> @Sean_F said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
It is precisely because our own society has been on a journey on these issue that we need to hold firm now not back down. If we believe in inalienable human rights ie that all people are equal then this is not something that we abandon for some people. Sometimes there is no compromise available: either you accept equality for LGBQT people or not. Our society does and therefore the parents who don’t will have to back down. It makes a nonsense of equality or of human rights to say that they are contingent on the personal views of some self-selected group.
I agree.
However I'd also add the same applies to all hatred, not just LGBQTII (*). This is why objections to the term 'Islamaphobia' and the brain-dead 'Islam is not a race!' argument are IMV unsupportable.
We should not pick and choose the hatreds we want to condemn.
(*) Whatever the term's meant to be today: I just saw a BBC article that added '2S' to the front to make '2SLGBTQQIA', which apparently means '2-spirit'. Although it's in a Canadian context, I've no idea what it means.
No religion should be above criticism. Anyone should be entitled to hate a religion or criticise it or mock it. Protecting it from criticism as the term “islamophobia” seeks to do is a complete no-no. It is simply an attempt to introduce an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door.
And Islam is not a race. Any more than Catholicism is not a race. It is not brain dead to say so.
It is perfectly possible to distinguish between criticising a religion (permissible and indeed necessary) and using a religion as a disguised way of criticising a race (the use of “Muslim” to really mean “Paki” as Tommy Robinson and co., do). Anthony Lester QC came up with precisely such wording some years back.
A religion is, in the end, a choice: it is about the freedom to think what we want. But while it is right that people should have that freedom they should not be entitled to have what they think immune from criticism. And when a religion seeks to take away the freedom to disbelieve (as some interpretations of Islam do in relation to apostasy) then that is very much something which should and must be up for debate and criticism. What we choose to do is not a characteristic which should be protected, IMO.
Islamophobia (leaving aside the overuse of 'phobia' is as daft as that of 'denier') is about Islam, which is an idea. I entirely condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and entirely support the right for any idea, especially religious ones, to be scrutinised, mocked, insulted, or subjected to intellectual inquiry.
Islamophobia is a foolish term precisely because it covers both of those things, one wretched, one essential in a free society.
There was a story on Look North (local news in this area) a few months ago about animals not been stunned prior to halal slaughter. There was widespread condemnation but one of those arguing against the condemnation accused those on the other side of having a 'political agenda'. There's a very real risk of people foolishly allowing us to slide into the realm of being unable to criticise or disagree with aspects of Islam simply because it's deemed 'hateful'.
The creed of cultural sensitivity has a lot to answer for. We should defend key tenets of British culture with vigour. Freedom of expression, religion, and sexuality are not small things we should throw on the bonfire of political correctness, but vital parts of a free and fair society.
Yes, I know you disagree. But it is odd that whilst other 'different' groups need protection and get terms about their protection: e.g. Homophobia, misogyny/misandry or anti-Semitism, Muslims seem to be one group who people seem to complain about having such a term - as if they don't want that group to have the same protections as others.
All too often, conversations go like this: Person A: "All Muslims are paedophiles." Person B: "You shouldn't say that, it's racist!" Person C: "You can't be racist against Muslims! Islam isn't a race!"
Which means that Person C is not actually complaining about an evil and disturbing comment by person A, but attacking the person complaining on, frankly, shit grounds.
If someone end up defending sick comments on the basis of "Islam isn't a race!" or "Islamaphobia's a foolish term!", then the problem's with that person, not the original comment. And sadly that's something we see all too often. (*)
I'd strongly argue that the terms are too broadly used, and are sometimes used as a weapon to stifle debate (as indeed are others, such as homophobia or anti-Semitism). But that does not mean that such terms should be scrapped or are useless - just that the terms need to be carefully and properly defined, and for there to be common sense in their use.
(*) I'm not saying you do it; but it does frequently happen.
Does Islam really over the last century have a bigger problem with terrorism, ignoring the rule of law, covering up child rape and being intolerant to homosexuals and Jews than Catholisism ?
Probably a draw - why both religions should be reminded that they are just a religion - not the law of the Uk. Other religion dominated countries are available.
> @Sean_F said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them. > > > > > > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do. > > > > > > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly. > > > > There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society. > > > > Which group, I hear you ask? > > > > Men. > > > > So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men. > > > > And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we? > > That's pretty broad-brush. Men are, in aggregate, more violent than women, but violence by women tends to be very underreported.
