Mr. 1000, I'm glad he's not my candidate. I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him if he were [on the basis of his actually liberal approach to pictures of Mohammed and a refusal to back down].
He is the sinner repenteth.
I read his letters in the Ham & High, and struggle to disagree with him on anything. His is a voice that needs to be heard more - by both us and Islamists.
"A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely."
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
Hmm, the article (I think) is actually about an anonymised (supposedly) research database rather than the actual patient data which is a separate system.
The article's reliability is a little open to question, BTW, as it talks about a British system, too, when as any fule kno the Scots, Welsh and NI are going their own ways.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
My suspicion re. Glasgow is that the driver may have been from an Asian background and the authorities have decided not to reveal his name (from which his background would be obvious) in case some people jump to conclusions about why it happened. It would have been far better to be open about it from the start IMO.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now
I'm with Hurst on this. The supremacism and intolerance inherent in Islam makes it uniquely problematic.
Nitpick: problematic means 'doubtful', not 'troublesome'.
Just finished rewatching Sons Of Anarchy and the portrayal of the IRA is brave and condemning. They're almost worse than Mexican cartel types. imdb.com/title/tt1124373/
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
Good post, totally agree.
I tend to stay out of these Islamism arguments because I feel like a charlatan, living in an area so un-multicultural. But I will say, unpalatable though it may be, that the young (mid twenties) Pakistani boys who work in the shop in my village, are unrepentant about their lack of sympathy for the West. They are decent lads and I talk cricket with them, they are from Lahore. I'm pretty laddish and don't care what I say and I've asked them outright what they think of the world's going-ons vis a vis Islam. In response they said they understood why young Muslims go to Syria and they just gave snarled-up faces at mention of America.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
Historic mistake to encourage immigration by people with fundamentally different cultures.
One thing we shouldn't think is that it's an unsolvable problem, an unbridgeable gap, a clash of incompatible cultures and values. Go down that route and we just keep putting up the barriers, closing off a community behind it, and give the virus a greater chance of taking root there.
In the 1980s there was a serious danger from international Sikh terrorism. Sikh communities in the Western diaspora, including Britain and Canada formed a prominent part of this network. There's been no repeat of Air India Flight 182 and the threat has largely fizzled out (the perception certainly has, it's fascinating to see how many people compare British Muslims unfavourably to British Sikhs, who have "integrated better" and are a "model minority") though apparently the legacy of the networks is still there.
Ten years ago a lot of the Tamils I knew were vocal supporters of the Tigers. Sure, they got uncomfortable if you asked too much about the LTTE launching suicide bomb attacks - but just like how you ask a pro-Palestine activist about this stuff, you end up receiving a bunch of arguments about how terrible the conditions are, and why Resistance is justified.
If you ask about it now, people seem to have mixed feelings. "I can understand why the Khalistan movement took back the Golden Temple", "it was tragic so many people died", wavering a bit short of condemnation. But no sense that British Sikhs or British Hindus are about to spearhead a new wave of violence. There was a chap I knew whose close relative had had a very senior position in the IRA and he exhibited the same sort of ambiguity. Shame it happened like that. Weren't politicians idiots for letting it get to that stage. Tough circumstances. Different times. Wouldn't want to walk in those shoes. Would I have been more comfortable hearing a full-blooded "I repent, on my own behalf and on behalf of my own community!" Well it would have sounded nice, but I don't think it would have achieved anything. So long as this wave of Islamist militancy also passes, and we reach this ambiguous but quiet stage, I'll take that as a "win".
It's not an unsolveable problem but it will take a hell of a lot more effort than we are currently putting in.
One point I would make is that the Tamils were defeated, the IRA was defeated and given a share in government. So the militancy was no longer necessary.
Islamist terror will need to be defeated. And to defeat it we need to understand what animates it - the ideology behind it - and fight that so that it is not the potent recruiting ground that it now is.
We have IMO not even made a start on that, not least because so many of the political class have refused to accept that there is an ideological basis for what is happening, where it is coming from and how it is being funded and spread.
Incidentally I don't think it's necessarily a given that the horrors in Paris will boost Le Pen, at least in the short term. Often the response to such events is a rallying around the government, and especially the President as the head of state. Of course it could be different if it turns out that the French government failed to act on warnings or were otherwise asleep on the job - we'll have to wait and see.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland that allowed them to flourish.
Not native Irish, primarily, not by that time. Most of the participants on both sides were native Irish, including the Unionists. But that is a mere point of detail.
