Mr. Meeks, yes and no. I think a focus on migration (either way) would be a mistake. The large scale and multi-cultural approach means that we have large enclaves in many parts of the country, and these can be breeding grounds for terrorism.
Mr. L, the key part is the religious fundamentalism. I agree with your observation on a romanticised view of his family's former country, and being radicalised here.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
NB, I'm not advocating a particular position, only observing that, like a niqab/burkha ban, this would be an easy hit for UKIP if they want it. Labour and the Lib Dems would never go for it, and I'd be significantly surprised if the Conservatives went for it either.
Mr. Roger, the common factor for almost all terrorism in recent years has been the religious zealotry of the perpetrators, not nationality.
The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 failures were all British.
This isn't a problem with extreme Britons. It's a problem with extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
I would argue that that's been the case for most of the past 75 years:
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period - Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s - Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s - Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
Just a reminder that men who carry out terror attacks for ISIS do not have the same religion as most Muslims, and it is ignorant to assert the contrary. Similarly, Anders Breivik - or the members of the Westboro Baptist Church - do not have the same religion as most Christians. "Islamist" is an utterly cop-out term. Most Muslims abhor such attacks. They say things like "What religion teaches that? No religion does". Textual interpretations of the koran and hadiths that are offered in support of the proposition that logical or faithful Muslims "should" want to kill all non-believers should be rejected for the rubbish that they are.
Mr. Meeks, yes and no. I think a focus on migration (either way) would be a mistake. The large scale and multi-cultural approach means that we have large enclaves in many parts of the country, and these can be breeding grounds for terrorism.
Mr. L, the key part is the religious fundamentalism. I agree with your observation on a romanticised view of his family's former country, and being radicalised here.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
NB, I'm not advocating a particular position, only observing that, like a niqab/burkha ban, this would be an easy hit for UKIP if they want it. Labour and the Lib Dems would never go for it, and I'd be significantly surprised if the Conservatives went for it either.
Children shouldn't be drenched in "faith" during their schooling. I'd ban all faith schools personally.
Mr. Roger, the common factor for almost all terrorism in recent years has been the religious zealotry of the perpetrators, not nationality.
The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 failures were all British.
This isn't a problem with extreme Britons. It's a problem with extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
I would argue that that's been the case for most of the past 75 years:
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period - Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s - Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s - Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
Would you say ETA were part of communists? or just separatists?
As Sadiq says, terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a major city nowadays. Why go on about it?
Politicians have made our bed and now we have to lie in it. I'm sure there always were large parts of the population of a different religion that want to kill us all in the old days anyway
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
Clearly under an Australian-style points based system we wouldn't give terrorists work visas as we already have enough
Mr. Cyan, it's not legitimate claim people who literally murder in the name of Islam are unrelated to it. You can certainly claim they're extremists, zealots, a small minority/fringe etc, but just as Crusaders weren't the epitome of Christian kindness but were still Christians (likewise for Westboro) you cannot pretend there's no connection.
Mr. 1000, Irish terrorism was based on political perspectives not religious affiliation. The religious difference was incidental.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
The fact is he was a Brit. Now, I have no idea what your idea of your preferred flavour of Brit is, perhaps it's Danny Dyer and his direct descendency from Edward III. Perhaps a true Brit is one whose forebears arrived 50, 150, 200 years ago. Only you can say.
Brits believe a lot of bollocks. Some want a united Ireland, some support THFC and are happy to fight people who support CFC, some believe in Islam, some are Islamic fundamentalists, some believe in a Christian God but don't want female Bishops or gay marriage.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Brits believe a lot of bollocks. Some want a united Ireland, some support THFC and are happy to fight people who support CFC, some believe in Islam, some are Islamic fundamentalists, some believe in a Christian God but don't want female Bishops or gay marriage.
Some of them even believe in AV. Sickening, I know!
Mr. Roger, the common factor for almost all terrorism in recent years has been the religious zealotry of the perpetrators, not nationality.
The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 failures were all British.
