for anyone immigrating from a country with widespread support for terrorism/violent punishment for things that aren't crimes here - Apply existing restrictions on unskilled migration towards the EU (given that radical Muslims are coming here from France and the Netherlands) - Process asylum applications offshore
2) Break the power of conservative Muslim schools in the UK - Any school caught teaching extreme forms of Islam gets immediately closed down, with the teachers involved permanently banned from being involved in education - Require all religious schools to take 20% of students from other religious backgrounds. If they can't attract that many, then you don't get to operate.
3) Reduce the impact of Muslim block voting controlled by community leaders - End proxy voting - End Commonwealth voting rights - Restrict postal voting to those with genuine with an inability to get to a polling station - Rigorous prosecution for electoral fraud, with punishments of permanent loss of the vote and bans from political office
4) Much stronger anti-fundamentalist argument - Removal of the "incitement to hatred" laws, replaced by laws inciting crime. - Political leaders to argue forcefully against Muslim intolerance, calling for Muslims to embrace democracy, equal rights etc on a much more consistent basis
5) All the things LuckyGuy1983 said on the previous thread
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but it was the Hindu Tamils who invented suicide bombing.
And modern terrorism was (arguably) invented by Irgun.
Nevertheless, in recent years, it's fair to say that the most popular brand of terrorism is Islamic fundamentalism related.
I would note that one of the major reasons why Islamic terrorism has been so prevalent in the last 15 or so years has been that the high price of oil has resulted in large sums of money has gone from the House of Saud to Wahabbi groups. Essentially, they've bribed the firebrands to carry their terror abroad.
If the oil price remains low, there will be much, much less money available for radical Islamist groups.
Terrorists will steal the oil, to them it will be pure profit. Most terrorists are just criminal psychopaths, nothing more, certainly not truly religious.
What we need to do is either get them to leave the faith, to become notional Muslims without any true belief, or to get them to adopt them liberal Christian position that their scripture is not always literally true and certain parts should be overlooked. This will require a loud public debate where sacred cows are challenged, things that deserve mocking are mocked, and inconvenient truths about Islam are thrown in their faces. Telling people "well you're not one of the active terrorists, so all your other beliefs are fine" is not going to work.
I am very happy to see scriptural literalism challenged, and who better to do it than someone called Socrates? Once you have achieved all that, do you wish to join me in persuading the good people of the United States that the Bible is not literally true, that it's OK to teach evolution in schools, that abortion should be legal and that Obama is not the antichrist?
People who believe in creationism or wish to restrict abortion are no danger to me or mine.
People who wish to restrict abortion have been known to be violent.
I am living in a parallel universe. Many people here, and incredibly on CIF are mainlining Nick Griffin.
The most liked comment under an article on Paris on CIF openly suggests Muslims who don't accept Western secular democracy should leave Britain. Not in the Express, in the Guardian.
I mentioned this to a friend in Boston this week. "They may be packing out the schools and hospitals, pinching your jobs and trebling the drink-driving figures but they don't tend to murder you."
He still thought the minor problems were relevant, though.
I've always been relaxed about immigration from Poland - culturally not that dissimilar to Britain though vastly unfortunate to have been sandwiched between Russia and Germany during the 20th Century. Indeed the next generation of settled Poles will probably be indistinguishable from the natives apart from having a lot of 'cz's in their surnames. So I was disappointed to see UKIP stirring up hatred of these people for the purpose of a couple of news cycles. It was both crass and myopic as I think a lot of Kippers on here will now acknowledge.
I wasn't aware that UKIP were stirring up hatred for Poles. When did that happen?
I'm surprised you missed the campaign as it was well reported at the time:
In fairness - in the cold light of day - some UKIP supporters are a bit squeamish about it all now. Others are simply in denial, claiming there's some ingenious post-modern subtlety at work which the rest of us are failing to comprehend.
So not stirring up hatred, and not for Poles, otherwise good answer.
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
Erm the 'tinyurl' thing is (or was) requested by the rules of the site - hardly an indictment of me if I'm the only one to adhere to it. And unless you're saying those images are inauthentic then does it matter a fig whose website they happen to be hosted on?
