................The habit of British parties of portraying each other as borderline criminal disasters while producing core policies in touching distance of each other does feed cynicism, and Patrick and Danny on this thread, and to some extent Southam Observer, are examples of voters yearning for something radically different...........
After the expenses and earlier scandals the public holds current MPs and past MPs in contempt. The brand image of MPs has been fundamentally damaged. Thus by attacking each other it just reinforces the attraction of alternatives. To enable a major party to reverse this trend needs a ruthless re-building of that party based on principles that it rigidly holds to and delivers on. None of the main 3 are re-building and instead operating short term "one last heave" tactics, which amount to "one more pile of sh*t" chucked at an opponent. UKIP have the "new kid" appeal but are undermined by the cult of one man and his court, all jockeying for position.
I think there is quite a lot in that, but the real killer for me about politics is the conspicuous lack of integrity from senior politicians. Yes, we know politicians lie, that isn't news. The the level of barefaced shameless whoppers the public have been asked to swallow on a regular basis from Blair onward is astonishing, and it hardly a surprise the public are cynical. Blair wouldn't know the truth if it hit him around the face, the dodgy dossier was amongst the worst,............ Cameron is truly the heir to Blair, endless silly whoppers told with a straight face, and his best patrician "you can trust Uncle Dave" look on, ..........The immigration promise was the most egregious of this unhappy lot, no only did we get the "no if's no but's" idiocy, he even put in his party's election pledges..............
Cameron lacked experience of delivery in an operational role and has a lot of duffers, such as Letwin, around him who fail to think through the practicalities of how to achieve an aim. The immigration promise may have been deliverable if there was a single owner who worked solely on that target, before the promise was stated. If they reported back that it could only be achieved through changing A, B and C which for other reasons were unachieveable, then Cameron would not have made the promise. It was Letwin's role to work these things out.....
And there you go yet again. I haven't said any of those things - and have agreed with bits of UKIP's libertarian agenda - yet you're so keen to play the victim that you're digging in against me as a reflex.
Just stop. It does your credibility no good to react like this. I'm being cruel to be kind - I hope you will eventually see this.
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
So why do parties dislike Ukip more now than when Ukip were getting 3%?
The justification for the loons fruitcakes and racists comment was that it was true at the time as ukip were a v small party, and so there would be no need to apologise now as the 12% extra voters who have joined since, weren't insulted
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I am sorry and I don't mean to sound horrible but I don't really care what you think, and it won't make any difference to what I say.
I haven't accused you of saying anything, but the fact remains that we see lots of posts today saying "UKIP want to eventually repatriate all foreigners" "UKIP don't like brown people" and comparing Farage with Hitler on this thread already, and the polling shows that UKIP are more disliked by voters now than when they had fewer voters, and far less mainstream.
So I can only draw the conclusion that it isn't policy they dislike, but fear of losing power, which is an understandable human reaction.
Also no machismo in offering a bet.. it is a site about betting, and plenty of people engage in the bets I have offered.. Antifrank, Tse, Scrapheap, Quincel, Pulpstar, Audrey, Rcs, tim, Neil, Davidl, Johno. Roberts, Charles... I have bets with all of these people .. we bet.. its part of the site
You don't bet, fair enough but I am not doing it to bully anyone, just to see if they fancy a bet, and maybe a way of cutting out bullshit trolling
I'd like to read that. Can I find it just using the title?
Friends know that if I turn up wearing make-up that it's a sign of three things - war paint for a fight, seduction or dressed for death. My funeral suit by Max Factor I suppose!
Irritation is the natural reaction to what is seen by non-Kippers as young upstarts.
I'm now an OAP, so my best (and only) suit is my "funeral suit" now.
Mortality is one of the issues I considered in the e-book wot I wrote; hence the title "An ever rolling stream" from the famous hymn ...'time like an ever rolling stream bears all its sons away'.
I thought it was thoughtful and a bit geeky but Wild Wolf, the publishers specialise in "dark and edgy".
I suspect any story concerning mortality and inevitable death is looked on as dark and edgy by the younger generations.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
There's a big difference between printing something that's designed to offend (although you have a right to do that) and printing something to make an argument or to make people laugh, which has a byproduct of offending some other people.
I also think there's another issue at stake that hasn't been discussed. When we, collectively as a society, agree certain things are beyond mocking, whether it be the royal family or Muhammad, you also give it a degree of sanctity that means legitimate criticism starts being considered inappropriate. Once upon a time, you would have been shunned for making the very reasonable point that the royals aren't particularly intelligent people, which unfairly takes a valid argument away from republicanism. With this "you shouldn't offend" agenda, people who raise very valid points about Mohammed's unethical behaviour are also considered to be beyond the pale, meaning the irreligious are unfairly having a valid argument taken away.
There really has been a chilling effect of this anti-free speech agenda, and progress will suffer if it continues. This is the problem with an immigration policy that increases the share of the population with illiberal undemocratic views.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
I was reporting rather than particularly agreeing. I told my mother that my sympathies were more with my father on this point, and while I agreed that we should not cause gratuitous offence to any group, the need right now to show that freedom of speech should not be limited by the threat of violence was now just too great.
I thought it was worth mentioning this anecdote precisely because my mother is reasonably representative of a particular fairly substantial strand of public opinion that rarely gets heard on political websites (because people like my mother wouldn't regard it as a good use of their time to post on political websites).
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
Extraordinary events in South Oxfordshire this morning - a very good test of the authority's Business Continuity Plan and magnificent to see the collaboration and co-operation between authorities which exists to a far greater extent than is generally known. Without knowing any of the LAs concerned, I would like to think electronic information would be secure though the extent of the damage suggests major re-location issues for some services.
Unlike multi-national financial institutions, Councils cannot keep suites of offices unoccupied but available at a moment's notice but with the support of neighbouring authorities, it seems as though the dislocation, though severe, will be manageable.