Just finished rewatching Sons Of Anarchy and the portrayal of the IRA is brave and condemning. They're almost worse than Mexican cartel types.
If you've never seen it - it's a superb show.
I just wish they had spent a bit more money on the CGI for the final shots, they were absolutely awful and for me ruined what was a huge and fitting finale moment.
For me SoA lost it way a bit in the mid seasons, they weren't as tight as first two, and it lost the over-arching native for a while, but the final season I think wrapped up things well.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
I imagine, as you obviously do, that he pulled the number out of his @rse, and you are using that as a platform for cheap point scoring rather than engaging with the point, which is that even if he massively overestimated his percentage, its still a huge problem.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland that allowed them to flourish.
Not native Irish, primarily, not by that time. Most of the participants on both sides were native Irish, including the Unionists. But that is a mere point of detail.
I was basically trying to avoid using the word "Catholic" to describe them.
Yes, you are correct, the unionists are also native Irish as indeed are the Boers native Africans. To be fair most of the Gerrymandering and offical discrimination was from a Tory elite rather than the nonconformist working classes.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
The data is anonymous? Really? Only in do far as the name is removed. The date of birth and full postcode is to be included, not terribly anonymous is it.
If the reasons given for the data scheme were actually true then they could be accomplished by only the year of birth and the first part of the post code being included.
Incidentally I don't think it's necessarily a given that the horrors in Paris will boost Le Pen, at least in the short term. Often the response to such events is a rallying around the government, and especially the President as the head of state. Of course it could be different if it turns out that the French government failed to act on warnings or were otherwise asleep on the job - we'll have to wait and see.
I think it depends if the current leader is seen as strong and decisive i.e the man / women you want busting some balls. I don't know enough about Hollande and Le Pen to be able to answer who has that reputation, other than Hollande comes across on TV about as well as Ed Miliband i.e the first kid that the bullies would steal their lunch money from.
More ukip denial of free speech.This reveals the nasty authoritarian side of ukip.Ukip can have free speech but ukip denies it to anyone else.What awful hypocrites.
Incidentally I don't think it's necessarily a given that the horrors in Paris will boost Le Pen, at least in the short term. Often the response to such events is a rallying around the government, and especially the President as the head of state. Of course it could be different if it turns out that the French government failed to act on warnings or were otherwise asleep on the job - we'll have to wait and see.
I think it depends if the current leader is seen as strong and decisive i.e the man / women you want busting some balls. I don't know enough about Hollande and Le Pen to be able to answer who has that reputation, other than Hollande comes across on TV about as well as Ed Miliband i.e the first kid that the bullies would steal their lunch money from.
Hollande's nickname in France is "Flanby", which is a French brand of jelly-like caramel custard. I dont think any more needs to be said ;-)
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
More ukip denial of free speech.This reveals the nasty authoritarian side of ukip.Ukip can have free speech but ukip denies it to anyone else.What awful hypocrites.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
Northern Ireland really isn't (and wasn't) comparable to Rhodesia. One can't really talk about people in Northern Ireland being dispossessed unless one goes back a long way in time.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
So, it's Ghana at one end, and Spain at the other. Interesting to see that homosexuality is less of an issue in France, Germany and Spain than the UK. I suspect that if you were to ask people in those countries "how religious are you", and to plot it against homosexuality you'd see a pretty tight correlation.
The data is anonymous? Really? Only in do far as the name is removed. The date of birth and full postcode is to be included, not terribly anonymous is it.
Wrong.
The data that will be shared with researchers is a separate record which does not include personal identification data:
Your date of birth, full postcode, NHS Number and gender rather than your name will be used to link your records in a secure system, managed by the HSCIC. Once this information has been linked, a new record will be created. This new record will not contain information that identifies you.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
The data is anonymous? Really? Only in do far as the name is removed. The date of birth and full postcode is to be included, not terribly anonymous is it.
If the reasons given for the data scheme were actually true then they could be accomplished by only the year of birth and the first part of the post code being included.
I thought - from reading my Ben Goldacre - that it was pseudonymised, with only part of the postcode and the year of birth being in the data.
He pointed out however that, given you know the year that he was born, his rough postcode, and various parts of his medical history that are on public record, you wouldn't have any problem in identifying him in the list of 60m people.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
While I found the Guardian's article balanced - this is not:
It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
More ukip denial of free speech.This reveals the nasty authoritarian side of ukip.Ukip can have free speech but ukip denies it to anyone else.What awful hypocrites.