And the Poles are Europeans the last time I looked, but I suppose you think that the claim that they are 'after' my job was intended as an endearment. UKIP ran with their campaign and did quite well out of it, but please - let's not pretend it was anything other than an attempt to foster deep resentment and suspicion of The Foreign.
It's you that is pretending it was some sort of hate campaign. You apparently can't figure out that there's a vast ream of space between hate speech and "endearment".
OT As many PBers know - I'm a bit of music fan and love hearing others' recommendations. If you use Spotify - do add me to you share list. I'm at Flip Newcastle
Comments
Observations was it was a flying zoo. They had to start the safety brief 3 times as no one was listening. I never quite got over the constant adverts on the intercom, the flight attendant desperately trying to flog me a scratch card and the piece de la resistance...... The fanfare at the end
" another Ryan air flight actually arrives". at which point the announcement had an slight issue and stalled and only continued a few seconds later with "on time"
Never went back.......
Is there ever a sensible reason for this tinyurl stuff by the way? I never see it without thinking "I bet he's trying to disguise the fact he's linking to the Daily Mail".
That would be a far better pro-active rather than 're-active' response.
But it will never happen.
The corollary (please feel free to contradict me) is that Muslims are quite happy to maintain the status quo with regard to their religious texts so are prepared to let a significant minority wage jihad against the West.
Mr. Pulpstar, that is a big hammer in your avatar.
And modern terrorism was (arguably) invented by Irgun.
Nevertheless, in recent years, it's fair to say that the most popular brand of terrorism is Islamic fundamentalism related.
I would note that one of the major reasons why Islamic terrorism has been so prevalent in the last 15 or so years has been that the high price of oil has resulted in large sums of money has gone from the House of Saud to Wahabbi groups. Essentially, they've bribed the firebrands to carry their terror abroad.
If the oil price remains low, there will be much, much less money available for radical Islamist groups.
I feel strangely uncomforted.
A few months after bring back our girls, boko haram is now virtually a state of its own.
We are losing. We are f8cking losing. Despite our immeasurable strength and advantages.
And the Poles are Europeans the last time I looked, but I suppose you think that the claim that they are 'after' my job was intended as an endearment. UKIP ran with their campaign and did quite well out of it, but please - let's not pretend it was anything other than an attempt to foster deep resentment and suspicion of The Foreign.
As for Ryanair,no problem,they are cheap and cheerful,WYSIWYG,avoid all the sneaky charges and they get the job done. I used to fly regularly from Liverpool to Belfast,just for a one day meeting and it cost more to park my car at Lpool than to fly.Also,they have a very modern fleet of aircraft,which are obviously worked hard,but they appear well looked after.
Otherwise you are flailing. "Please - let's not pretend that the elephant is anything other than the larva of a very large kind of butterfly."
- Get rid of marriage visas for arranged marriages
- Bring back primary purpose rule
- Require interviews on political views for anyone immigrating from a country with widespread support for terrorism/violent punishment for things that aren't crimes here
- Apply existing restrictions on unskilled migration towards the EU (given that radical Muslims are coming here from France and the Netherlands)
- Process asylum applications offshore
2) Break the power of conservative Muslim schools in the UK
- Any school caught teaching extreme forms of Islam gets immediately closed down, with the teachers involved permanently banned from being involved in education
- Require all religious schools to take 20% of students from other religious backgrounds. If they can't attract that many, then you don't get to operate.
3) Reduce the impact of Muslim block voting controlled by community leaders
- End proxy voting
- End Commonwealth voting rights
- Restrict postal voting to those with genuine with an inability to get to a polling station
- Rigorous prosecution for electoral fraud, with punishments of permanent loss of the vote and bans from political office
4) Much stronger anti-fundamentalist argument
- Removal of the "incitement to hatred" laws, replaced by laws inciting crime.
- Political leaders to argue forcefully against Muslim intolerance, calling for Muslims to embrace democracy, equal rights etc on a much more consistent basis
5) All the things LuckyGuy1983 said on the previous thread
Twaddle. And reactionary twaddle. Mine wasn't.
The most liked comment under an article on Paris on CIF openly suggests Muslims who don't accept Western secular democracy should leave Britain. Not in the Express, in the Guardian.
The man must be a visionary.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6771104
first cast the beam out of thine eye