Ah ha. A thoughtful answer. We're getting towards one of my points. Islamist violence is very newsworthy. It gives the impression to the unaware that it is the only source of terror. Same for religious-based homophobia. The same people (rightly) condemning it often are silent about homophobia in other places. Worse, they try to tar entirely innocent people (immigrants on general) with the same brush.
When someone ignores the guilty and blames the innocent, they aren't really interested in saving the victims.
> @ah009 said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem? > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
> @TGOHF said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > Trump backs the favourite shock. > > > > > > Also Trump probably doesn’t want to hang out at summits with weirdos like Hancock, Rory or Hunt. > > > > Boris isn’t weird? Where have you been the last two decades? > > It’s a relative scale. All politicians are weird.
All? Nah.
There are certainly an awful lot of weird politicians in Northern Ireland, England and the United States, but that is simply a product of these places having a bizarre, contorted and distorted self-image.
I know an awful lot of Scottish and Swedish politicians, and most of them are ultra-normal, to the point of being soporific.
It is precisely because our own society has been on a journey on these issue that we need to hold firm now not back down. If we believe in inalienable human rights ie that all people are equal then this is not something that we abandon for some people. Sometimes there is no compromise available: either you accept equality for LGBQT people or not. Our society does and therefore the parents who don’t will have to back down. It makes a nonsense of equality or of human rights to say that they are contingent on the personal views of some self-selected group.
I agree.
However I'd also add the same applies to all hatred, not just LGBQTII (*). This is why objections to the term 'Islamaphobia' and the brain-dead 'Islam is not a race!' argument are IMV unsupportable.
We should not pick and choose the hatreds we want to condemn.
(*) Whatever the term's meant to be today: I just saw a BBC article that added '2S' to the front to make '2SLGBTQQIA', which apparently means '2-spirit'. Although it's in a Canadian context, I've no idea what it means.
No religion should be above criticism. Anyone should be entitled to hate a religion or criticise it or mock it. Protecting it from criticism as the term “islamophobia” seeks to do is a complete no-no. It is simply an attempt to introduce an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door.
(Snip)
Of course no religion is above criticism. I'm agnostic, and I'm slightly wary about *all* faith schools - and I attended one. When it comes to Islam, I don't like the exceptions to the practices behind halal-kosher meat. I think there are limited occasions when the niqab - and particularly the burkha - should not be worn in public (*), with courts being one such occasion. I'd argue strongly for my views on these topics, and am well aware that I might get called 'islamaphobic' for it.
To which my reply would be based on a (hopefully) rational argument of my views. I can hopefully defend them reasonably well.
If you remember, I also argued against the recent attempt at a definition for 'islamaphobia'. Not because of the term itself, but because it was rather poor. I also often comment on the differences between race, religion and culture, and the way these are often purposefully confused.
As it happens, homophobia can also be used as a weapon. When I was working in London, someone (IMV laughably) accused me of being homophobic because I didn't like a gay boss of mine. To which my reply was that it was nothing to do with him being gay or his lifestyle: it was because he was a git.
(*) I have little issue with the hijab in most circumstances.
> @HYUFD said: > > @StuartDickson said: > > OldKingCole > > > > Your link was broken. Fixed > > > > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp > > > > A decade?? You wish! > > > > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas. > > > > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM. > > > > > > It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government
Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas.
> > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28.
>
> >
>
> > It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school.
>
> >
>
> > @oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, we have bigots right here and how many are calling it out? Few. Same reasons? Fuck knows. But I've had it all my life, so no surprises.
>
> You may well be right that there is tacit agreement. There is open agreement by some eg that ghastly McVey woman.
>
>
> It shows that for all the talk people don’t really care enough about equality for gay people or free speech. And that gets me really mad. This stuff matters.
Yes it really does.
We have been spineless and continue to be so.
You have to be pretty stupid to believe people believe in all this equality crap, especially lying cheating politicians. If people were not too cowardly to speak out these politicians would reverse everything tout suite. This country is full of fakes and politicians top the league.
While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”.
Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch!
He is an oaf without any manners.
Unlike the arses that run the UK, a bunch of privileged cretins who are thick as mince and twice as oafish.
> @StuartDickson said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @StuartDickson said: > > > OldKingCole > > > > > > Your link was broken. Fixed > > > > > > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp > > > > > > A decade?? You wish! > > > > > > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas. > > > > > > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM. > > > > > > > > > > It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government > > Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas.