Yair Rosenberg @Yair_Rosenberg How the terrorists win: @Telegraph is now blurring the cover Mohammed cartoon of #CharlieHebdo in its reporting pic.twitter.com/DffGzIrQZI
"In other words, Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo."
My suspicion re. Glasgow is that the driver may have been from an Asian background and the authorities have decided not to reveal his name (from which his background would be obvious) in case some people jump to conclusions about why it happened. It would have been far better to be open about it from the start IMO.
If that was the case you'd get a different but even worse kind of jumping to conclusions while the police were still doing their inquiries, especially as there is no other* indication of terrorism and some reported evidence positively against it (unconsciousness, in particular).
In that situation it would make even better sense to wait till the police inquiry was finished, and the Crown Office had the report and a reasonable idea of what had actually happened, at least at a first instance (pending a longer term action such as a FAI).
Remember that on statistical grounds it's not very likely at all that the driver is indeed Asian, etc.
Edit: *and that is on the dodgy assumption that an Asian name is an indication at all.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
Northern Ireland really isn't (and wasn't) comparable to Rhodesia. One can't really talk about people in Northern Ireland being dispossessed unless one goes back a long way in time.
Thats not how they saw it over there, other than that the Rhodesians got stopped in their tracks much sooner by Mugabe, Nkomo et al (et al being the USSR and Chinese governments)
Fortunately the dreadful discrimination and gerrymandering has been reformed out of existence in NI so there is no longer a valid greivence for the terrorists to exploit and gain popular support.
Miss Plato, not sure if it's the same instance, but the Telegraph pixellated a cover some hours ago. Twitter was not impressed.
If it did not want to show the image - for what any reason - it should simply have not shown any image. There is no point 'showing' anything pixilated.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
I imagine, as you obviously do, that he pulled the number out of his @rse, and you are using that as a platform for cheap point scoring rather than engaging with the point, which is that even if he massively overestimated his percentage, its still a huge problem.
Nope, I was merely asking where that number came from, a simple question, to which Sunil graciously responded.
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
He seems certain that half of them share that view, and I'm curious as to where that number comes from. It shouldn't be a problem to produce an answer, should it?
I imagine, as you obviously do, that he pulled the number out of his @rse, and you are using that as a platform for cheap point scoring rather than engaging with the point, which is that even if he massively overestimated his percentage, its still a huge problem.
POPULUS: Modern British values are a threat to the Islamic way of life: 36% positive POPULUS: Are there any circumstances under which you think that suicide bombings can ever be justified in the UK against the following types of targets? Civilians 7% Yes POPULUS: Are there any circumstances under which you think that suicide bombings can ever be justified in the UK against the following types of targets? Military 16% Yes http://www.populuslimited.com/wp-content/uploads/download_pdf-050706-The-Times--ITV-News-Muslim-77-Poll.pdf
I'd agree on S5 it got a bit WTF. I became lost with the whole Irish affair stuff. And Clay guessing conveniently the CIA thing.
Great ending. The CGI left me LOL at times. I thought Walton Goggins was brilliant as Venus Van Damme. I cried - not something I tend to do unless Lassie is involved.
Just finished rewatching Sons Of Anarchy and the portrayal of the IRA is brave and condemning. They're almost worse than Mexican cartel types.
If you've never seen it - it's a superb show.
I just wish they had spent a bit more money on the CGI for the final shots, they were absolutely awful and for me ruined what was a huge and fitting finale moment.
For me SoA lost it way a bit in the mid seasons, they weren't as tight as first two, and it lost the over-arching native for a while, but the final season I think wrapped up things well.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
The data is anonymous? Really? Only in do far as the name is removed. The date of birth and full postcode is to be included, not terribly anonymous is it.
If the reasons given for the data scheme were actually true then they could be accomplished by only the year of birth and the first part of the post code being included.
I thought - from reading my Ben Goldacre - that it was pseudonymised, with only part of the postcode and the year of birth being in the data.
He pointed out however that, given you know the year that he was born, his rough postcode, and various parts of his medical history that are on public record, you wouldn't have any problem in identifying him in the list of 60m people.
I'd agree on S5 it got a bit WTF. I became lost with the whole Irish affair stuff. And Clay guessing conveniently the CIA thing.
Great ending. The CGI left me LOL at times. I thought Walton Goggins was brilliant as Venus Van Damme. I cried - not something I tend to do unless Lassie is involved.