On topic, we are two weeks into a four-month campaign which the Conservatives (presumably because they have the money) felt they had to start as soon as the decorations came down. It's far too early for the "big idea" or the "positive message". This is the start of an extended period of baseline tennis with claims and counter-claims knocked around. It might help the likes of UKIP, Greens and the LDs as the public tire of watching the likes of Osborne and Balls tear lumps out of each other.
I also think the public, at this time, might prefer a Government that is doing some governing so getting to grips with the NHS and winter-weather related issues rather than posturing and gimmicks which can be left to the Opposition which has nothing else to do.
And there you go yet again. I haven't said any of those things - and have agreed with bits of UKIP's libertarian agenda - yet you're so keen to play the victim that you're digging in against me as a reflex.
snip
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
So why do parties dislike Ukip more now than when Ukip were getting 3%?
The justification for the loons fruitcakes and racists comment was that it was true at the time as ukip were a v small party, and so there would be no need to apologise now as the 12% extra voters who have joined since, weren't insulted
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I am sorry and I don't mean to sound horrible but I don't really care what you think, and it won't make any difference to what I say.
I haven't accused you of saying anything, but the fact remains that we see lots of posts today saying "UKIP want to eventually repatriate all foreigners" "UKIP don't like brown people" and comparing Farage with Hitler on this thread already, and the polling shows that UKIP are more disliked by voters now than when they had fewer voters, and far less mainstream.
So I can only draw the conclusion that it isn't policy they dislike, but fear of losing power, which is an understandable human reaction.
Also no machismo in offering a bet.. it is a site about betting, and plenty of people engage in the bets I have offered.. Antifrank, Tse, Scrapheap, Quincel, Pulpstar, Audrey, Rcs, tim, Neil, Davidl, Johno. Roberts, Charles... I have bets with all of these people .. we bet.. its part of the site
You don't bet, fair enough but I am not doing it to bully anyone, just to see if they fancy a bet, and maybe a way of cutting out bullshit trolling
@JGForsyth: YouGov has Cameron with an 18 point lead over EdM on the best PM question. So, he’d have to ‘win’ a debate by +18 to make it worth his while
But the "smart politics" only points to avoiding the debates because Cameron believes he would lose to Farage. If he had confidence that he would beat Farage, the "smart politics" would point the other way and he'd be pushing to make the debate happen.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
I was reporting rather than particularly agreeing. I told my mother that my sympathies were more with my father on this point, and while I agreed that we should not cause gratuitous offence to any group, the need right now to show that freedom of speech should not be limited by the threat of violence was now just too great.
I thought it was worth mentioning this anecdote precisely because my mother is reasonably representative of a particular fairly substantial strand of public opinion that rarely gets heard on political websites (because people like my mother wouldn't regard it as a good use of their time to post on political websites).
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
I expect your mother is like most people - good-mannered. It is one reason why we need not to allow our instinctive good manners and desire not to cause needless offence to be abused by people using that fundamental decency to advance an aggressive agenda. And that is what I think is happening.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
There's a big difference between printing something that's designed to offend (although you have a right to do that) and printing something to make an argument or to make people laugh, which has a byproduct of offending some other people.
I also think there's another issue at stake that hasn't been discussed. When we, collectively as a society, agree certain things are beyond mocking, whether it be the royal family or Muhammad, you also give it a degree of sanctity that means legitimate criticism starts being considered inappropriate. Once upon a time, you would have been shunned for making the very reasonable point that the royals aren't particularly intelligent people, which unfairly takes a valid argument away from republicanism. With this "you shouldn't offend" agenda, people who raise very valid points about Mohammed's unethical behaviour are also considered to be beyond the pale, meaning the irreligious are unfairly having a valid argument taken away.
There really has been a chilling effect of this anti-free speech agenda, and progress will suffer if it continues. This is the problem with an immigration policy that increases the share of the population with illiberal undemocratic views.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
But that's the whole point - Mr Farage can play the Not Them Card just like Clegg did in 2010.
And then we had Cleggasim. Why would Mr Cameron set himself up for Cleggasim Mk II - it's insane. This isn't about presenteeism - it's about using your opponents to win for you.
Let Mr Farage duke it out with EdM or Ms Green or whomever.
@JGForsyth: YouGov has Cameron with an 18 point lead over EdM on the best PM question. So, he’d have to ‘win’ a debate by +18 to make it worth his while
But the "smart politics" only points to avoiding the debates because Cameron believes he would lose to Farage. If he had confidence that he would beat Farage, the "smart politics" would point the other way and he'd be pushing to make the debate happen.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
There's a big difference between printing something that's designed to offend (although you have a right to do that) and printing something to make an argument or to make people laugh, which has a byproduct of offending some other people.
I also think there's another issue at stake that hasn't been discussed. When we, collectively as a society, agree certain things are beyond mocking, whether it be the royal family or Muhammad, you also give it a degree of sanctity that means legitimate criticism starts being considered inappropriate. Once upon a time, you would have been shunned for making the very reasonable point that the royals aren't particularly intelligent people, which unfairly takes a valid argument away from republicanism. With this "you shouldn't offend" agenda, people who raise very valid points about Mohammed's unethical behaviour are also considered to be beyond the pale, meaning the irreligious are unfairly having a valid argument taken away.
There really has been a chilling effect of this anti-free speech agenda, and progress will suffer if it continues. This is the problem with an immigration policy that increases the share of the population with illiberal undemocratic views.
It's about power. Those who are put beyond criticism have power over the rest of us. And that is what the extremists want.
Voltaire (allegedly) put it very well: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
It's available on Amazon for a few pennies (not sure how much) as Wild Wolf keep doing offers.
Kennedy was persuaded to attack Cuba in 1962 and a different world leads to clashes of religion and ideas. Lots of science stuff (OK, I indulged myself a bit).
Isam, I hope you do go into politics but you do seem overly sensitive at times. Politicians need to be hypocrites and to have the hide of a rhino.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
I am a little hazy about this offensiveness of a magazine.
If someone produced a small private circulation magazine with content broadly approximating Charlie Hebdo, and sold it to private clients discretely, with word of mouth advertising, is that offensive.