No it wasn't, we still had that in the 1970s when we had high inflation, many nationalised industries and mass strikes pre Thatcher
We're getting towards one of my points. Islamist violence is very newsworthy. It gives the impression to the unaware that it is the only source of terror. Same for religious-based homophobia. The same people (rightly) condemning it often are silent about homophobia in other places. Worse, they try to tar entirely innocent people (immigrants on general) with the same brush.
When someone ignores the guilty and blames the innocent, they aren't really interested in saving the victims.
I keep on noting the *scale* of abuse in this country: in all directions. Since most PBers are not exactly solitary people, we probably all know someone who has suffered abuse, possibly even in the last year. The scale is hideous.
When it come to childhood abuse (just a part of the total), in England and Wales (1)
– 9% of adults experienced psychological abuse during childhood. – 7% suffered physical abuse in childhood – 7% suffered sexual assault in childhood – 8% witnessed domestic violence or abuse in the home during childhood
When it comes to sexual assault, one in five adult women in the UK have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16 (3)
When it comes to sexual assault of boys, there's sadly a societal view that it is terrible for a girl below 16 to have sex with a man, whereas a boy below 16 having sex with a woman is great for him.
And sometimes not even that: I once heard a WWC man say of girls: "If they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to f***."
The abuse committed by some Muslim men in this country has been hideous. What is also hideous are those who complain about it solely because of the identity of the perpetrators, yet ignore all the other sexual and non-sexual abuse that is going on. Sadly we see that all too often on here.
Moving on to domestic abuse: a third of all domestic abuse of adults occurs to men, and 695,000 men and 1.3 million women have suffered abuse in the last year. (2)
This is not a reason to downplay abuse of women (and in fact, many of the perpetrators of abuse of men might be male), but it should not be ignored.
Abuse is common. We need to accept it, understand it, try to prevent it, and help the victims (and perhaps even the perpetrators as well).
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > > > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > > > > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem? > > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there. > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house? > > Wot?
Firstly, I'm pro-the school and anti-the protesters - who in many cases are being utterly nonsensical. I'd also have no problem with my son (nearly five) being taught about such topics: after all, his school has many families with different lifestyles and arrangements from the 'normal' mum-and-dad ones - and not just based on sexuality. Single parents are another example where society can be less than accepting. And I'm a stay-at-home dad, whilst my wife works.
The lesson is a broad one: 'different' does not automatically equate to 'bad' or 'wrong'.
There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials.
Also, when talking about the cultures, we should remember that our own 'culture' has been on somewhat of a journey over the last four or five decades - and that some of the views being expressed by the protesters would have been much more acceptable twenty or thirty decades ago. Views and acceptability change: and ours have moved on in what is (IMO) a positive direction.
For instance, Tim Farron might well be nearer the protesters' view than the PB consensus - and he was Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago!
It is precisely because our own society has been on a journey on these issue that we need to hold firm now not back down. If we believe in inalienable human rights ie that all people are equal then this is not something that we abandon for some people. Sometimes there is no compromise available: either you accept equality for LGBQT people or not. Our society does and therefore the parents who don’t will have to back down. It makes a nonsense of equality or of human rights to say that they are contingent on the personal views of some self-selected group.
I agree.
However I'd also add the same applies to all hatred, not just LGBQTII (*). This is why objections to the term 'Islamaphobia' and the brain-dead 'Islam is not a race!' argument are IMV unsupportable.
We should not pick and choose the hatreds we want to condemn.
(*) Whatever the term's meant to be today: I just saw a BBC article that added '2S' to the front to make '2SLGBTQQIA', which apparently means '2-spirit'. Although it's in a Canadian context, I've no idea what it means.
> > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
> > > >
> > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
> >
> > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> Wot?
FFS. That's not funny.
Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
> @malcolmg said: > > @MarqueeMark said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > > > > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem? > > > > > > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there. > > > > > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house? > > > > > > Wot? > > > > FFS. That's not funny. > > Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
> Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
>
> I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
>
> It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
Not publicly. He endangered people's lives
Shahmir went for a very public attack
Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
> > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
>
> > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
>
> > >
>
> > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> >
>
> > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> >
>
> > Wot?
>
>
>
> FFS. That's not funny.