Just finished rewatching Sons Of Anarchy and the portrayal of the IRA is brave and condemning. They're almost worse than Mexican cartel types.
If you've never seen it - it's a superb show.
I just wish they had spent a bit more money on the CGI for the final shots, they were absolutely awful and for me ruined what was a huge and fitting finale moment.
For me SoA lost it way a bit in the mid seasons, they weren't as tight as first two, and it lost the over-arching native for a while, but the final season I think wrapped up things well.
Walter Goggins, great in The Shield, great in Justified, great in SoA.
So, it's Ghana at one end, and Spain at the other. Interesting to see that homosexuality is less of an issue in France, Germany and Spain than the UK. I suspect that if you were to ask people in those countries "how religious are you", and to plot it against homosexuality you'd see a pretty tight correlation.
Ghana has similiar views on gambling, unmarried sex & alcohol use.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
How would anyone know?
There aren't anyway near the numbers of other religious minorities in any country in Europe, nowhere near
I am not saying that it would be AS bad, but there would be similar tensions
The problem is the same the world over since the dawn of time, just different people, or groups of people, playing the roles
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
How would anyone know?
There aren't anyway near the numbers of other religious minorities in any country in Europe, nowhere near
I am not saying that it would be AS bad, but there would be similar tensions
The problem is the same the world over since the dawn of time, just different people or groups of people, playing the roles
I agree, see the Hindu Tamil Tigers for instance. Islam as a religion is not the issue, the religion condemns such acts.
Interesting to see that homosexuality is less of an issue in France, Germany and Spain than the UK.
And yet in France thousands and thousands marched to protest against gay marriage and in the UK there wasnt a whimper (well, besides the floods).
But my (Conservative) councillor did tell me that a former loyal supporter rang him up to say that he wasn't going to vote for him in the Council elections because of this issue. He was planning to vote for the Green candidate instead...
I'd agree on S5 it got a bit WTF. I became lost with the whole Irish affair stuff. And Clay guessing conveniently the CIA thing.
Great ending. The CGI left me LOL at times. I thought Walton Goggins was brilliant as Venus Van Damme. I cried - not something I tend to do unless Lassie is involved.
Just finished rewatching Sons Of Anarchy and the portrayal of the IRA is brave and condemning. They're almost worse than Mexican cartel types.
If you've never seen it - it's a superb show.
I just wish they had spent a bit more money on the CGI for the final shots, they were absolutely awful and for me ruined what was a huge and fitting finale moment.
For me SoA lost it way a bit in the mid seasons, they weren't as tight as first two, and it lost the over-arching native for a while, but the final season I think wrapped up things well.
Walter Goggins, great in The Shield, great in Justified, great in SoA.
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
Maajid Nawaz is the LibDem candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn. From what I've read of him, he's seriously impressive.
Seconded.
He is a Muslim who re-tweeted an 'offensive' cartoon in support of free speech saying ..... @MaajidNawaz it never seems to be the 'right' time to discuss attitudes to blasphemy. No one could ever insult me with a cartoon, A CARTOON!
He is Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.
Interesting to see that homosexuality is less of an issue in France, Germany and Spain than the UK.
And yet in France thousands and thousands marched to protest against gay marriage and in the UK there wasnt a whimper (well, besides the floods).
But my (Conservative) councillor did tell me that a former loyal supporter rang him up to say that he wasn't going to vote for him in the Council elections because of this issue. He was planning to vote for the Green candidate instead...
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
Northern Ireland really isn't (and wasn't) comparable to Rhodesia. One can't really talk about people in Northern Ireland being dispossessed unless one goes back a long way in time.
Happened everywhere, at different times. North America, Crimea, Kosovo, Bantus in South Africa, Palestine, Constantinople, ad nauseam. Ultimately might is right.
I guess the lesson is not to allow your currently held territory to be invaded and occupied by another people. Diversity is not a strength.
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
I am no fan of attacking religion for its own sake but this was pure barbarism. Marine Le Pen must now be odds-on to top the 2017 presidential poll, perhaps even the second round!
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
How would anyone know?
There aren't anyway near the numbers of other religious minorities in any country in Europe, nowhere near
I am not saying that it would be AS bad, but there would be similar tensions
The problem is the same the world over since the dawn of time, just different people or groups of people, playing the roles
I agree, see the Hindu Tamil Tigers for instance. Islam as a religion is not the issue, the religion condemns such acts.