If a leftie journalist found out about it and splashed it all over the Guardian, but it remained discrete, and was never on general sale to the public, is that offensive
If the magazine gets more popular, but the newagents are chicken and agree so sell it under the counter, is that offensive, what about on the top shelf but in a plain cover ?
Is a magazine offensive because of its existence, because of the ideas it represents, because people know about it, or because muslim communities feel they are having their face rubbed in it ? If its sold under a plain cover and you choose to buy it so that you can be offended by it, there is something rather weird going on.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
snip
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
I expect your mother is like most people - good-mannered. It is one reason why we need not to allow our instinctive good manners and desire not to cause needless offence to be abused by people using that fundamental decency to advance an aggressive agenda. And that is what I think is happening.
The parties seem in a race for the most mental policies. I think the Conservative plan to set fire to the internet was a good move, but Labour's twin policies of fixing prices at a high rate as oil prices crash and banning children from eating sweets is a good riposte.
However, both lag behind Scottish Labour's plan to tax London flats for Scottish nurses.
Burnham was asked how we distinguish foods for children from foods for adults. One answer was that they have cartoon characters on the packet, of course that immediately suggests that Labour's proposed policy will have as many holes in it as a colander.
That said Cameron's brilliant plan to ban mathematics is currently the dumbest policy proposal of 2015 by a mile.
And there you go yet again. I haven't said any of those things - and have agreed with bits of UKIP's libertarian agenda - yet you're so keen to play the victim that you're digging in against me as a reflex.
snip
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I am sorry and I don't mean to sound horrible but I don't really care what you think, and it won't make any difference to what I say.
I haven't accused you of saying anything, but the fact remains that we see lots of posts today saying "UKIP want to eventually repatriate all foreigners" "UKIP don't like brown people" and comparing Farage with Hitler on this thread already, and the polling shows that UKIP are more disliked by voters now than when they had fewer voters, and far less mainstream.
So I can only draw the conclusion that it isn't policy they dislike, but fear of losing power, which is an understandable human reaction.
Also no machismo in offering a bet.. it is a site about betting, and plenty of people engage in the bets I have offered.. Antifrank, Tse, Scrapheap, Quincel, Pulpstar, Audrey, Rcs, tim, Neil, Davidl, Johno. Roberts, Charles... I have bets with all of these people .. we bet.. its part of the site
You don't bet, fair enough but I am not doing it to bully anyone, just to see if they fancy a bet, and maybe a way of cutting out bullshit trolling
I don't care for your patronising advice but I thought Id put you straight
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
The problem with that is that the "moderates" are essentially free-riding on the back of the extremists, if we accept that certain materials that offend the moderates must not be published, lest the extremists cut up rough.
They can't have it both ways. If they want to live in a Western country they have to accept they may be offended. Otherwise they should move to Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State.
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
I was reporting rather than particularly agreeing. I told my mother that my sympathies were more with my father on this point, and while I agreed that we should not cause gratuitous offence to any group, the need right now to show that freedom of speech should not be limited by the threat of violence was now just too great.
I thought it was worth mentioning this anecdote precisely because my mother is reasonably representative of a particular fairly substantial strand of public opinion that rarely gets heard on political websites (because people like my mother wouldn't regard it as a good use of their time to post on political websites).
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
I have sympathy with both points of view. I wouldn't want to set out to be deliberately offensive to Muslims. But, I wouldn't want Muslims in the UK to determine the parameters of what can be published.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
No, Clegg got stitched up over that. He was asked again and again and again how many women he'd slept with and he refused to say. Eventually he was asked "more than 10?" and he said a large number, "not more than 30" to give a highly ambiguous range as a way to move the conversation on. That could mean three.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Indeed, Mr. F. It's oppressive for one religion to inflict its tenets on those who don't follow it and impose a blasphemy law on a whole nation.
A limp-wristed and terribly polite surrender to the agenda of three armed psychopaths would be utterly pathetic. The political class needs to find its backbone.
It's available on Amazon for a few pennies (not sure how much) as Wild Wolf keep doing offers.
Kennedy was persuaded to attack Cuba in 1962 and a different world leads to clashes of religion and ideas. Lots of science stuff (OK, I indulged myself a bit).
Isam, I hope you do go into politics but you do seem overly sensitive at times. Politicians need to be hypocrites and to have the hide of a rhino.
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
The problem with that is that the "moderates" are essentially free-riding on the back of the extremists, if we accept that certain materials that offend the moderates must not be published, lest the extremists cut up rough.
Even if the extremists didn't exist, the idea that we shouldn't publish stuff because people get offended unreasonably by something is ridiculous. If a new religion started which felt Genghis Khan was the prophet of God and a near perfect human, does that mean we can't draw pictures of him any more? It's absurd. Should we not mock L Ron Hubbard because Scientologists would get upset?
They can't have it both ways. If they want to live in a Western country they have to accept they may be offended. Otherwise they should move to Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State.
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
One point that I think is not mentioned enough is that in the UK (or any Western country) you can practice any brand of Islam you like, without being persecuted for it. The State does not distinguish between Shias, Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, and Ismailis That's not the case in much of the Muslim world.
Nabila Ramdani has blocked me from following her or tweeting her on Twitter. I guess she didn't like her views being criticised. How unusual for a Muslim.
Nobody forces Muslims to buy magazines with pictures of Mohammed in them. I don't want to force Muslims to eat bacon. I don't want Muslims to force me to pray five times a day. I don't want Muslims to ban me from doing anything they're banned from doing.
Freedom means I can do and say as a I please, and Muslims likewise. I don't get to murder them for not eating bacon, and (if I drew a picture of Mohammed) they don't get to murder me.
What you're talking about isn't give and take. It's intimidation and murder, and surrender.
And there you go yet again. I haven't said any of those things - and have agreed with bits of UKIP's libertarian agenda - yet you're so keen to play the victim that you're digging in against me as a reflex.
snip
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I am sorry and I don't mean to sound horrible but I don't really care what you think, and it won't make any difference to what I say.
