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
I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters. But the violence would be the fault of the persons perpetrating it.
Otherwise you are simply accepting point 1 in the easy guide to becoming an Islamist appeaser - Nothing is ever the fault of the Islamist terrorist who has committed the act of violence.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
If you replace the word 'Christianity' with 'full secular freedoms' then I'm 100% with you. But Christianity? Eff off! All religion is bollocks - just some is relatively benign bollocks and some is hatefully and violently dangerous bollocks. But it is all bollocks.
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
You've gone off the boil a bit today, Isam. I'd go away, have a cup of tea, and come back later.
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
And they'd use Taliban tactics to get their revenge. I read an account of Afghan reprisals against the first Russian troops - they captured half a dozen soldiers - skinned them alive and left their flayed corpses on a run way. Their heads were wrapped in their own skins. It scared the crap out of the other troops. The biggest fear US embassy staff had was not having enough bullets to shoot themselves before they became victims. Barbarism writ large.
When you're playing against a foe with no rules - you either wipe them out en masse or play just as dirty - or dirtier. There is no room for Geneva Convention nicety.
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.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
If you replace the word 'Christianity' with 'full secular freedoms' then I'm 100% with you. But Christianity? Eff off! All religion is bollocks - just some is relatively benign bollocks and some is hatefully and violently dangerous bollocks. But it is all bollocks.
Can atheism and materialism be violent, hateful bollocks?
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
Labour activists are a bit more practical on these matters. Tory activists have a bit of a reputation for this, as do Tory MPs who consider their numerical majority a sign of their political virility.
Look at virtually any ex-Tory MP's (in practice, usually cabinet ministers in safe seats) autobiography. You'll find they almost always comment with pride on the size of their majority.
1) Violent hooliganism is, always and everywhere, morally wrong 2) If you are beaten up by hooligans, the fault lies with them 3) You're not doing anything wrong by wearing a shirt. I've seen people sit in the home team's fans section with the opposition's colours 4) Even if 1-3 weren't true, suggesting we're not talking about a specific location in the Islamic cartoon case, we're being told that we shouldn't publish them ANYWHERE
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.
How do you compromise with an ideology that believe their way of life is dictated by a person incapable of making mistakes which they have to follow in every way possible, and part of which way of life includes violent acts against people that don't follow that way of life ?
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
We don't need to do the first. We certainly should not do the second. We may need to do the third.
We do need to enforce our Western values and, critically, what we are not prepared to accept i.e. the use of violence or the threat of violence to demand things which limit the freedoms of others. If Muslims cannot accept that the freedoms which permit them to do things that others may disapprove of or dislike or, even, be offended by also permit others to do things they disapprove of or dislike or are offended by and that there is nothing they can do about that, then they need to find somewhere more suitable to live.
It's the Antigone dilemma: if you do not like the laws of the land, break them and pay the price or leave.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
If you replace the word 'Christianity' with 'full secular freedoms' then I'm 100% with you. But Christianity? Eff off! All religion is bollocks - just some is relatively benign bollocks and some is hatefully and violently dangerous bollocks. But it is all bollocks.
Can atheism and materialism be violent, hateful bollocks?
And they'd use Taliban tactics to get their revenge. I read an account of Afghan reprisals against the first Russian troops - they captured half a dozen soldiers - skinned them alive and left their flayed corpses on a run way. Their heads were wrapped in their own skins. It scared the crap out of the other troops. The biggest fear US embassy staff had was not having enough bullets to shoot themselves before they became victims. Barbarism writ large.
When you're playing against a foe with no rules - you either wipe them out en masse or play just as dirty - or dirtier. There is no room for Geneva Convention nicety.
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.
Quadruple amputations, leaving the victim alive were favoured as a warning to others.
Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot. Many other Catholics would see it as childish and ignore it. No one would be scared of the potential backlash. The same might go for Hinduism or Sikhism (although those Sikhs do have nasty knives).
If the UK were an Islamic country, then minorities would be ignored, if not actually repressed. As it is, some people are arguing for preferential treatment for Islam, either because they are a minority, or because they are frit of the nasty elements in there.
Not an easy place to canvas anyway. All those buzzers.
Hah. It is amusing that I lived in a building that had people earning in excess of 10 million pounds per year, but a few hundred yards up the road, in the same constituency we had some of the poorest people in the country.