What have the Tamil Tigers got to do with the price of fish?
They were no doubt a brutal organisation but they were fighting a brutal and genocidal Government...
PS - a significant number of Tamil Tigers were Christians FYI.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
The data is anonymous? Really? Only in do far as the name is removed. The date of birth and full postcode is to be included, not terribly anonymous is it.
If the reasons given for the data scheme were actually true then they could be accomplished by only the year of birth and the first part of the post code being included.
I thought - from reading my Ben Goldacre - that it was pseudonymised, with only part of the postcode and the year of birth being in the data.
He pointed out however that, given you know the year that he was born, his rough postcode, and various parts of his medical history that are on public record, you wouldn't have any problem in identifying him in the list of 60m people.
Oh, which book of his is that please?
It was one of the chapters in "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that..."
I find the genocide of the Native Americans much worse than almost every other one.
Living on *reservations* and almost wiped out entirely.
Yet there isn't much political capital for them. I had a Navaho BF who went to Berkley and knew more about British politics than 90% of our own residents.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
Northern Ireland really isn't (and wasn't) comparable to Rhodesia. One can't really talk about people in Northern Ireland being dispossessed unless one goes back a long way in time.
Happened everywhere, at different times. North America, Crimea, Kosovo, Bantus in South Africa, Palestine, Constantinople, ad nauseam. Ultimately might is right.
I guess the lesson is not to allow your currently held territory to be invaded and occupied by another people. Diversity is not a strength.
I am no fan of attacking religion for its own sake but this was pure barbarism. Marine Le Pen must now be odds-on to top the 2017 presidential poll, perhaps even the second round!
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
Not just watched on but actively supported.
Some of us have been upset at both. They both stem from the same repulsive ideology.
(Edit): And nothing symbolic about the attack. 12 people were alive this morning and now are dead. And there are mourning families and friends and colleagues.
I am no fan of attacking religion for its own sake but this was pure barbarism. Marine Le Pen must now be odds-on to top the 2017 presidential poll, perhaps even the second round!
She is surely odds-on to top the first round, but polls show her losing 64-to-36 to Juppe in the second round. While that might change a bit following this, I don't find 7-1 to be attractive odds.
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
Not just watched on but actively supported.
Yes, because a good chunk of the secular left have much the same hatred of Christianity that IS nutjobs do, so don't make much of a fuss in the media they control.
IS type Nutjobs killing secular lefties - well that's different.
Very worrying and quite surprising that these people have not been found. It suggests again a level of organisation and planning not always associated with the end game of these atrocities.
I fear this may not yet be over.
The repeal of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 would seem an appropriate preliminary response.
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
Not just watched on but actively supported.
Yes, because a good chunk of the secular left have much the same hatred of Christianity that IS nutjobs do, so don't make much of a fuss in the media they control.
IS type Nutjobs killing secular lefties - well that's different.
Inventive of you to find a way to blame lefties. Give yourself a cookie.
Today's events are truly awful. But it does strike me as sad that people are quite clearly much more upset at 12 killings which symbolically attack free speech, than at the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East which we have watched on from the side-lines.
Not just watched on but actively supported.
Yes, because a good chunk of the secular left have much the same hatred of Christianity that IS nutjobs do, so don't make much of a fuss in the media they control.
IS type Nutjobs killing secular lefties - well that's different.
Inventive of you to find a way to blame lefties. Give yourself a cookie.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
The IRA bombing campaign was done in the name of Irish nationalism, not Christianity.
Sick f*cks either way......
No they were not nice, but it was the disgraceful bigotry and discrimination against native Irish in Northern Ireland by the descendents of settlers who had forcibly appropriated the land that allowed them to flourish. Exactly the same as in Rhodesia.
Northern Ireland really isn't (and wasn't) comparable to Rhodesia. One can't really talk about people in Northern Ireland being dispossessed unless one goes back a long way in time.
The dispossession of the civil rights of the minority by the majority continued until the 1960s at least...
Government has banned videos of adults in consensual sexual activities.
Some Greenies want to stop criticism of climate change.
Free Speech? What free speech.
Life is full of one group of people controlling other people and imposing their ideals on them.
The critical difference being that neither the government nor the Greens are going to come after you with Kalashnikovs and murder you. And the Government passed the law in Parliament.
Very worrying and quite surprising that these people have not been found. It suggests again a level of organisation and planning not always associated with the end game of these atrocities.