I haven't accused you of saying anything, but the fact remains that we see lots of posts today saying "UKIP want to eventually repatriate all foreigners" "UKIP don't like brown people" and comparing Farage with Hitler on this thread already, and the polling shows that UKIP are more disliked by voters now than when they had fewer voters, and far less mainstream.
So I can only draw the conclusion that it isn't policy they dislike, but fear of losing power, which is an understandable human reaction.
Also no machismo in offering a bet.. it is a site about betting, and plenty of people engage in the bets I have offered.. Antifrank, Tse, Scrapheap, Quincel, Pulpstar, Audrey, Rcs, tim, Neil, Davidl, Johno. Roberts, Charles... I have bets with all of these people .. we bet.. its part of the site
You don't bet, fair enough but I am not doing it to bully anyone, just to see if they fancy a bet, and maybe a way of cutting out bullshit trolling
I don't care for your patronising advice but I thought Id put you straight
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world, not necessaritly because they are muslim
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
TBH I find all religions absurd. Scientologists are just more cultish when it comes to extracting money. There are loads of religions that do this. I don't mind if anyone does this - but to give them *rights* above say atheists is bizarre. We can't be offended because we don't have an imaginary friend?
A French Muslims reaction to the latest Charlie Hebdo
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
The problem with that is that the "moderates" are essentially free-riding on the back of the extremists, if we accept that certain materials that offend the moderates must not be published, lest the extremists cut up rough.
Even if the extremists didn't exist, the idea that we shouldn't publish stuff because people get offended unreasonably by something is ridiculous. If a new religion started which felt Genghis Khan was the prophet of God and a near perfect human, does that mean we can't draw pictures of him any more? It's absurd. Should we not mock L Ron Hubbard because Scientologists would get upset?
Nobody forces Muslims to buy magazines with pictures of Mohammed in them. I don't want to force Muslims to eat bacon. I don't want Muslims to force me to pray five times a day. I don't want Muslims to ban me from doing anything they're banned from doing.
Freedom means I can do and say as a I please, and Muslims likewise. I don't get to murder them for not eating bacon, and (if I drew a picture of Mohammed) they don't get to murder me.
What you're talking about isn't give and take. It's intimidation and murder, and surrender.
Miss Plato, I take a rather laid back view of religion, except when it tries to dictate what *I* can do. Much like vegetarianism, I'm entirely happy for people to go down that route, so long as they don't try and convert me.
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
I was *adopted* by my Evangelical Christian tenants who were always trying to save me. I made very odd company at their home given all their other friends were god botherers.
I was The Damned. Collectively they were lovely people - but I found sitting through their Sunday service really freaky/cultish. It was very weird - and my tolerance for weird is very high.
I remained immune - and they never held it against me. We looked after each other and they *prayed* for me - errrrr....
Miss Plato, I take a rather laid back view of religion, except when it tries to dictate what *I* can do. Much like vegetarianism, I'm entirely happy for people to go down that route, so long as they don't try and convert me.
Nobody forces Muslims to buy magazines with pictures of Mohammed in them. I don't want to force Muslims to eat bacon. I don't want Muslims to force me to pray five times a day. I don't want Muslims to ban me from doing anything they're banned from doing.
Freedom means I can do and say as a I please, and Muslims likewise. I don't get to murder them for not eating bacon, and (if I drew a picture of Mohammed) they don't get to murder me.
What you're talking about isn't give and take. It's intimidation and murder, and surrender.
I don't think we should insult the vast majority of muslims to make a point to terrorists, that's about the long and the short of I, its throwing the baby out with the bathwater
I think the "freedom of speech" argument is fair but is being overdone.
If I were living in Pakistan and white Christians were blowing stuff up and killing people because something I held dear was being insulted, I wouldn't feel people were on my side if they kept insulting that thing to prove a point, I would fee they were against me, and the BBC news interviews w East London muslims last night indicates that feeling is brewing in Muslim areas...
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world, not necessaritly because they are muslim
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
Isam: you have and we'll have to - politely - agree to disagree on that. I think there is a problem with violence in Islam. It does not necessarily - indeed need not - define Islam. But it is there. And it is Muslims above all who will need to deal with and resolve this.
But you are right in this: the larger the Muslim communities are in the West, the more this issue of what the true nature of Islam is becomes an issue with which we are all concerned.
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
That is just so much horse poop it isn't true. Look at countries in which to all intents and purpose Christianity doesn't exist, where Islam is unquestionable the top dog, two things are happening. The islamists are killing each other over when it comes down to it fairly modest differences in their beliefs, and both sides are killing the Christians, who are in the vast minority.
You have hummed this tuned several times over the last few days and I am sorry I am no closer to believing it now than I was then. The fact that you are starting to sound like Mehdi Hasan isn't helping.
Nobody forces Muslims to buy magazines with pictures of Mohammed in them. I don't want to force Muslims to eat bacon. I don't want Muslims to force me to pray five times a day. I don't want Muslims to ban me from doing anything they're banned from doing.
Freedom means I can do and say as a I please, and Muslims likewise. I don't get to murder them for not eating bacon, and (if I drew a picture of Mohammed) they don't get to murder me.
What you're talking about isn't give and take. It's intimidation and murder, and surrender.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
snip
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
I expect your mother is like most people - good-mannered. It is one reason why we need not to allow our instinctive good manners and desire not to cause needless offence to be abused by people using that fundamental decency to advance an aggressive agenda. And that is what I think is happening.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
You think its because Islam is particularly nasty?
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
You think its because Islam is particularly nasty?
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
That is just so much horse poop it isn't true. Look at countries in which to all intents and purpose Christianity doesn't exist, where Islam is unquestionable the top dog, two things are happening. The islamists are killing each other over when it comes down to it fairly modest differences in their beliefs, and both sides are killing the Christians, who are in the vast minority.