One of my friend's nearby gave the following instructions on how to get to his flat
"Walk past the row of Bentleys, Ferraris, turn left where the crackwhores are stood, and the kids drinking white lightning"
"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"
Except the Enlightenment types and the secularists did successfully get the Christians to change when Christianity was top dog. People are not animals. They are capable of reasoned thought, even if a lot of people try to avoid doing it. The way we convince people out of literalist Islam (the dominant strain), is by rigorous and sustained debate. It is pretty clear that Mohammed's slave-trading and other behaviour was rampantly immoral, so it should kept on being brought up until Muslims accept that either the guy wasn't perfect, and his commandments should be questioned, or the Koran isn't literal, so its account of Muhammad's life should be taken with a grain of salt.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
Well what do you think we have been trying to do for the last 40 years? And how has it worked out?
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
My abiding memory of canvassing isn't the people (I've only ever had two F'Offs in 15 years) it's the dogs.
I've almost had my fingers bitten off trying to leaflet a letterbox on more than one occasion and had to leap fences and hedges to escape some truly evil hounds at every single election. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the 'worse' the area the more dreadful the dog.
Worse, some people seem to just watch from the window and do nothing to intervene.
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. But I think that it's healthy that the differences focus on areas like the NHS and education where there are clearly different models on offer, rather than an unnerving situation in which the alternative governments saw the basic situation entirely differently (which could well mean that one of them was simply and dangerously nwrong).
What are the differences on the NHS Nick? At the last election Labour party policy was to cut NHS spending by about £20bn while the Tories were committed to maintaining it in real terms, a commitment they have kept.
This time around Labour are being incredibly vague about where their "savings" are to come from and to my knowledge they have not ringfenced the NHS in the same way as the Tories have. OTOH they have committed themselves to a rather silly mansion tax that might or might not generate about 1% of NHS spending specifically for the NHS.
Are Labour really going to exclude private providers of support services where they are doing that at less cost than it would cost the NHS itself? Is there any evidence that the Tories are going to extend private provision beyond the tiny percentage of NHS spending that goes on it at the moment?
Are Labour really going to incur the costs of reorganising the NHS once again or are they going to accept the Lansley reforms? They ended up something of a botched job to be sure but are we really going to start again?
Do the parties not broadly agree that NHS spending and other care spending needs to be better integrated?
The NHS will inevitably be one of the major battlefields of the election and it is a battlefield where Labour hold all of the higher ground but are people really being given a substantial choice? Personally I don't see it.
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
My abiding memory of canvassing isn't the people (I've only ever had two F'Offs in 15 years) it's the dogs.
I've said it before but my favourite canvassing experiences were those who leaned in conspiratorially to tell me that they agreed with David Icke...
Army bomb-disposal unit arrives at scene of Oxfordshire fires...
To deal with the potential of unexploded gas canisters that might pose a threat to firefighters.
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.
Correct - just because some hysteric of an arsonist has has gone berserk is no need for PB Hysterics to go ga ga.
The fire looks devastating. Hard to believe that a relatively modern building can go up like that. All paper records must be lost and most computers melted. Hope the back up is secure.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
If you replace the word 'Christianity' with 'full secular freedoms' then I'm 100% with you. But Christianity? Eff off! All religion is bollocks - just some is relatively benign bollocks and some is hatefully and violently dangerous bollocks. But it is all bollocks.
We already did that, and that's why we are where we are
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
My abiding memory of canvassing isn't the people (I've only ever had two F'Offs in 15 years) it's the dogs.
I've almost had my fingers bitten off trying to leaflet a letterbox on more than one occasion and had to leap fences and hedges to escape some truly evil hounds at every single election. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the 'worse' the area the more dreadful the dog.
Worse, some people seem to just watch from the window and do nothing to intervene.
I've been bitten three times by dogs, never canvassing.
My favourite story canvassing was, one bloke saying
"F*ck off you Tories, I'd never vote for you tossers" Then after a brief pause, to see that his wife had disappeared, sotto voce, "Of course I'll vote for you, the Mrs would kill me if she knew I was a Tory"
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.
How do you compromise with an ideology that believe their way of life is dictated by a person incapable of making mistakes which they have to follow in every way possible, and part of which way of life includes violent acts against people that don't follow that way of life ?
Well, like it or not, some of their complaints are rational and not theological.
We interfere violently and mendaciously in their countries.