This isn't a problem with extreme Britons. It's a problem with extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
I would argue that that's been the case for most of the past 75 years:
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period - Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s - Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s - Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
Would you say ETA were part of communists? or just separatists?
I think there's a very interesting parallel between the 1970s terrorism wave (which most of us seem to have forgotten about, even though it probably killed as many people ) and the recent one.
In both cases, they were actively funded by an ideological foe of the West. The Soviet Union used its (oil) money to fund those who perpetrated terrorist attacks: they sent money and arms to the IRA, to ETA and to other groups. They also spent large sums on attempting to radicalise the young.
Russia could only do this while the oil price was high, and money was sloshing around. Saudi Arabia has only be able afford to support Madrassas and Wahabbi Mosques around the world because of the high oil price.
Communist terrorism in the West disappeared when the Soviet Union ran into financial trouble.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
Discriminating for relevant reasons is a good thing. Indeed it is necessary. If Islamic faith schools are brainwashing pupils into terrorism then it is those schools which we should be closing.
Note though that the Trojan Horse cases occurred in secular schools not in faith schools. The allegation was that they were being turned into de facto faith schools - and faith of a particularly virulently extremist kind. Personally, I'd have thought that it would make more sense to stop all funding of Islamic faith schools by Saudi/Pakistani etc persons or institutions, by an insistence that the national curriculum be taught in full to all pupils and that gender equality be properly enforced i.e. none of this girls at the back / girls must only be taught to be Islamic wives rubbish. Oh - and no hijabs/burqas for girls either.
The fact is he was a Brit. Now, I have no idea what your idea of your preferred flavour of Brit is, perhaps it's Danny Dyer and his direct descendency from Edward III. Perhaps a true Brit is one whose forebears arrived 50, 150, 200 years ago. Only you can say.
Mr. Meeks, yes and no. I think a focus on migration (either way) would be a mistake. The large scale and multi-cultural approach means that we have large enclaves in many parts of the country, and these can be breeding grounds for terrorism.
Mr. L, the key part is the religious fundamentalism. I agree with your observation on a romanticised view of his family's former country, and being radicalised here.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
NB, I'm not advocating a particular position, only observing that, like a niqab/burkha ban, this would be an easy hit for UKIP if they want it. Labour and the Lib Dems would never go for it, and I'd be significantly surprised if the Conservatives went for it either.
Children shouldn't be drenched in "faith" during their schooling. I'd ban all faith schools personally.
So unfortunate that all those non-church parents want to get their children into church schools, isn't it?
Miss Cyclefree, I agree, but discrimination is also political difficult (cf people being upset at the police not stopping and searching enough white people).
I agree entirely on the funding issue, and banning burkhas.
I'd be surprised if either happened, and I simply cannot see the hijab being banned.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
You could always bring her.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
That would be a memorable second date. Perhaps we could open a book on whether @SeanT would get a third date.
FFS, we've got a problem with Islamist terrorists, some of it comes from British Muslim converts or British born Muslims, some of it comes from Muslim immigrants, old or new.
Some of the Bataclan attackers were Muslim immigrants. The Berlin attacker was a Tunisian immigrant. The Lee Rigby attackers were radicalised by a Muslim immigrant:
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
You could always bring her.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
That would be a memorable second date. Perhaps we could open a book on whether @SeanT would get a third date.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
The fact is he was a Brit. Now, I have no idea what your idea of your preferred flavour of Brit is, perhaps it's Danny Dyer and his direct descendency from Edward III. Perhaps a true Brit is one whose forebears arrived 50, 150, 200 years ago. Only you can say.
Brits believe a lot of bollocks. Some want a united Ireland, some support THFC and are happy to fight people who support CFC, some believe in Islam, some are Islamic fundamentalists, some believe in a Christian God but don't want female Bishops or gay marriage.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
All you say is largely correct and has sweet fa to do with my point about Roger who detests everything about the country of his birth. Just as a matter of interest how do you think some of these terrorists self-identify? Muslim? or Brit? Maybe you can get down off your high horse and try to answer it honestly.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I think the question to ask her would be: So what first attracted you to rich and successful SeanT?