You have hummed this tuned several times over the last few days and I am sorry I am no closer to believing it now than I was then. The fact that you are starting to sound like Mehdi Hasan isn't helping.
You are proving my point for me.. it doesn't matter who plays the role it is the nature of a power struggle
So yes, in countries where Islam is unquestionably the top dog Sunni & Shia muslims are killing each other in a struggle for power,
In India before partition it was Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims fighting.. was that all the fault of muslims too?
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
That is just so much horse poop it isn't true. Look at countries in which to all intents and purpose Christianity doesn't exist, where Islam is unquestionable the top dog, two things are happening. The islamists are killing each other over when it comes down to it fairly modest differences in their beliefs, and both sides are killing the Christians, who are in the vast minority.
You have hummed this tuned several times over the last few days and I am sorry I am no closer to believing it now than I was then. The fact that you are starting to sound like Mehdi Hasan isn't helping.
You are proving my point for me.. it doesn't matter who plays the role it is the nature of a power struggle
So yes, in countries where Islam is unquestionably the top dog Sunni & Shia muslims are killing each other in a struggle for power,
In India before partition it was Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims fighting.. was that all the fault of muslims too?
You glossed over the bit about the majority Sunnis and Shias killing the tiny minority of Christians, although I can see why since it doesn't support your hypothesis.
The Conservatives are pouring election resources into defending Tory MPs who face being ousted by a Ukip surge, The Standard has learnt.
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
I think we would agree!
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
You think its because Islam is particularly nasty?
No.
Look in the animal kingdom for the answer.. two alpha males cannot exist in the same territory.. now and then there will be a challenger to the Alpha Male, and in the West at the moment that challenger is Islam.. the respective virtues of the alpha and beta male are irrelevant
Look in the animal kingdom for the answer.. two alpha males cannot exist in the same territory.. now and then there will be a challenger to the Alpha Male, and in the West at the moment that challenger is Islam.. the respective virtues of the alpha and beta male are irrelevant
As I said - I dont think it's the most convincing hypothesis.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
Mr. Isam, I still fail to see why you believe non-Muslims should be bound by a restriction of Islam.
He doesn't, he thinks we should do it because it good manners, and prevents civic strife, which amounts to the same thing, it just sounds more liberal. The isam principle appears to be its better to be live like a bird in a gilded cage than risk causing offense.
The default propensity to have Halal meat here in the UK is a similar supine gesture of compliance.
I'm absolutely against this and have no idea what means of slaughter my mince is sourced from. I'm not a Muslim - yet somehow or other this has become normal. How did this happen?
I can choose from 40 sorts of eggs and know where they grew up and lived - complete with chocolate box pix on the box or not.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
I think if I , as an Arsenal supporter, went into a pub full of Tottenham fans singing anti Tottenham songs dressed in Arsenal colours I would be exercising my right to free speech and would also deserve a good hiding.
Look in the animal kingdom for the answer.. two alpha males cannot exist in the same territory.. now and then there will be a challenger to the Alpha Male, and in the West at the moment that challenger is Islam.. the respective virtues of the alpha and beta male are irrelevant
As I said - I dont think it's the most convincing hypothesis.
Mr. Isam, your Arsenal comparison is also nonsense. I would be against Charlie Hebdo staff running into a mosque and pasting pictures of Mohammed onto the walls. That's not what they're doing. They're selling a magazine. They aren't forcing people to buy it or invading their homes or places of worship.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Isam [above], if the choice is civil strife or being dictated to by murdering lunatics, I'll take the strife.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Carry on thinking like that by all means, but if those in charge do as well, prepare for decades of civil strife
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
You think its because Islam is particularly nasty?
No.
Look in the animal kingdom for the answer.. two alpha males cannot exist in the same territory.. now and then there will be a challenger to the Alpha Male, and in the West at the moment that challenger is Islam.. the respective virtues of the alpha and beta male are irrelevant
I find it bizarre that we're looking to the animal kingdom, to Plato's cats to understand why Islamists are doing what they're doing. Whatever they are, they're not inarticulate. And they've told us quite clearly why they do what they do. And quite a lot of it has to do with their religion, or their understanding (correct or not I cannot say) of their religion.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on the providence of meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
If Charlie Hebdo was regularly circulated in the UK under a plain cover, or direct to peoples post boxes, so that no one not buying the magazine saw the content, would that solve the problem. Fat Chance. Logically you can't be offended by something you can't see, unless you are determined to be offended just because something exists without knowing the specifics, in which case we should have no sympathy. People would buy it to be offended.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Carry on thinking like that by all means, but if those in charge do as well, prepare for decades of civil strife
So now we get to the bottom line, you're an appeaser.
"I have a piece of paper in my hand signed by ..."
I'm totally lost as to your argument here. Are we to appease those who bully us into agreeing with them and their thin religious skins or something else?
That's what your most recent posts appear to suggest.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Carry on thinking like that by all means, but if those in charge do as well, prepare for decades of civil strife
Mr. Isam, I still fail to see why you believe non-Muslims should be bound by a restriction of Islam.
He doesn't, he thinks we should do it because it good manners, and prevents civic strife, which amounts to the same thing, it just sounds more liberal. The isam principle appears to be its better to be live like a bird in a gilded cage than risk causing offense.
I think we either enforce Christianity as the dominant way of life, or make quite big concessions to the Islamic way of life, or heavily restrict the number of muslims in the country.
We wont do the first, we cant do the last, so it looks like we will have to do the second
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
I think if I , as an Arsenal supporter, went into a pub full of Tottenham fans singing anti Tottenham songs dressed in Arsenal colours I would be exercising my right to free speech and would also deserve a good hiding.
You'd deserve mockery. You wouldn't deserve violence.
I'm totally lost as to your argument here. Are we to appease those who bully us into agreeing with them and their thin religious skins or something else?
That's what your most recent posts appear to suggest.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Carry on thinking like that by all means, but if those in charge do as well, prepare for decades of civil strife
We already did that years ago by adopting multiculturalism
Now we are reaping the "rewards".. you cant have it both ways
Some people have made an utter fortune and some have lost an utter fortune today in Switzerland. I'm stunned they just let it go in one rather than a gradual announced wind-down.