We are not even-handed when dealing with another sect [comprising 0.2% of the global population, and falling] compared to their sect [comprising 23.4% of the global population, and rising]
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
That's very wise. Friends of mine were candidates in Central and Gorton in 1997. Moss Side and Whalley Range looked absolutely terrifying places to canvass.
1) Violent hooliganism is, always and everywhere, morally wrong 2) If you are beaten up by hooligans, the fault lies with them 3) You're not doing anything wrong by wearing a shirt. I've seen people sit in the home team's fans section with the opposition's colours 4) Even if 1-3 weren't true, suggesting we're not talking about a specific location in the Islamic cartoon case, we're being told that we shouldn't publish them ANYWHERE
I said wearing an Arsenal shirt and singing anti Tottenham songs
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
. You'll find they almost always comment with pride on the size of their majority.
Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot. Many other Catholics would see it as childish and ignore it. No one would be scared of the potential backlash. The same might go for Hinduism or Sikhism (although those Sikhs do have nasty knives).
If the UK were an Islamic country, then minorities would be ignored, if not actually repressed. As it is, some people are arguing for preferential treatment for Islam, either because they are a minority, or because they are frit of the nasty elements in there.
Neither reason makes long-term sense.
"Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot"
They might be if the offended Catholics were living in an Islamic state where the number of Catholics had increased very rapidly in a generation, and the Islamic govt had been treating them preferentially to muslims (in the eyes of the muslims)
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.
How do you compromise with an ideology that believe their way of life is dictated by a person incapable of making mistakes which they have to follow in every way possible, and part of which way of life includes violent acts against people that don't follow that way of life ?
Well, like it or not, some of their complaints are rational and not theological.
We interfere violently and mendaciously in their countries.
We are not even-handed when dealing with another sect [comprising 0.2% of the global population, and falling] compared to their sect [comprising 23.4% of the global population, and rising]
We do need to enforce our Western values and, critically, what we are not prepared to accept i.e. the use of violence or the threat of violence to demand things which limit the freedoms of others. If Muslims cannot accept that the freedoms which permit them to do things that others may disapprove of or dislike or, even, be offended by also permit others to do things they disapprove of or dislike or are offended by and that there is nothing they can do about that, then they need to find somewhere more suitable to live.
We shouldn't forget the realpolitik in this, the patience of the British public will only go so far, and if events are relatively infrequent that is quite a long way. However UKIP didn't get where it is in the polls by accident, and a fair bit of that is really about immigration not the EU, and a fair bit of that really means islamist immigration whether people want to admit it or not, because what people really dont like is culture clash and things changing their way of life.
Its said that a dog is three meals from being a wolf, the population is probably about three terrorist attacks in close sequence away from electing a very hardline government, probably with what many here would see as quite objectionable policies. The BES before Christmas had people wanting immigration cut at three quarters of those surveys, and those wanting it cut a lot at half the sample. If that was done now after Charlie Hebdo anyway want to suggest those figures would have gone down ? And if something equivalent happens in the UK ?
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
If you replace the word 'Christianity' with 'full secular freedoms' then I'm 100% with you. But Christianity? Eff off! All religion is bollocks - just some is relatively benign bollocks and some is hatefully and violently dangerous bollocks. But it is all bollocks.
We already did that, and that's why we are where we are
No, we didn't. We bought into this multiculturalist nonsense, allowed Islamic schools multiple warnings before being shut down for extremism, allowed sharia law to be used in disputes, have the government avoid criticising anything that might offend Muslim sensitivities, allowed Muslim areas to abuse proxy voting and postal voting to setup little Muslim states in miniature, made it easy to import arranged brides from rural Pakistan, allowed leading Muslim intellectuals to come out with rampant bigotry and remain in good standing, and allowed mass child grooming to happen on our streets.
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.
Tell me about it, all my life, I've lived in safe Tory seats and the wonderful Sheffield Hallam which is really a safe Tory seat on loan to the Lib Dems.
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
My abiding memory of canvassing isn't the people (I've only ever had two F'Offs in 15 years) it's the dogs.
I've almost had my fingers bitten off trying to leaflet a letterbox on more than one occasion and had to leap fences and hedges to escape some truly evil hounds at every single election. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the 'worse' the area the more dreadful the dog.
Worse, some people seem to just watch from the window and do nothing to intervene.
I've been bitten three times by dogs, never canvassing.