I fear this may not yet be over.
The repeal of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 would seem an appropriate preliminary response.
Let's hope they're not on an Eurostar train to London.
Why is it assumed that "people on the left” will be not appalled by what’s happened in Paris?
I’m on the left, and I’m in the "angry as well as appalled” camp. Who or what the hell do terrorists like this think they are?
It’s very concerning for me personally as I’ve helped to arrange and have every intention of attending a series of lectures starting tomorrow week on “Islam in the Modern World.” I’m worried about the attendance we will get, and of course, although we’re in a quiet small town, whether there’ll be any “opposition”.
okc is not the best person to speak on law-abiding citizenry. When the government launched a campaign against the Pharmacist industry's collusion with a £250-million fraud (fake free prescriptions) he screamed blue-murder.
rcs1000 But my bet is it will end up Hollande v Le Pen, only 52-48 Hollande on last poll.
French centre-right hopelessly split and filled with oversize egos, Fillon will run against Juppe or Sarkozy if he does not win UMP nomination, and Sarkozy against Juppe likewise allowing Hollande through middle to round 2. Marine tops round 1
This is the piece from the article that has caused all the fuss:
"This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims." Tony Barber http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9dOaFoC
Half of the article is about suggesting that some publications had gone too far in trying to offend religion, the other half is warning people not to vote for Le Pen.
The starting point for an article that meets the high standards that the FT aspires to, should be the research that the author has done into its subject. We have a right to expect the author to have researched their article and the Editor to have checked the broad points for sense. Charlie Hebdo has published many cartoons and articles mocking Christians, Roman Catholics, Judaism and Islam. So the author, Tony Barber, is completely wrong to refer to it as a "muslim baiting" magazine. The magazine has a record of attacking all main religions equally. What we have is an author , Tony Barber, who also seems to be the Editor approving his own shoddy work. Otherwise where is the sign of another FT Editor exercising the most basic of checks on this article? Is calling Charlie Hebdo a "muslim baiting" magazine, fair? The answer is No. Lionel Barber is either asleep or on holiday or has failed to do his job.
rcs1000 But my bet is it will end up Hollande v Le Pen, only 52-48 Hollande on last poll.
French centre-right hopelessly split and filled with oversize egos, Fillon will run against Juppe or Sarkozy if he does not win UMP nomination, and Sarkozy against Juppe likewise allowing Hollande through middle to round 2. Marine tops round 1
You'll get good odds on that. Hollande may not even run, he's at longer odds than his own PM.
Neil His rating has risen a little recently and he has begin to move to the centre, he only needs to get around 18-20% in round 1, which as president he will do, if Fillon, Sarkozy and Juppe split centre right vote 3 ways in 1st round.
This is the piece from the article that has caused all the fuss:
"This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims."
Half of the article is about suggesting that some publications had gone too far in trying to offend religion, the other half is warning people not to vote for Le Pen.
That article appears to be edited with extra bits, and I think it described the decisions of Charlie Hebdo as "stupidity" before (in that paragraph you quoted).
Neil His rating has risen a little recently and he has begin to move to the centre, he only needs to get around 18-20% in round 1, which as president he will do, if Fillon, Sarkozy and Juppe split centre right vote 3 ways in 1st round.
He also has to get unemployment down because he said he wont even run for a second term if he doesnt. But as I said a Le Pen win over Hollande in round 2 would be a spectacular bet to come in - comparable to backing a little known freshman senator to become POTUS if you've ever known that to happen.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
While I found the Guardian's article balanced - this is not:
It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
The comments are giving it all it deserves......
Its criticising bad satire. I am far from impressed by the usual run of self serving lefty comedians that the BBC peddle. I do not want to shoot them of course but they are a bunch of twonks that are good at making superficial comments they think are funny. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Cr@p political humour deserves to be criticised.
Off topic - well almost since the NHS was 2nd on the BBC News - I see Miliband, when challenged by Cameron, point blank refused to deny saying he wanted 'weaponise the NHS'. I'm guessing if I was a bad satirist I would be saying that today was a good day for Huw Edwards since the deaths of 12 people got him a jolly trip to Paris instead of having to stand in the rain outside some obscure A&E. A good satirist might ask why Edwards is so concentrating on the English NHS instead of that in his homeland.