Some papers are playing this as a 'Euro collapse' story whereas it is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is a CHF soars back to its real value story. In hindsight silly of the Swiss central bank to think it could afford to fight the market rate forever.
What it does do is take Switzerland out of the Euro sphere and back to being a clear competitor. And reinforces the underlying truth that incompatible currency unions can't work - market pressure breaks them in the end without political / transfer union.
Unfortunately, you can't really do a managed wind down. If you say "we are going to allow the CHF to go from $0.95 to $1.10 over the next year", then every hedge fund in existence will say: whopeee! free money, I'll keep buying the swiss franc as I know it's going to appreciate 15% in the next year
Yes I'm sure you're right. Looks like this was a one way bet and a joke on the Swiss taxpayer from day one. Are there any other countries fighting to protect an unsustainable exchange rate right now? I feel stupid not to have bought some CHF a while ago.
Mr. Isam, I still fail to see why you believe non-Muslims should be bound by a restriction of Islam.
In the same way that muslims fail to see why they should be bound by democratically determined secular law.
If they don't want to live in a democracy, and under the laws that the democratically elected legislative body enacts, they can choose to live somewhere else.
Or as the Dutch Muslim Mayor so magnificently put it: they can "F*** O**!
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
I agree, for years, I avoided eating meat in restaurants because it wasn't Halal, then I found it turns it was Halal after all but they didn't tell me.
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
And why can we not expect that individual responsibility and self-control of those Muslims - rather than the usual and tiresome overreaction?
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
well I have made the point time and again that the reason that most terrorist incidents involve muslims is because they are the 2nd biggest religion in the world
It's not the most convincing hypothesis in the world.
You think its because Islam is particularly nasty?
No.
Look in the animal kingdom for the answer.. two alpha males cannot exist in the same territory.. now and then there will be a challenger to the Alpha Male, and in the West at the moment that challenger is Islam.. the respective virtues of the alpha and beta male are irrelevant
I find it bizarre that we're looking to the animal kingdom, to Plato's cats to understand why Islamists are doing what they're doing. Whatever they are, they're not inarticulate. And they've told us quite clearly why they do what they do. And quite a lot of it has to do with their religion, or their understanding (correct or not I cannot say) of their religion.
Because we are animals, and what we like to think of as clever well thought out processes are animal instincts that we invent logic for once its happened
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
I think if I , as an Arsenal supporter, went into a pub full of Tottenham fans singing anti Tottenham songs dressed in Arsenal colours I would be exercising my right to free speech and would also deserve a good hiding.
You'd deserve mockery. You wouldn't deserve violence.
They prefer leafleting and canvassing their neighbours in leafy lanes local to them that they know well, rather than be asked to travel to 'grotty' marginals where they might encounter a mixed reception.
Mr. Isam, I still fail to see why you believe non-Muslims should be bound by a restriction of Islam.
He doesn't, he thinks we should do it because it good manners, and prevents civic strife, which amounts to the same thing, it just sounds more liberal. The isam principle appears to be its better to be live like a bird in a gilded cage than risk causing offense.
I think we either enforce Christianity as the dominant way of life, or make quite big concessions to the Islamic way of life, or heavily restrict the number of muslims in the country.
We wont do the first, we cant do the last, so it looks like we will have to do the second
elling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
B8llocks, because the West alpha male is infinitely more successful than the muslim one.
If we wanted to, I, mean really wanted to, we could have all of the muslim world under our administration in a few years. They have no advanced weaponry we don;t sell them. And when it comes to a mass fight, a real fight, not this low level terror b8llocks, we would smash them.
We could turn all of islamic state's cities into rubble in 24 hours if we wanted to.
I'm totally lost as to your argument here. Are we to appease those who bully us into agreeing with them and their thin religious skins or something else?
That's what your most recent posts appear to suggest.
Mr. Isam, that comparison is bullshit. We aren't a mindless pack of wolves. There's room for everyone to believe and act as they wish, without murdering those who disagree with them. Nobody's stopping Muslims praying five times a day. Or going without alcohol and bacon. The desire to oppress is in the other direction, seeking to impose Islamic rules on those of us who are not Muslims.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Carry on thinking like that by all means, but if those in charge do as well, prepare for decades of civil strife
We already did that years ago by adopting multiculturalism
Now we are reaping the "rewards".. you cant have it both ways
So how would you deal with it?
True, there are only two choices. Endless War or Compromise.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
I think if I , as an Arsenal supporter, went into a pub full of Tottenham fans singing anti Tottenham songs dressed in Arsenal colours I would be exercising my right to free speech and would also deserve a good hiding.
You wouldn't deserve a good hiding, and if you got a good hiding, the blame would be entirely on the Tottenham supporters.
If you went in there and started abusing the Tottenham supporters, and got a good hiding, then the blame would be shared.
Sometimes victims are to blame. Pretending different is madness
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! Which victims are to blame? And when?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
I think if I , as an Arsenal supporter, went into a pub full of Tottenham fans singing anti Tottenham songs dressed in Arsenal colours I would be exercising my right to free speech and would also deserve a good hiding.
You'd deserve mockery. You wouldn't deserve violence.
Honestly, don't be so WET!
You'd get violence
The difference is, no-one would excuse the Spurs fans' actions or treat them as victims.
They prefer leafleting and canvassing their neighbours in leafy lanes local to them that they know well, rather than be asked to travel to 'grotty' marginals where they might encounter a mixed reception.
Who wouldnt?
I have sympathy for both sides. I can understand the need to target but if that leads to the ever greater hollowing out of the party everywhere else then that is not a good thing. If only there was a voting system that meant everyone's vote counted no matter where they lived
Comments
The immigration promise may have been deliverable if there was a single owner who worked solely on that target, before the promise was stated. If they reported back that it could only be achieved through changing A, B and C which for other reasons were unachieveable, then Cameron would not have made the promise. It was Letwin's role to work these things out.....