My favourite story canvassing was, one bloke saying
"F*ck off you Tories, I'd never vote for you tossers" Then after a brief pause, to see that his wife had disappeared, sotto voce, "Of course I'll vote for you, the Mrs would kill me if she knew I was a Tory"
Mine when a (very) elderly lady said to a canvassing partner of mine, "Of course I'll vote Conservative. I've done so ever since that nice Mr. Baldwin was Prime Minister."
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
. You'll find they almost always comment with pride on the size of their majority.
Can't wait for Brooks Newmark's autobiography.
"I watched Congressman Weiner destroy his political career, and I longed to follow his example."
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.
UKIP won't win it but it is a seat where UKIP are taking more votes from the Tories than anyone else.
Is erm go to bed with Nigel wake up with Ed territory.
Given the lines UKIP are peddling, it promises to be an appalling election - I just hope the voice of reason prevails and places like Kent confirm they still want to be part of decent society.
We do need to enforce our Western values and, critically, what we are not prepared to accept i.e. the use of violence or the threat of violence to demand things which limit the freedoms of others. If Muslims cannot accept that the freedoms which permit them to do things that others may disapprove of or dislike or, even, be offended by also permit others to do things they disapprove of or dislike or are offended by and that there is nothing they can do about that, then they need to find somewhere more suitable to live.
We shouldn't forget the realpolitik in this, the patience of the British public will only go so far, and if events are relatively infrequent that is quite a long way. However UKIP didn't get where it is in the polls by accident, and a fair bit of that is really about immigration not the EU, and a fair bit of that really means islamist immigration whether people want to admit it or not, because what people really dont like is culture clash and things changing their way of life.
Its said that a dog is three meals from being a wolf, the population is probably about three terrorist attacks in close sequence away from electing a very hardline government, probably with what many here would see as quite objectionable policies. The BES before Christmas had people wanting immigration cut at three quarters of those surveys, and those wanting it cut a lot at half the sample. If that was done now after Charlie Hebdo anyway want to suggest those figures would have gone down ? And if something equivalent happens in the UK ?
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
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
I would rather the first or third by a long way
Well what do you think we have been trying to do for the last 40 years? And how has it worked out?
We haven't really been doing that, though, have we? We've allowed the growth of sharia courts, for instance. And fools such as the former Archbishop of Canterbury seemed to suggest that we should accept Islamic law. We've not prosecuted incitements of violence when they were garbed in religious mumbo jumbo. We did not firmly stand up for freedom of speech when Rushdie was threatened. We allowed segregation in lectures given by Muslims until the debate by those outside forced a retreat.
So perhaps we should trying growing a spine before we give up the attempt. You seem to me to be prepared - at the first whiff of grapeshot - to run away.
I think there are plenty of liberal/moderate Muslims who would welcome us supporting them and fighting back against the loons. I hope there are anyway.
And even if not, we still need to stand up and fight.
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.
How do you compromise with an ideology that believe their way of life is dictated by a person incapable of making mistakes which they have to follow in every way possible, and part of which way of life includes violent acts against people that don't follow that way of life ?
Well, like it or not, some of their complaints are rational and not theological.
We interfere violently and mendaciously in their countries.
We are not even-handed when dealing with another sect [comprising 0.2% of the global population, and falling] compared to their sect [comprising 23.4% of the global population, and rising]
Maybe we could address those issues?
It's not always about the Jews, Rod.
In this case, it certainly isn't the Irish, the Mongol, or the Malay...
Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot. Many other Catholics would see it as childish and ignore it. No one would be scared of the potential backlash. The same might go for Hinduism or Sikhism (although those Sikhs do have nasty knives).
If the UK were an Islamic country, then minorities would be ignored, if not actually repressed. As it is, some people are arguing for preferential treatment for Islam, either because they are a minority, or because they are frit of the nasty elements in there.
Neither reason makes long-term sense.
"Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot"
They might be if the offended Catholics were living in an Islamic state where the number of Catholics had increased very rapidly in a generation, and the Islamic govt had been treating them preferentially to muslims (in the eyes of the muslims)
and it might be if the moon was made of cream cheese, but it isn't, lets deal with the world as it is ?
You've spoken nothing but sense on this issue since it came to the fore. You'll deserve a place on my Small Council when I become President of the reunited Anglosphere.
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?