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
That's only because you very deliberately choose to, one suspects you are fully aware that his religion is the relevant factor, not his nationality (though his nationality raises other issues as secondary concerns).
One also strongly suspects that had the incident been perpetrated by a Syrian Christian (yes we know, the odds of that happening are negligible), then you would consider the religion to be far more relevant that the nationality, because it would suit your prejudices to do so.
FFS, we've got a problem with Islamist terrorists, some of it comes from British Muslim converts or British born Muslims, some of it comes from Muslim immigrants, old or new.
Some of the Bataclan attackers were Muslim immigrants. The Berlin attacker was a Tunisian immigrant. The Lee Rigby attackers were radicalised by a Muslim immigrant:
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
You could always bring her.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
That would be a memorable second date. Perhaps we could open a book on whether @SeanT would get a third date.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
Discriminating for relevant reasons is a good thing. Indeed it is necessary. If Islamic faith schools are brainwashing pupils into terrorism then it is those schools which we should be closing.
Note though that the Trojan Horse cases occurred in secular schools not in faith schools. The allegation was that they were being turned into de facto faith schools - and faith of a particularly virulently extremist kind. Personally, I'd have thought that it would make more sense to stop all funding of Islamic faith schools by Saudi/Pakistani etc persons or institutions, by an insistence that the national curriculum be taught in full to all pupils and that gender equality be properly enforced i.e. none of this girls at the back / girls must only be taught to be Islamic wives rubbish. Oh - and no hijabs/burqas for girls either.
If you did all that, the Left would be all over you like a cheap suit. You would be utterly condemned (with far more virulence than any terrorist could ever be) as a 'racist', 'Islamophobe', 'bigot', 'fascist', etc, etc, etc. They would not countenance any of the suggestions you legitimately make. Why would they? Doing so would alienate one of their last remaining core voting groups. If Labour don't appease, they don't get the votes, it's as simple as that.
Mr. Roger, the common factor for almost all terrorism in recent years has been the religious zealotry of the perpetrators, not nationality.
The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 failures were all British.
This isn't a problem with extreme Britons. It's a problem with extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
I would argue that that's been the case for most of the past 75 years:
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period - Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s - Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s - Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
Would you say ETA were part of communists? or just separatists?
I think there's a very interesting parallel between the 1970s terrorism wave (which most of us seem to have forgotten about, even though it probably killed as many people ) and the recent one.
In both cases, they were actively funded by an ideological foe of the West. The Soviet Union used its (oil) money to fund those who perpetrated terrorist attacks: they sent money and arms to the IRA, to ETA and to other groups. They also spent large sums on attempting to radicalise the young.
Russia could only do this while the oil price was high, and money was sloshing around. Saudi Arabia has only be able afford to support Madrassas and Wahabbi Mosques around the world because of the high oil price.
Communist terrorism in the West disappeared when the Soviet Union ran into financial trouble.
It has been suggested that Saudis were able to radicalise Pakistan because IMF-imposed cuts meant Saudi-funded madrassas were too often the only school in town.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
You could always bring her.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
Yesterday was quite the weirdest day. I triumphantly finished my new thriller - 93,000 words in two months! - and literally as I polished the last paragraph, I got a message about the Westminster attacks. So I spent the NEXT three hours staring at the TV in horror, and distress, so much so I nearly cancelled this promising date.
But then I thought sod it, why should they stop me having fun, that's them winning (etc etc) and I went to the York & Albany, the girl turned out to be very very beautiful, and surprisingly keen on a sad old git like me.
So I went from triumph to anguish to JOLLY GOOD FUN in 12 hours. Bizarre.
Internet dating? My divorced younger brother does that. He's 46, and regularly dates under 30s women. He seriously punches above his weight and pay grade. I couldn't cope with his grooming and clothing bills, though!
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals).
Miss Cyclefree, utterly different matter but it's like the West Lothian Question. The political class has decided to try and solve this not by answering it, but by refusing to ask it.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I think the question to ask her would be: So what first attracted you to rich and successful SeanT?