Neil Now he has removed the 75% top tax rate and Valls is pursuing reforms, I would expect unemployment to fall a little and with a divided centre right Hollande could yet scrape through behind Le Pen to round 2. Then all bets would be off! Chirac did the same in 2002, Sarkozy's ratings were dire before 2012 but he still only narrowly lost, Mitterand had very poor economic news in his first few years, incumbent French presidents do bounce back.
A September IFOP actually had Marine Le Pen beating Hollande 54-46
Guess who mentioned the mess of french politics, who noted the that the french centre-right was split, Holland was so unpopular and Le Pen beating him in the second round.
Unless I'm mistaken the BBC's website article on the PMQ's A&E exchanges fails to mention Miliband's weaponise comments. Curious given the PM's strong condemnation of them.
Neil Now he has removed the 75% top tax rate and Valls is pursuing reforms, I would expect unemployment to fall a little and with a divided centre right Hollande could yet scrape through behind Le Pen to round 2. Then all bets would be off!
I dont think you can necessarily rely on the centre right being far more divided than the centre left. But I think we've both made our positions on this clear! You should back both Hollande and Le Pen now and you'll make a fair amount if your prediction comes in
A September IFOP actually had Marine Le Pen beating Hollande 54-46
Guess who mentioned the mess of french politics, who noted the that the french centre-right was split, Holland was so unpopular and Le Pen beating him in the second round.
I take full modest credit.
You take credit for forecasting something that probably wont happen?
Comments
The article's reliability is a little open to question, BTW, as it talks about a British system, too, when as any fule kno the Scots, Welsh and NI are going their own ways.
Mr. Beds, maybe. I think the presidential vote is in 2017, so that's some way off.
Those figures don't make the 7-1 odds on Mme Le Pen look very interesting.
If you've never seen it - it's a superb show.
One point I would make is that the Tamils were defeated, the IRA was defeated and given a share in government. So the militancy was no longer necessary.
Islamist terror will need to be defeated. And to defeat it we need to understand what animates it - the ideology behind it - and fight that so that it is not the potent recruiting ground that it now is.
We have IMO not even made a start on that, not least because so many of the political class have refused to accept that there is an ideological basis for what is happening, where it is coming from and how it is being funded and spread.
For me SoA lost it way a bit in the mid seasons, they weren't as tight as first two, and it lost the over-arching native for a while, but the final season I think wrapped up things well.
Yes, you are correct, the unionists are also native Irish as indeed are the Boers native Africans. To be fair most of the Gerrymandering and offical discrimination was from a Tory elite rather than the nonconformist working classes.
If the reasons given for the data scheme were actually true then they could be accomplished by only the year of birth and the first part of the post code being included.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jonny-baptists-ukip-hypocrites-try-3219030
The data that will be shared with researchers is a separate record which does not include personal identification data:
Your date of birth, full postcode, NHS Number and gender rather than your name will be used to link your records in a secure system, managed by the HSCIC. Once this information has been linked, a new record will be created. This new record will not contain information that identifies you.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/records/healthrecords/Pages/care-data.aspx
He pointed out however that, given you know the year that he was born, his rough postcode, and various parts of his medical history that are on public record, you wouldn't have any problem in identifying him in the list of 60m people.
That's appalling - blame the victim appeasement = what is the FT thinking of?
How the terrorists win: @Telegraph is now blurring the cover Mohammed cartoon of #CharlieHebdo in its reporting pic.twitter.com/DffGzIrQZI
"In other words, Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9T3JtGH
In that situation it would make even better sense to wait till the police inquiry was finished, and the Crown Office had the report and a reasonable idea of what had actually happened, at least at a first instance (pending a longer term action such as a FAI).
Remember that on statistical grounds it's not very likely at all that the driver is indeed Asian, etc.
Edit: *and that is on the dodgy assumption that an Asian name is an indication at all.
Tony Barber (FT) - Publish and be damned
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9dOaFoC
Fortunately the dreadful discrimination and gerrymandering has been reformed out of existence in NI so there is no longer a valid greivence for the terrorists to exploit and gain popular support.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/pdfs/2005_july_guardian_muslim_poll.pdf
POPULUS: Modern British values are a threat to the Islamic way of life: 36% positive
POPULUS: Are there any circumstances under which you think that suicide bombings can ever be justified in the UK against the following types of targets? Civilians 7% Yes
POPULUS: Are there any circumstances under which you think that suicide bombings can ever be justified in the UK against the following types of targets? Military 16% Yes
http://www.populuslimited.com/wp-content/uploads/download_pdf-050706-The-Times--ITV-News-Muslim-77-Poll.pdf
Great ending. The CGI left me LOL at times. I thought Walton Goggins was brilliant as Venus Van Damme. I cried - not something I tend to do unless Lassie is involved.