Yes because they wanted to carve out their Islamic homeland from Indian territory - and the UK promptly appeased them by creating Pakistan in 1947.
We do need to enforce our Western values and, critically, what we are not prepared to accept i.e. the use of violence or the threat of violence to demand things which limit the freedoms of others. If Muslims cannot accept that the freedoms which permit them to do things that others may disapprove of or dislike or, even, be offended by also permit others to do things they disapprove of or dislike or are offended by and that there is nothing they can do about that, then they need to find somewhere more suitable to live.
We shouldn't forget the realpolitik in this, the patience of the British public will only go so far, and if events are relatively infrequent that is quite a long way. However UKIP didn't get where it is in the polls by accident, and a fair bit of that is really about immigration not the EU, and a fair bit of that really means islamist immigration whether people want to admit it or not, because what people really dont like is culture clash and things changing their way of life.
Its said that a dog is three meals from being a wolf, the population is probably about three terrorist attacks in close sequence away from electing a very hardline government, probably with what many here would see as quite objectionable policies. The BES before Christmas had people wanting immigration cut at three quarters of those surveys, and those wanting it cut a lot at half the sample. If that was done now after Charlie Hebdo anyway want to suggest those figures would have gone down ? And if something equivalent happens in the UK ?
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
Call of the Wild was the very first book I bought via the Puffin Book Club at school back in the 1980s!
Mine when a (very) elderly lady said to a canvassing partner of mine, "Of course I'll vote Conservative. I've done so ever since that nice Mr. Baldwin was Prime Minister."
Mine was the lady of 60 or so in 1997, who told me that Tony Blair was wonderful and she hoped I'd win, but she was voting Tory.
Why? Because "My husband would never forgive me if I didn't."
So could I have a chat with the husband? "Oh...no...He's been dead for 6 years."
The task of overcoming the Husband Memorial Tribute Vote was beyond me. I patted her on the shoulder and moved on.
Comments
Or those who can;t live with it get expelled.
We simply fly them over islamic state in a Hercules and push them out with a self opening parachute.
Otherwise you are simply accepting point 1 in the easy guide to becoming an Islamist appeaser - Nothing is ever the fault of the Islamist terrorist who has committed the act of violence.
http://hurryupharry.org/2015/01/14/being-an-islamist/
Next!
Then I lived in Manchester Central constituency, a safe Labour seat, which put it politely, also has some places, that can only be described as shit holes.
I would never canvass in Manchester Central.
When you're playing against a foe with no rules - you either wipe them out en masse or play just as dirty - or dirtier. There is no room for Geneva Convention nicety.
Look at virtually any ex-Tory MP's (in practice, usually cabinet ministers in safe seats) autobiography. You'll find they almost always comment with pride on the size of their majority.
1) Violent hooliganism is, always and everywhere, morally wrong
2) If you are beaten up by hooligans, the fault lies with them
3) You're not doing anything wrong by wearing a shirt. I've seen people sit in the home team's fans section with the opposition's colours
4) Even if 1-3 weren't true, suggesting we're not talking about a specific location in the Islamic cartoon case, we're being told that we shouldn't publish them ANYWHERE
We do need to enforce our Western values and, critically, what we are not prepared to accept i.e. the use of violence or the threat of violence to demand things which limit the freedoms of others. If Muslims cannot accept that the freedoms which permit them to do things that others may disapprove of or dislike or, even, be offended by also permit others to do things they disapprove of or dislike or are offended by and that there is nothing they can do about that, then they need to find somewhere more suitable to live.
It's the Antigone dilemma: if you do not like the laws of the land, break them and pay the price or leave.
Switching round, if the cartoons showed the Pope (or Christ) doing something nasty to a child, many Catholics would be offended. Yet the cartoonists would not be shot. Many other Catholics would see it as childish and ignore it. No one would be scared of the potential backlash. The same might go for Hinduism or Sikhism (although those Sikhs do have nasty knives).
If the UK were an Islamic country, then minorities would be ignored, if not actually repressed.
As it is, some people are arguing for preferential treatment for Islam, either because they are a minority, or because they are frit of the nasty elements in there.
Neither reason makes long-term sense.