In the immortal words of the Stranglers - 'an ugly fart attracts a good looking chick if he's got money'.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
Discriminating for relevant reasons is a good thing. Indeed it is necessary. If Islamic faith schools are brainwashing pupils into terrorism then it is those schools which we should be closing.
Note though that the Trojan Horse cases occurred in secular schools not in faith schools. The allegation was that they were being turned into de facto faith schools - and faith of a particularly virulently extremist kind. Personally, I'd have thought that it would make more sense to stop all funding of Islamic faith schools by Saudi/Pakistani etc persons or institutions, by an insistence that the national curriculum be taught in full to all pupils and that gender equality be properly enforced i.e. none of this girls at the back / girls must only be taught to be Islamic wives rubbish. Oh - and no hijabs/burqas for girls either.
If you did all that, the Left would be all over you like a cheap suit. You would be utterly condemned (with far more virulence than any terrorist could ever be) as a 'racist', 'Islamophobe', 'bigot', 'fascist', etc, etc, etc. They would not countenance any of the suggestions you legitimately make. Why would they? Doing so would alienate one of their last remaining core voting groups. If Labour don't appease, they don't get the votes, it's as simple as that.
I'm proud to be called a 'lefty' and one of the reasons is that I think that there should be NO religious or other 'divisive' schools. Full stop. All schools should be state maintained, and teach a non-religious curriculum. .
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Mr. Cyan, it's not legitimate claim people who literally murder in the name of Islam are unrelated to it. You can certainly claim they're extremists, zealots, a small minority/fringe etc, but just as Crusaders weren't the epitome of Christian kindness but were still Christians (likewise for Westboro) you cannot pretend there's no connection.
Even if one stands outside Islam and says let's call a Muslim anyone who calls themselves a Muslim, that still doesn't mean that all the people so designated have the same religion.
The connection you are claiming is based on the facts that ISIS and the vast Muslim majority both say they are Muslims, believe that the koran is the word of God, believe in one God, believe that Mohammed was his last prophet, etc. But it would be stretching the concept of "a religion" way past breaking-point to assert that they all have the "same religion". Most Muslims do not consider ISIS to be Muslims, and ISIS don't consider most Muslims to be living their lives as Muslims should either. The body of beliefs and practices that Westboro would call their religion, that basically is their religion, is very different from what it is for most Christians, even if they all believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, etc. The vast majority of Muslims do not view ISIS as guys whose attitude boils down to them being a bit extreme, any more than most Christians think that about Westboro.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Mr. Roger, the common factor for almost all terrorism in recent years has been the religious zealotry of the perpetrators, not nationality.
The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 failures were all British.
This isn't a problem with extreme Britons. It's a problem with extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
I would argue that that's been the case for most of the past 75 years:
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period - Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s - Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s - Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
Would you say ETA were part of communists? or just separatists?
I think there's a very interesting parallel between the 1970s terrorism wave (which most of us seem to have forgotten about, even though it probably killed as many people ) and the recent one.
In both cases, they were actively funded by an ideological foe of the West. The Soviet Union used its (oil) money to fund those who perpetrated terrorist attacks: they sent money and arms to the IRA, to ETA and to other groups. They also spent large sums on attempting to radicalise the young.
Russia could only do this while the oil price was high, and money was sloshing around. Saudi Arabia has only be able afford to support Madrassas and Wahabbi Mosques around the world because of the high oil price.
Communist terrorism in the West disappeared when the Soviet Union ran into financial trouble.
It has been suggested that Saudis were able to radicalise Pakistan because IMF-imposed cuts meant Saudi-funded madrassas were too often the only school in town.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
The fact is he was a Brit. Now, I have no idea what your idea of your preferred flavour of Brit is, perhaps it's Danny Dyer and his direct descendency from Edward III. Perhaps a true Brit is one whose forebears arrived 50, 150, 200 years ago. Only you can say.