I haven't accused you of saying anything, but the fact remains that we see lots of posts today saying "UKIP want to eventually repatriate all foreigners" "UKIP don't like brown people" and comparing Farage with Hitler on this thread already, and the polling shows that UKIP are more disliked by voters now than when they had fewer voters, and far less mainstream.
So I can only draw the conclusion that it isn't policy they dislike, but fear of losing power, which is an understandable human reaction.
Also no machismo in offering a bet.. it is a site about betting, and plenty of people engage in the bets I have offered.. Antifrank, Tse, Scrapheap, Quincel, Pulpstar, Audrey, Rcs, tim, Neil, Davidl, Johno. Roberts, Charles... I have bets with all of these people .. we bet.. its part of the site
You don't bet, fair enough but I am not doing it to bully anyone, just to see if they fancy a bet, and maybe a way of cutting out bullshit trolling
Friends know that if I turn up wearing make-up that it's a sign of three things - war paint for a fight, seduction or dressed for death. My funeral suit by Max Factor I suppose!
I also think there's another issue at stake that hasn't been discussed. When we, collectively as a society, agree certain things are beyond mocking, whether it be the royal family or Muhammad, you also give it a degree of sanctity that means legitimate criticism starts being considered inappropriate. Once upon a time, you would have been shunned for making the very reasonable point that the royals aren't particularly intelligent people, which unfairly takes a valid argument away from republicanism. With this "you shouldn't offend" agenda, people who raise very valid points about Mohammed's unethical behaviour are also considered to be beyond the pale, meaning the irreligious are unfairly having a valid argument taken away.
There really has been a chilling effect of this anti-free speech agenda, and progress will suffer if it continues. This is the problem with an immigration policy that increases the share of the population with illiberal undemocratic views.
I thought it was worth mentioning this anecdote precisely because my mother is reasonably representative of a particular fairly substantial strand of public opinion that rarely gets heard on political websites (because people like my mother wouldn't regard it as a good use of their time to post on political websites).
People like my father, however, are heavily overrepresented on political websites. I've often wondered whether he might occasionally post on here, were it not for the fact that he disapproves of gambling.
Extraordinary events in South Oxfordshire this morning - a very good test of the authority's Business Continuity Plan and magnificent to see the collaboration and co-operation between authorities which exists to a far greater extent than is generally known. Without knowing any of the LAs concerned, I would like to think electronic information would be secure though the extent of the damage suggests major re-location issues for some services.
Unlike multi-national financial institutions, Councils cannot keep suites of offices unoccupied but available at a moment's notice but with the support of neighbouring authorities, it seems as though the dislocation, though severe, will be manageable.
On topic, we are two weeks into a four-month campaign which the Conservatives (presumably because they have the money) felt they had to start as soon as the decorations came down. It's far too early for the "big idea" or the "positive message". This is the start of an extended period of baseline tennis with claims and counter-claims knocked around. It might help the likes of UKIP, Greens and the LDs as the public tire of watching the likes of Osborne and Balls tear lumps out of each other.
I also think the public, at this time, might prefer a Government that is doing some governing so getting to grips with the NHS and winter-weather related issues rather than posturing and gimmicks which can be left to the Opposition which has nothing else to do.
Don't kid a kidder. And please don't reply to this unless you want to prove me right.
Deputy Prime Minister says President Obama showed 'sound judgment' in suggesting he was the better looking half of the Coalition
Nick Clegg has suggested he is more attractive than David Cameron.
The Deputy Prime Minister said Barack Obama showed "sound judgment" for reportedly saying he was the "good looking one" out of the two party leaders.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/11347267/Nick-Clegg-I-am-more-attractive-than-David-Cameron.html
It comes down to individual responsibility and self control.. just because we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should do it all the time.
Charlie Hebdo's founder has criticised "Charb"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html
And then we had Cleggasim. Why would Mr Cameron set himself up for Cleggasim Mk II - it's insane. This isn't about presenteeism - it's about using your opponents to win for you.
Let Mr Farage duke it out with EdM or Ms Green or whomever.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/france-and-germany-form-united-front-against-isds-311267
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30824449
Voltaire (allegedly) put it very well: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
“They had the chance to calm things down but instead they decided to pour oil on the fire,” said Bab, a 31-year-old Algerian working in a mobile phone shop in the mostly north African district of L’Epeule.
“I went on the ‘unity march’ [called in reaction to last week’s deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo] here on Sunday, and I condemn the violence. But the magazine just goes ahead and puts this blasphemy on its front page. I feel betrayed. They are simply putting more hatred into the hearts of extremists,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11347059/Charlie-Hebdo-Prophet-Mohammed-edition-how-did-Nigel-Farages-no-go-zone-Muslim-French-cities-react.html
It's available on Amazon for a few pennies (not sure how much) as Wild Wolf keep doing offers.
Kennedy was persuaded to attack Cuba in 1962 and a different world leads to clashes of religion and ideas. Lots of science stuff (OK, I indulged myself a bit).
Isam, I hope you do go into politics but you do seem overly sensitive at times. Politicians need to be hypocrites and to have the hide of a rhino.
If someone produced a small private circulation magazine with content broadly approximating Charlie Hebdo, and sold it to private clients discretely, with word of mouth advertising, is that offensive.
If a leftie journalist found out about it and splashed it all over the Guardian, but it remained discrete, and was never on general sale to the public, is that offensive
If the magazine gets more popular, but the newagents are chicken and agree so sell it under the counter, is that offensive, what about on the top shelf but in a plain cover ?
Is a magazine offensive because of its existence, because of the ideas it represents, because people know about it, or because muslim communities feel they are having their face rubbed in it ? If its sold under a plain cover and you choose to buy it so that you can be offended by it, there is something rather weird going on.
Edited extra bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU
That said Cameron's brilliant plan to ban mathematics is currently the dumbest policy proposal of 2015 by a mile.