One of my friend's nearby gave the following instructions on how to get to his flat
"Walk past the row of Bentleys, Ferraris, turn left where the crackwhores are stood, and the kids drinking white lightning"
Except the Enlightenment types and the secularists did successfully get the Christians to change when Christianity was top dog. People are not animals. They are capable of reasoned thought, even if a lot of people try to avoid doing it. The way we convince people out of literalist Islam (the dominant strain), is by rigorous and sustained debate. It is pretty clear that Mohammed's slave-trading and other behaviour was rampantly immoral, so it should kept on being brought up until Muslims accept that either the guy wasn't perfect, and his commandments should be questioned, or the Koran isn't literal, so its account of Muhammad's life should be taken with a grain of salt.
Forcible transportation to islamic state. Its the only way.
Spurs fans have had to deal with a lot of nasty anti-Semitism for opposing football fans.
Mostly West Ham fans, who are made up of exclusively of Muslims.
Edit - Before Sunil and Richard T go all medieval on me, I know must West Hams aren't like that, it is a small vocal minority.
I've almost had my fingers bitten off trying to leaflet a letterbox on more than one occasion and had to leap fences and hedges to escape some truly evil hounds at every single election. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the 'worse' the area the more dreadful the dog.
Worse, some people seem to just watch from the window and do nothing to intervene.
This time around Labour are being incredibly vague about where their "savings" are to come from and to my knowledge they have not ringfenced the NHS in the same way as the Tories have. OTOH they have committed themselves to a rather silly mansion tax that might or might not generate about 1% of NHS spending specifically for the NHS.
Are Labour really going to exclude private providers of support services where they are doing that at less cost than it would cost the NHS itself? Is there any evidence that the Tories are going to extend private provision beyond the tiny percentage of NHS spending that goes on it at the moment?
Are Labour really going to incur the costs of reorganising the NHS once again or are they going to accept the Lansley reforms? They ended up something of a botched job to be sure but are we really going to start again?
Do the parties not broadly agree that NHS spending and other care spending needs to be better integrated?
The NHS will inevitably be one of the major battlefields of the election and it is a battlefield where Labour hold all of the higher ground but are people really being given a substantial choice? Personally I don't see it.
The fire looks devastating. Hard to believe that a relatively modern building can go up like that. All paper records must be lost and most computers melted. Hope the back up is secure.
My favourite story canvassing was, one bloke saying
"F*ck off you Tories, I'd never vote for you tossers" Then after a brief pause, to see that his wife had disappeared, sotto voce, "Of course I'll vote for you, the Mrs would kill me if she knew I was a Tory"
We interfere violently and mendaciously in their countries.
We are not even-handed when dealing with another sect [comprising 0.2% of the global population, and falling] compared to their sect [comprising 23.4% of the global population, and rising]
Maybe we could address those issues?
We did leaflet, though.
They might be if the offended Catholics were living in an Islamic state where the number of Catholics had increased very rapidly in a generation, and the Islamic govt had been treating them preferentially to muslims (in the eyes of the muslims)
How can a British person think of some fly blown dust bowl as 'their country'.??
Millions disagreed with invading Iraq. Only one grouping is plotting the mass death of civilians.
Its said that a dog is three meals from being a wolf, the population is probably about three terrorist attacks in close sequence away from electing a very hardline government, probably with what many here would see as quite objectionable policies. The BES before Christmas had people wanting immigration cut at three quarters of those surveys, and those wanting it cut a lot at half the sample. If that was done now after Charlie Hebdo anyway want to suggest those figures would have gone down ? And if something equivalent happens in the UK ?
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
"They might be if the offended Catholics were living in an Islamic state where the number of Catholics had increased very rapidly in a generation."
No chance of it happening, is there? In an Islamic state, the numbers of any other religion would be decreasing. Would you like to guess why?
So perhaps we should trying growing a spine before we give up the attempt. You seem to me to be prepared - at the first whiff of grapeshot - to run away.
I think there are plenty of liberal/moderate Muslims who would welcome us supporting them and fighting back against the loons. I hope there are anyway.
And even if not, we still need to stand up and fight.
You've spoken nothing but sense on this issue since it came to the fore. You'll deserve a place on my Small Council when I become President of the reunited Anglosphere.
Will it spread?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30829917
Euro sinks in the market. TTL I sold mine last September.
Why? Because "My husband would never forgive me if I didn't."
So could I have a chat with the husband? "Oh...no...He's been dead for 6 years."
The task of overcoming the Husband Memorial Tribute Vote was beyond me. I patted her on the shoulder and moved on.