Brits believe a lot of bollocks. Some want a united Ireland, some support THFC and are happy to fight people who support CFC, some believe in Islam, some are Islamic fundamentalists, some believe in a Christian God but don't want female Bishops or gay marriage.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
All you say is largely correct and has sweet fa to do with my point about Roger who detests everything about the country of his birth. Just as a matter of interest how do you think some of these terrorists self-identify? Muslim? or Brit? Maybe you can get down off your high horse and try to answer it honestly.
No idea, frankly.
Neither do I care what Roger does or doesn't think of his country. My interest is how the idea of wanting to stop or reduce terrorism interacts with a desire to close our borders, for example to Muslims a la Trump.
Which I believe to be nonsensical and which lends itself to illogical and damaging actions which don't address the core issue.
52 seems to be very old for a self radicalised, homegrown Islamic terrorist, doesn't it? It is actually quite disturbing, really. Young lads who have been taken under the wing of charismatic preachers and the like, I can understand. But a guy this old? Of course, there will be many, many Muslims that old, and older, who perhaps sympathise with the cause, but it puts the fact that it is deeply entrenched in a certain section of that community into stark relief.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Don't forget you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 gg, doubling up every generation you go back...
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
OK I think I've discussed my lovelife quite enough now, I must go and do a bit more polishing of that thriller. Later.
Sean, I don't know you personally, but are you similar 'in the flesh' as it were, to your virtual persona? You are to discretion what Harold Shipman was to the Hippocratic Oath. Totally uninhibited, but very amusing at the same time.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
You never know, Danny Dyer is a relative of the Queen according to 'Who do you think you are'
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
You could always bring her.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
Yesterday was quite the weirdest day. I triumphantly finished my new thriller - 93,000 words in two months! - and literally as I polished the last paragraph, I got a message about the Westminster attacks. So I spent the NEXT three hours staring at the TV in horror, and distress, so much so I nearly cancelled this promising date.
But then I thought sod it, why should they stop me having fun, that's them winning (etc etc) and I went to the York & Albany, the girl turned out to be very very beautiful, and surprisingly keen on a sad old git like me.
So I went from triumph to anguish to JOLLY GOOD FUN in 12 hours. Bizarre.
Must have been your waistcoat that swung it, perhaps literally.
It's not the UK numbers that I find most interesting but the much higher proportion of non-EU migration in countries like Sweden, as well as the fact that Switzerland is such an outlier.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Yes, but they generally preferred teenage boys to teenage girls.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
Yeah, it's *only* about twenty generations (using the non-Scottish definition of the word here), so the chance that all non-John of Gaunt descendants have intermarried with the 1% are probably pretty slim. Saying that, if they are efficient at intermarrying they would be up to 2% after the first generation, 4% in the second, 8%.. etc. That would quickly build up.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
Clearly the lady has an academic interest in your old bones ....
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
Clearly the lady has an academic interest in your old bones ....
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I've always dated younger women. One of my great loves was a girl called Sarah, she was 18 and I was 34. I just fancy them more. There it is. My last long term girlfriend was 25 and I was 50.
I do sometimes - very rarely - feel a little uncomfortable, but then I mainly think Who Bloody Cares. I've got one life. I intend to enjoy it. We're all consenting adults. If both sides are happy then that's all that matters. Same goes for gay people, polyamorists, kinksters, girls who like to pretend to be cats because it turns them on. We all have our quirks and eccentricities.
Let adults do whatever they want to do, if it makes them happy.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Too bad that what the ancient Greeks actually used to get up to(including probably Plato and Socrates) to would have got them long jail terms and a record as sex offenders nowadays. And that's just the Athenians. The Spartans, if anything, were worse.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
Clearly the lady has an academic interest in your old bones ....
I'm calling this good financial planning. Sean's way too old for a LISA otherwise.....
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
Clearly the lady has an academic interest in your old bones ....
Do you think any DNA can still be extracted ?
I'd ventured to suggest that potential difficulty may already have been by-passed .... ejaculated JackW ....