I'll do what I like, you can too
Smart politics says he would need to beat Miliband by at least +18
Nige doesn't get a look in
Much like the young Muslim in your later post talking about "this blasphemy" when the whole point is that it is not blasphemy to the rest of us and if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to buy it or read it.
(Edited): After all none of the members of the other religions or groups mocked by the magazine reacted in the same way. Is the young man saying that of all those groups only Muslims are incapable of showing any self-restraint? Because that's the implication.
No, Clegg got stitched up over that. He was asked again and again and again how many women he'd slept with and he refused to say. Eventually he was asked "more than 10?" and he said a large number, "not more than 30" to give a highly ambiguous range as a way to move the conversation on. That could mean three.
Life is about give and take.. people doing whatever they want with no consideration for others is not my idea of a happy environment to live in, that's what seperates us from animals
A limp-wristed and terribly polite surrender to the agenda of three armed psychopaths would be utterly pathetic. The political class needs to find its backbone.
EDIT - can you send me a vanilla message? There's several books with that title.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q&feature=youtu.be&t=17s
Nobody forces Muslims to buy magazines with pictures of Mohammed in them. I don't want to force Muslims to eat bacon. I don't want Muslims to force me to pray five times a day. I don't want Muslims to ban me from doing anything they're banned from doing.
Freedom means I can do and say as a I please, and Muslims likewise. I don't get to murder them for not eating bacon, and (if I drew a picture of Mohammed) they don't get to murder me.
What you're talking about isn't give and take. It's intimidation and murder, and surrender.
Christianity is the Alpha male in the west and Islam is the challenger, that is the reason for the trouble.. Its no different to animals in the jungle
Best way to avoid it is to have them living a long way apart or for the number of the challenger to be so small that they cant possibly be a threat to the Alpha Male
Telling Muslims to change wont work, it is doomed to fail... and it would be the same if the Alpha Male were muslim and the challenger Christian
A leaked memo reveals Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has urged Tory activists in the Liberal Democrat-held seat of Carshalton and Wallington, in south-west London, to campaign in Croydon Central, where Conservative MP Gavin Barwell is seeking to cling on to votes.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-pouring-election-resources-into-seats-threatened-by-ukip-9979768.html
WTF?
Women immodestly dressed, perhaps? Gay men holding hands in public? People drawing pictures? People voting for the "wrong" government? People travelling on public transport on the wrong day?
Is erm go to bed with Nigel wake up with Ed territory.
I was The Damned. Collectively they were lovely people - but I found sitting through their Sunday service really freaky/cultish. It was very weird - and my tolerance for weird is very high.
I remained immune - and they never held it against me. We looked after each other and they *prayed* for me - errrrr....
I think the "freedom of speech" argument is fair but is being overdone.
If I were living in Pakistan and white Christians were blowing stuff up and killing people because something I held dear was being insulted, I wouldn't feel people were on my side if they kept insulting that thing to prove a point, I would fee they were against me, and the BBC news interviews w East London muslims last night indicates that feeling is brewing in Muslim areas...
of which there are many
But you are right in this: the larger the Muslim communities are in the West, the more this issue of what the true nature of Islam is becomes an issue with which we are all concerned.
You have hummed this tuned several times over the last few days and I am sorry I am no closer to believing it now than I was then. The fact that you are starting to sound like Mehdi Hasan isn't helping.
"A Candidate’s Diary: “We’ve been doing this for 22 years,” say CCHQ. Perhaps that’s the problem…":
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/01/a-candidates-diary-weve-been-doing-this-for-22-years-say-cchq-perhaps-thats-the-problem-2.html
Hens have a phrase for it - it's called pecking order. Some may have heard of it.
Humans just pretend it's something else and obfuscate over it.
So yes, in countries where Islam is unquestionably the top dog Sunni & Shia muslims are killing each other in a struggle for power,
In India before partition it was Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims fighting.. was that all the fault of muslims too?
You glossed over the bit about the majority Sunnis and Shias killing the tiny minority of Christians, although I can see why since it doesn't support your hypothesis.
I'm absolutely against this and have no idea what means of slaughter my mince is sourced from. I'm not a Muslim - yet somehow or other this has become normal. How did this happen?
I can choose from 40 sorts of eggs and know where they grew up and lived - complete with chocolate box pix on the box or not.
Being offended doesn't constitute an argument against an action or speech.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, agree entirely on meat. This should be known, and clearly labelled.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Isam [above], if the choice is civil strife or being dictated to by murdering lunatics, I'll take the strife.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin.
"I have a piece of paper in my hand signed by ..."
That's what your most recent posts appear to suggest.
In the same way that muslims fail to see why they should be bound by democratically determined secular law.
We wont do the first, we cant do the last, so it looks like we will have to do the second
I would rather the first or third by a long way
Honestly, don't be so WET!
Now we are reaping the "rewards".. you cant have it both ways
So how would you deal with it?
Or as the Dutch Muslim Mayor so magnificently put it: they can "F*** O**!
I Was Royally Pissed Off
I'm not often gobsmacked - but today is one of them. Wow.
How about requiring Muslims to live by our secular way of life as the rest of us do?
B8llocks, because the West alpha male is infinitely more successful than the muslim one.
If we wanted to, I, mean really wanted to, we could have all of the muslim world under our administration in a few years. They have no advanced weaponry we don;t sell them. And when it comes to a mass fight, a real fight, not this low level terror b8llocks, we would smash them.
We could turn all of islamic state's cities into rubble in 24 hours if we wanted to.
If you went in there and started abusing the Tottenham supporters, and got a good hiding, then the blame would be shared.
I have sympathy for both sides. I can understand the need to target but if that leads to the ever greater hollowing out of the party everywhere else then that is not a good thing. If only there was a voting system that meant everyone's vote counted no matter where they lived
TVP - "This is being investigated as a criminal act and is not thought linked to any terrorist activity."
The Ministry of Defence say they have had no reports of any incident at the nearby RAF Benson.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/555702666261966848