There aren't anyway near the numbers of other religious minorities in any country in Europe, nowhere near
I am not saying that it would be AS bad, but there would be similar tensions
The problem is the same the world over since the dawn of time, just different people, or groups of people, playing the roles
He is a Muslim who re-tweeted an 'offensive' cartoon in support of free speech saying .....
@MaajidNawaz it never seems to be the 'right' time to discuss attitudes to blasphemy. No one could ever insult me with a cartoon, A CARTOON!
He is Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.
He is very articulate.
See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/speaking-islam-loudmouths-hijacked
I guess the lesson is not to allow your currently held territory to be invaded and occupied by another people. Diversity is not a strength.
They were no doubt a brutal organisation but they were fighting a brutal and genocidal Government...
PS - a significant number of Tamil Tigers were Christians FYI.
Living on *reservations* and almost wiped out entirely.
Yet there isn't much political capital for them. I had a Navaho BF who went to Berkley and knew more about British politics than 90% of our own residents.
What a sad state of events.
I do - dead tree as well.
(Edit): And nothing symbolic about the attack. 12 people were alive this morning and now are dead. And there are mourning families and friends and colleagues.
Yes, because a good chunk of the secular left have much the same hatred of Christianity that IS nutjobs do, so don't make much of a fuss in the media they control.
IS type Nutjobs killing secular lefties - well that's different.
I fear this may not yet be over.
The repeal of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 would seem an appropriate preliminary response.
Excellent cartoon about #CharlieBebdo. More here bit.ly/1s5jx3f pic.twitter.com/ntc8HW5BU3 t.co/ntc8HW5BU3
Government has banned videos of adults in consensual sexual activities.
Some Greenies want to stop criticism of climate change.
Free Speech? What free speech.
Life is full of one group of people controlling other people and imposing their ideals on them.
But you knew that, didn't you?
:retired-old-duffer-pensioner-alert:
French centre-right hopelessly split and filled with oversize egos, Fillon will run against Juppe or Sarkozy if he does not win UMP nomination, and Sarkozy against Juppe likewise allowing Hollande through middle to round 2. Marine tops round 1
"This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims."
Tony Barber
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9dOaFoC
Half of the article is about suggesting that some publications had gone too far in trying to offend religion, the other half is warning people not to vote for Le Pen.
The starting point for an article that meets the high standards that the FT aspires to, should be the research that the author has done into its subject. We have a right to expect the author to have researched their article and the Editor to have checked the broad points for sense. Charlie Hebdo has published many cartoons and articles mocking Christians, Roman Catholics, Judaism and Islam. So the author, Tony Barber, is completely wrong to refer to it as a "muslim baiting" magazine. The magazine has a record of attacking all main religions equally. What we have is an author , Tony Barber, who also seems to be the Editor approving his own shoddy work. Otherwise where is the sign of another FT Editor exercising the most basic of checks on this article? Is calling Charlie Hebdo a "muslim baiting" magazine, fair? The answer is No. Lionel Barber is either asleep or on holiday or has failed to do his job.
Tony Barber (FT) - Publish and be damned
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9dOaFoC
This is the piece from the article that has caused all the fuss:
"This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims."
Half of the article is about suggesting that some publications had gone too far in trying to offend religion, the other half is warning people not to vote for Le Pen.
That article appears to be edited with extra bits, and I think it described the decisions of Charlie Hebdo as "stupidity" before (in that paragraph you quoted).
Does anyone else notice the difference?
Its criticising bad satire.
I am far from impressed by the usual run of self serving lefty comedians that the BBC peddle. I do not want to shoot them of course but they are a bunch of twonks that are good at making superficial comments they think are funny. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Cr@p political humour deserves to be criticised.
Off topic - well almost since the NHS was 2nd on the BBC News - I see Miliband, when challenged by Cameron, point blank refused to deny saying he wanted 'weaponise the NHS'.
I'm guessing if I was a bad satirist I would be saying that today was a good day for Huw Edwards since the deaths of 12 people got him a jolly trip to Paris instead of having to stand in the rain outside some obscure A&E.
A good satirist might ask why Edwards is so concentrating on the English NHS instead of that in his homeland.
I take full modest credit.