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
Yeah, it's *only* about twenty generations (using the non-Scottish definition of the word here), so the chance that all non-John of Gaunt descendants have intermarried with the 1% are probably pretty slim. Saying that, if they are efficient at intermarrying they would be up to 2% after the first generation, 4% in the second, 8%.. etc. That would quickly build up.
No, no, the 1% was not the starting point. It was a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. John of Gaunt had eight legitimate children who survived to adulthood (two of whom married overseas and so are irrelevant for this debate). There were also a couple that we know about born on the wrong side of the blanket and probably a few more that we don't know about. Let us be generous and say that John's progeny numbered 20. The population of England at that time was probably about 4 million (estimates vary between three and seven millions). So John's family was what, 0.0005% of the population, tops.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
It's not a remedy. But when you have a problem with integration or, indeed, de-integration of second/third generations, then it really does not make a whole lot of sense to increase the numbers in a particular community. That is not going to aid integration. And unintegrated communities are likely to pose a higher risk of creating the breeding grounds for terrorism and other extremist behavior or behavior at odds with the norms of the society. That is not good for social cohesion.
To misquote a famous person's words: There is such a thing as society. I don't want the society I live in to end up fractured because we refuse to apply any sort of common-sense or intelligent judgment to the question of who should be permitted to join it.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
Yeah, it's *only* about twenty generations (using the non-Scottish definition of the word here), so the chance that all non-John of Gaunt descendants have intermarried with the 1% are probably pretty slim. Saying that, if they are efficient at intermarrying they would be up to 2% after the first generation, 4% in the second, 8%.. etc. That would quickly build up.
No, no, the 1% was not the starting point. It was a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. John of Gaunt had eight legitimate children who survived to adulthood (two of whom married overseas and so are irrelevant for this debate). There were also a couple that we know about born on the wrong side of the blanket and probably a few more that we don't know about. Let us be generous and say that John's progeny numbered 20. The population of England at that time was probably about 4 million (estimates vary between three and seven millions). So John's family was what, 0.0005% of the population, tops.
LOL. I am an idiot thinking he would have sired 1% of the population (or rather missing that entirely). 20*(2^20) is still a big number (21 million), and perhaps that is where this claim originated from.
At what stage does a British born become British ?
When they get citizenship? Or does being British born automatically make you eligible?
My knowledge of this is not very good but what I read in the papers about this matter when the nationality "ceremony" started was that you first had to "naturalise" and then get the citizenship.
But presumably that would not apply to someone born here, otherwise everyone will have to "naturalise".
At what stage does a British born become British ?
I know you're only trying to be clever, so you can call Plato a racist or something, but do you have to do it all the time?
Not Plato. Theresa May. But seriously, how is someone British born different from being British ?
To be fair to May, I thought she was meaning the exact opposite of what you're saying, and the exact opposite of the far-right loons who were going on rants about maurauding Muslim immigrants invading our shores (I think she was emphasising that he wasn't "only" an immigrant who'd become a British citizen, he was a British citizen born-and-bred).
Her two statements these past 24 hours have been very good generally, I think.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
At what stage does a British born become British ?
I know you're only trying to be clever, so you can call Plato a racist or something, but do you have to do it all the time?
Not Plato. Theresa May. But seriously, how is someone British born different from being British ?
Ok, I'll bite. To me the fella that did this isn't British. He might have been born here and have a British passport, but he clearly doesn't identify as British, as British people shouldn't feel the need to mow down innocent people and stab a police officer to death in the name of some crazy branch of a religion, that has been hijacked by an evil terrorist group that wants to turn the western world into part of its warped Caliphate. I dunno what you'd call him.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
Yeah, it's *only* about twenty generations (using the non-Scottish definition of the word here), so the chance that all non-John of Gaunt descendants have intermarried with the 1% are probably pretty slim. Saying that, if they are efficient at intermarrying they would be up to 2% after the first generation, 4% in the second, 8%.. etc. That would quickly build up.