>
> Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
Racism is not funny FFS
As I said it depends on context , it could well be funny. Too many snowflakes about nowadays , everybody is supposed to be PC , boring and accept everything they are ordered to think. People should be allowed to be themselves , not forced to like everything the PC brigade insist is mandatory. As long as they are not abusing people or committing crimes they are entitled to their opinions , just because you or I don't like them does not mean they cannot have their opinions. Plus if being pedantic "Muslims" is not a race it is a religion. Assume you have never like a pope joke or laughed at Mason Boyne. PS: go and have a laughhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjRml25RIB0
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > What is the case you mention? > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding. > > > > > > I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't. > > > > > > It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself? > > > > Not publicly. He endangered people's lives > > Shahmir went for a very public attack > > Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > What is the case you mention? > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding. > > > > > > I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't. > > > > > > It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself? > > > > Not publicly. He endangered people's lives > > Shahmir went for a very public attack > > Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
You can defend yourself without going down the jilted lover path. Which, incidentally, is really nothing to do with anything. It was revenge, not a defence.
Sweden has just completed its final, definitive count of European Parliament votes. The final 24,000 valid votes did not change the preliminary seat allocation announced on the night.
The “Brexit seat” if and when the UK leaves the EU would go to the Greens (G/EFA). Their 3rd place candidate is the wonderful Bodil Valero, one of very few European politicians to vociferously defend Catalan elected representatives from political persecution by Madrid.
> @ah009 said: > > @MarqueeMark said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > > > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > > > > > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem? > > > > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there. > > > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house? > > > > Wot? > > FFS. That's not funny.
> @malcolmg said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > > @MarqueeMark said: > > > > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > ; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > > > > > > > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wot? > > > > > > > > > > > > FFS. That's not funny. > > > > > > Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny. > > > > Racism is not funny FFS > > As I said it depends on context , it could well be funny. Too many snowflakes about nowadays , everybody is supposed to be PC , boring and accept everything they are ordered to think. People should be allowed to be themselves , not forced to like everything the PC brigade insist is mandatory. As long as they are not abusing people or committing crimes they are entitled to their opinions , just because you or I don't like them does not mean they cannot have their opinions. Plus if being pedantic "Muslims" is not a race it is a religion. > Assume you have never like a pope joke or laughed at Mason Boyne. > PS: go and have a laugh
The old pattern. 1. Tell racist joke 2. Complain about the reaction as if the person doesn't like jokes rather than the fact that they don't like racism 3. Call them a snowflake 4. Mention some entirely imagined hypocrisy 5. Play the "religion not race" card (ably discussed by others below)
> @HYUFD said: > > @StuartDickson said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @StuartDickson said: > > > > OldKingCole > > > > > > > > Your link was broken. Fixed > > > > > > > > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp > > > > > > > > A decade?? You wish! > > > > > > > > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas. > > > > > > > > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government > > > > Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas. > > No it wasn't, we still had that in the 1970s when we had high inflation, many nationalised industries and mass strikes pre Thatcher
Scottish oil only began to flow in 1975. Of course it took a few years for revenues to build, and Thatcher hit the sweet spot.
> > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Wot?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > FFS. That's not funny.
>
> >
>
> > Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
>
>
>
> Racism is not funny FFS
>
The old pattern.
1. Tell racist joke
2. Complain about the reaction as if the person doesn't like jokes rather than the fact that they don't like racism
3. Call them a snowflake
4. Mention some entirely imagined hypocrisy
5. Play the "religion not race" card (ably discussed by others below)
You can defend yourself without going down the jilted lover path. Which, incidentally, is really nothing to do with anything. It was revenge, not a defence.
Comments
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> >
> > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
> >
> > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
>
>
> Why is "maleness" a problem?
The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
And Islam is not a race. Any more than Catholicism is not a race. It is not brain dead to say so.
It is perfectly possible to distinguish between criticising a religion (permissible and indeed necessary) and using a religion as a disguised way of criticising a race (the use of “Muslim” to really mean “Paki” as Tommy Robinson and co., do). Anthony Lester QC came up with precisely such wording some years back.
A religion is, in the end, a choice: it is about the freedom to think what we want. But while it is right that people should have that freedom they should not be entitled to have what they think immune from criticism. And when a religion seeks to take away the freedom to disbelieve (as some interpretations of Islam do in relation to apostasy) then that is very much something which should and must be up for debate and criticism. What we choose to do is not a characteristic which should be protected, IMO.
All too often, conversations go like this:
Person A: "All Muslims are paedophiles."
Person B: "You shouldn't say that, it's racist!"
Person C: "You can't be racist against Muslims! Islam isn't a race!"
Which means that Person C is not actually complaining about an evil and disturbing comment by person A, but attacking the person complaining on, frankly, shit grounds.