No, no, the 1% was not the starting point. It was a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. John of Gaunt had eight legitimate children who survived to adulthood (two of whom married overseas and so are irrelevant for this debate). There were also a couple that we know about born on the wrong side of the blanket and probably a few more that we don't know about. Let us be generous and say that John's progeny numbered 20. The population of England at that time was probably about 4 million (estimates vary between three and seven millions). So John's family was what, 0.0005% of the population, tops.
LOL. I am an idiot thinking he would have sired 1% of the population (or rather missing that entirely). 20*(2^20) is still a big number (21 million), and perhaps that is where this claim originated from.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
Your logic is faulty because those of breeding age would have bred with descendants of John of Gaunt. It only takes one drop along the way.
However, in practice I expect that the John of Gaunt statistic is wrong because the descendants would have been disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
20 million is a lower bound though, say, for example, the John of Gaunt descendants typically had five children compared with two for the peasant classes.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
All you say is largely correct and has sweet fa to do with my point about Roger who detests everything about the country of his birth. Just as a matter of interest how do you think some of these terrorists self-identify? Muslim? or Brit? Maybe you can get down off your high horse and try to answer it honestly.
No idea, frankly.
Neither do I care what Roger does or doesn't think of his country. My interest is how the idea of wanting to stop or reduce terrorism interacts with a desire to close our borders, for example to Muslims a la Trump.
Which I believe to be nonsensical and which lends itself to illogical and damaging actions which don't address the core issue.
I believe the main motive of ISIS terrorism is to provoke us to turn against Muslims in general and thereby radicalise more Muslims in a vicious circle. It is ISIS's only leverage.
We shouldn't help them. For example, Donald Trump jr, and some on here yesterday, tried to smear Sadiq Kahn. This was dishonest but luckily it was transparent and reflected badly on themselves. But It plays to the ISIS strategy. They should wise up.
In absolute terms the UK took more Eastern EU migrants than any other EU nation from 2004 to 2011 as Blair imposed no transition controls
Doesn't that slide rather ignore the size of the country / population density etc? And wouldn't those be relevant to this questions?
And it completely ignores what you define as 'overrun'. You could argue all of the countries on the chart are over-run or none of them, depending on your viewpoint. The fact that the UK is in the centre of a statistical distribution doesn't justify the conclusion. If it were a student of mine I'd be suggesting that they try harder!
Comments
Mr. L, the key part is the religious fundamentalism. I agree with your observation on a romanticised view of his family's former country, and being radicalised here.
If UKIP wanted to make up ground, promising to abolish Islamic faith schools would be a popular policy. The counter-argument would be that there are Jewish and Christian faith schools. Ban those, and you're banning institutions never involved in terrorist brainwashing. Don't ban them, and you'll be accused [accurately] of discrimination.
NB, I'm not advocating a particular position, only observing that, like a niqab/burkha ban, this would be an easy hit for UKIP if they want it. Labour and the Lib Dems would never go for it, and I'd be significantly surprised if the Conservatives went for it either.
- Jewish terrorists in Palestine the immediate post WW2 period
- Communist (a religion for some at the time) terrorists in Continental Europe in the 70s
- Hardline religious (Prot and Catholic) terrorists in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s
- Islamic terrorists in the last 20 years
Excluding the communists (which I'd regard as practically a religion), the only 'secular' terrorists I can think of are the Tamil Tigers, who practically invented the suicide bomb.
Slightly controversially, if I saw my local market hit by a bomb from an American drone, I'd probably say that was an act of Christian terrorism.
Politicians have made our bed and now we have to lie in it. I'm sure there always were large parts of the population of a different religion that want to kill us all in the old days anyway
Mr. 1000, Irish terrorism was based on political perspectives not religious affiliation. The religious difference was incidental.
Brits believe a lot of bollocks. Some want a united Ireland, some support THFC and are happy to fight people who support CFC, some believe in Islam, some are Islamic fundamentalists, some believe in a Christian God but don't want female Bishops or gay marriage.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
In both cases, they were actively funded by an ideological foe of the West. The Soviet Union used its (oil) money to fund those who perpetrated terrorist attacks: they sent money and arms to the IRA, to ETA and to other groups. They also spent large sums on attempting to radicalise the young.