If someone end up defending sick comments on the basis of "Islam isn't a race!" or "Islamaphobia's a foolish term!", then the problem's with that person, not the original comment. And sadly that's something we see all too often. (*)
I'd strongly argue that the terms are too broadly used, and are sometimes used as a weapon to stifle debate (as indeed are others, such as homophobia or anti-Semitism). But that does not mean that such terms should be scrapped or are useless - just that the terms need to be carefully and properly defined, and for there to be common sense in their use.
(*) I'm not saying you do it; but it does frequently happen.
Probably a draw - why both religions should be reminded that they are just a religion - not the law of the Uk. Other religion dominated countries are available.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do.
> > >
> > > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly.
> >
> > There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society.
> >
> > Which group, I hear you ask?
> >
> > Men.
> >
> > So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men.
> >
> > And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
>
> That's pretty broad-brush. Men are, in aggregate, more violent than women, but violence by women tends to be very underreported.
Ah ha. A thoughtful answer.
We're getting towards one of my points. Islamist violence is very newsworthy. It gives the impression to the unaware that it is the only source of terror. Same for religious-based homophobia. The same people (rightly) condemning it often are silent about homophobia in other places. Worse, they try to tar entirely innocent people (immigrants on general) with the same brush.
When someone ignores the guilty and blames the innocent, they aren't really interested in saving the victims.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
> > >
> > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> >
> >
> > Why is "maleness" a problem?
>
> The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
Wot?
> OldKingCole
>
> Your link was broken. Fixed
>
> https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp
>
> A decade?? You wish!
>
> It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas.
>
> I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM.
>
>
It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government
> > @TGOHF said:
>
> > Trump backs the favourite shock.
>
> >
>
> > Also Trump probably doesn’t want to hang out at summits with weirdos like Hancock, Rory or Hunt.
>
>
>
> Boris isn’t weird? Where have you been the last two decades?
>
> It’s a relative scale. All politicians are weird.
All? Nah.
There are certainly an awful lot of weird politicians in Northern Ireland, England and the United States, but that is simply a product of these places having a bizarre, contorted and distorted self-image.
I know an awful lot of Scottish and Swedish politicians, and most of them are ultra-normal, to the point of being soporific.
> Trump backs the favourite shock.
>
> Also Trump probably doesn’t want to hang out at summits with weirdos like Hancock, Rory or Hunt.
Trump was actually quite positive about Hunt too saying 'yup, I like him' the two having met at summits.
He was a bit annoyed at Gove though for saying his administration was 'sabre-rattling' over Iran
To which my reply would be based on a (hopefully) rational argument of my views. I can hopefully defend them reasonably well.
If you remember, I also argued against the recent attempt at a definition for 'islamaphobia'. Not because of the term itself, but because it was rather poor. I also often comment on the differences between race, religion and culture, and the way these are often purposefully confused.
As it happens, homophobia can also be used as a weapon. When I was working in London, someone (IMV laughably) accused me of being homophobic because I didn't like a gay boss of mine. To which my reply was that it was nothing to do with him being gay or his lifestyle: it was because he was a git.
(*) I have little issue with the hijab in most circumstances.
> > @StuartDickson said:
> > OldKingCole
> >
> > Your link was broken. Fixed
> >
> > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp
> >
> > A decade?? You wish!
> >
> > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas.
> >
> > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM.
> >
> >
>
> It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government
Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @StuartDickson said:
> > > OldKingCole
> > >
> > > Your link was broken. Fixed
> > >
> > > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp
> > >
> > > A decade?? You wish!
> > >
> > > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas.
> > >
> > > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government
>
> Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas.
No it wasn't, we still had that in the 1970s when we had high inflation, many nationalised industries and mass strikes pre Thatcher
When it come to childhood abuse (just a part of the total), in England and Wales (1)
– 9% of adults experienced psychological abuse during childhood.
– 7% suffered physical abuse in childhood
– 7% suffered sexual assault in childhood
– 8% witnessed domestic violence or abuse in the home during childhood
When it comes to sexual assault, one in five adult women in the UK have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16 (3)
When it comes to sexual assault of boys, there's sadly a societal view that it is terrible for a girl below 16 to have sex with a man, whereas a boy below 16 having sex with a woman is great for him.
And sometimes not even that: I once heard a WWC man say of girls: "If they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to f***."
The abuse committed by some Muslim men in this country has been hideous. What is also hideous are those who complain about it solely because of the identity of the perpetrators, yet ignore all the other sexual and non-sexual abuse that is going on. Sadly we see that all too often on here.
Moving on to domestic abuse: a third of all domestic abuse of adults occurs to men, and 695,000 men and 1.3 million women have suffered abuse in the last year. (2)
This is not a reason to downplay abuse of women (and in fact, many of the perpetrators of abuse of men might be male), but it should not be ignored.
Abuse is common. We need to accept it, understand it, try to prevent it, and help the victims (and perhaps even the perpetrators as well).
(1): https://napac.org.uk/key-facts-figures/
(2): https://fullfact.org/crime/are-third-domestic-abuse-victims-men/
(3): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/08/sexual-assault-women-crime-survey-england-wales-ons-police-figures
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
> > > >
> > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
> >
> > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> Wot?
FFS. That's not funny.
> > @MarqueeMark said:
>
> > > @ah009 said:
>
> > > > @Sean_F said:
>
> > > > > @ah009 said:
>
> > > > > > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> > > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
>
> > > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
>
> > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
>
> > >
>
> > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> >
>
> > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> >
>
> > Wot?
>
>
>
> FFS. That's not funny.
>
> Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
Racism is not funny FFS
Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
Assume you have never like a pope joke or laughed at Mason Boyne.
PS: go and have a laughhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjRml25RIB0
> > @Charles said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > > What is the case you mention?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
>
> >
>
> > I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
>
> >
>
> > It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
>
>
>
> Not publicly. He endangered people's lives
>
> Shahmir went for a very public attack
>
> Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
> @Charles said:
> > @Charles said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > > What is the case you mention?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
>
> >
>
> > I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
>
> >
>
> > It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
>
>
>
> Not publicly. He endangered people's lives
>
> Shahmir went for a very public attack
>
> Parkinson would have been convicted in the media if he couldn’t have made a defence
You can defend yourself without going down the jilted lover path. Which, incidentally, is really nothing to do with anything. It was revenge, not a defence.
The “Brexit seat” if and when the UK leaves the EU would go to the Greens (G/EFA). Their 3rd place candidate is the wonderful Bodil Valero, one of very few European politicians to vociferously defend Catalan elected representatives from political persecution by Madrid.
> > @MarqueeMark said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > > > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> > > > > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
> > >
> > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
> >
> > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
> >
> > Wot?
>
> FFS. That's not funny.
Yes it is.
> > @malcolmg said:
>
> > > @MarqueeMark said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @ah009 said:
>
> >
>
> > > > > @Sean_F said:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > @ah009 said:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> >
>
> ;
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Why is "maleness" a problem?
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The extremely high correlation between gender and all the nastiest crime and terrorism I detailed. Read the thread, it's all there.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Can we all just agree that the great bulk of crime committed by Muslims is committed by men, because the women aren't allowed out the house?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Wot?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > FFS. That's not funny.
>
> >
>
> > Sense of Humour bypass, no wonder there are so many long faces in this country nowadays. Depending on the context it could be extremely funny.
>
>
>
> Racism is not funny FFS
>
> As I said it depends on context , it could well be funny. Too many snowflakes about nowadays , everybody is supposed to be PC , boring and accept everything they are ordered to think. People should be allowed to be themselves , not forced to like everything the PC brigade insist is mandatory. As long as they are not abusing people or committing crimes they are entitled to their opinions , just because you or I don't like them does not mean they cannot have their opinions. Plus if being pedantic "Muslims" is not a race it is a religion.
> Assume you have never like a pope joke or laughed at Mason Boyne.
> PS: go and have a laugh
The old pattern.
1. Tell racist joke
2. Complain about the reaction as if the person doesn't like jokes rather than the fact that they don't like racism
3. Call them a snowflake
4. Mention some entirely imagined hypocrisy
5. Play the "religion not race" card (ably discussed by others below)
I'm done indulging your racist filth.
> > @StuartDickson said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @StuartDickson said:
> > > > OldKingCole
> > > >
> > > > Your link was broken. Fixed
> > > >
> > > > https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp
> > > >
> > > > A decade?? You wish!
> > > >
> > > > It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas.
> > > >
> > > > I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was actually Thatcher who stopped is being the sick man of Europe and Blair who entrenched it by leading a non socialist Labour government
> >
> > Thatcher?? Blair?? Piffle. It was Scottish oil and gas.
>
> No it wasn't, we still had that in the 1970s when we had high inflation, many nationalised industries and mass strikes pre Thatcher
Scottish oil only began to flow in 1975. Of course it took a few years for revenues to build, and Thatcher hit the sweet spot.
> This thread has failed to get enough nominations
This thread is in the Richard Leonard classification: a complete dud.