Russia could only do this while the oil price was high, and money was sloshing around. Saudi Arabia has only be able afford to support Madrassas and Wahabbi Mosques around the world because of the high oil price.
Communist terrorism in the West disappeared when the Soviet Union ran into financial trouble.
I promise we wouldn't bite.
Much.
Note though that the Trojan Horse cases occurred in secular schools not in faith schools. The allegation was that they were being turned into de facto faith schools - and faith of a particularly virulently extremist kind. Personally, I'd have thought that it would make more sense to stop all funding of Islamic faith schools by Saudi/Pakistani etc persons or institutions, by an insistence that the national curriculum be taught in full to all pupils and that gender equality be properly enforced i.e. none of this girls at the back / girls must only be taught to be Islamic wives rubbish. Oh - and no hijabs/burqas for girls either.
Good afternoon, everyone. Appalling, yesterday.
I agree entirely on the funding issue, and banning burkhas.
I'd be surprised if either happened, and I simply cannot see the hijab being banned.
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-lesson/
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
Edited extra bit: source for both those stats is Ian Mortimer's The Perfect King.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/review-perfect-king-life-of-edward-iii.html
I think the question to ask her would be: So what first attracted you to rich and successful SeanT?
One also strongly suspects that had the incident been perpetrated by a Syrian Christian (yes we know, the odds of that happening are negligible), then you would consider the religion to be far more relevant that the nationality, because it would suit your prejudices to do so.
Miss Cyclefree, utterly different matter but it's like the West Lothian Question. The political class has decided to try and solve this not by answering it, but by refusing to ask it.
All schools should be state maintained, and teach a non-religious curriculum.
.
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
The connection you are claiming is based on the facts that ISIS and the vast Muslim majority both say they are Muslims, believe that the koran is the word of God, believe in one God, believe that Mohammed was his last prophet, etc. But it would be stretching the concept of "a religion" way past breaking-point to assert that they all have the "same religion". Most Muslims do not consider ISIS to be Muslims, and ISIS don't consider most Muslims to be living their lives as Muslims should either. The body of beliefs and practices that Westboro would call their religion, that basically is their religion, is very different from what it is for most Christians, even if they all believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, etc. The vast majority of Muslims do not view ISIS as guys whose attitude boils down to them being a bit extreme, any more than most Christians think that about Westboro.
https://youtu.be/MJEAGd1bQuc
Neither do I care what Roger does or doesn't think of his country. My interest is how the idea of wanting to stop or reduce terrorism interacts with a desire to close our borders, for example to Muslims a la Trump.
Which I believe to be nonsensical and which lends itself to illogical and damaging actions which don't address the core issue.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/01/your-family-past-present-and-future.html
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/844955986947379200
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/fake-tube-sign-read-out-bbc-westminster-attack?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/844961967685152768
To misquote a famous person's words: There is such a thing as society. I don't want the society I live in to end up fractured because we refuse to apply any sort of common-sense or intelligent judgment to the question of who should be permitted to join it.
But presumably that would not apply to someone born here, otherwise everyone will have to "naturalise".
Hence, my question.
Her two statements these past 24 hours have been very good generally, I think.
Perhaps you could explain?
To me the fella that did this isn't British. He might have been born here and have a British passport, but he clearly doesn't identify as British, as British people shouldn't feel the need to mow down innocent people and stab a police officer to death in the name of some crazy branch of a religion, that has been hijacked by an evil terrorist group that wants to turn the western world into part of its warped Caliphate. I dunno what you'd call him.
However, in practice I expect that the John of Gaunt statistic is wrong because the descendants would have been disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline.
We shouldn't help them. For example, Donald Trump jr, and some on here yesterday, tried to smear Sadiq Kahn. This was dishonest but luckily it was transparent and reflected badly on themselves. But It plays to the ISIS strategy. They should wise up.