O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[kempo]

A predictable view re profiling from Kerr.

I disagree...not surprisingly.

We should carry out profiling much more than we do.

Islamic terrorism against the West tends to be carried out by Muslim looking people with rucksacks so we should concentrate on these people and stop worrying about hurting the feelings of the Muslim community.

It matters not that terrorists identify the profiling as its easy to identify now ie random searching.

It would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids with receding hair lines in tow so it's time consuming and pointless searching them.

Obviously if this type of person started blowing up children then we would have to tweak the profiling.

In short..It's Muslims who are the risk therefore they should be targeted with searches and so on.

It was this fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue for so long.

No doubt Kerr would think it wrong to target Taxi drivers and fast food workers when looking for a abusers but he would be wrong again.

I was at Newark ( New York) a few weeks ago and like Miami brown people were being searched on entering the departure lounge and white people not so...Nobody complained and it seems a sensible policy.

[Shark27]

A predictable view re profiling from Kerr.

I disagree...not surprisingly.

We should carry out profiling much more than we do.

Islamic terrorism against the West tends to be carried out by Muslim looking people with rucksacks so we should concentrate on these people and stop worrying about hurting the feelings of the Muslim community.

It matters not that terrorists identify the profiling as its easy to identify now ie random searching.

It would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids with receding hair lines in tow so it's time consuming and pointless searching them.

Obviously if this type of person started blowing up children then we would have to tweak the profiling.

In short..It's Muslims who are the risk therefore they should be targeted with searches and so on.

It was this fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue for so long.

No doubt Kerr would think it wrong to target Taxi drivers and fast food workers when looking for a abusers but he would be wrong again.

I was at Newark ( New York) a few weeks ago and like Miami brown people were being searched on entering the departure lounge and white people not so...Nobody complained and it seems a sensible policy.

It also meant that Mustaf Jama who was wanted for the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky could get through airport security dressed in a burkha. He fled to Somalia, the country where he couldn't be deported to following his previous crimes as it was too dangerous for him.

[KerrAvon]

A predictable view re profiling from Kerr.

I disagree...not surprisingly.

We should carry out profiling much more than we do.

Islamic terrorism against the West tends to be carried out by Muslim looking people with rucksacks so we should concentrate on these people and stop worrying about hurting the feelings of the Muslim community.

It matters not that terrorists identify the profiling as its easy to identify now ie random searching.

It would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids with receding hair lines in tow so it's time consuming and pointless searching them.

Obviously if this type of person started blowing up children then we would have to tweak the profiling.

In short..It's Muslims who are the risk therefore they should be targeted with searches and so on.

It was this fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue for so long.

No doubt Kerr would think it wrong to target Taxi drivers and fast food workers when looking for a abusers but he would be wrong again.

I was at Newark ( New York) a few weeks ago and like Miami brown people were being searched on entering the departure lounge and white people not so...Nobody complained and it seems a sensible policy.

I agree that there should be profiling, but making the profiling so obvious that a casual observer can spot it and failing to acknowledge that such an approach carries risk is simply foolish.

I also agree that it would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids, but on the flights that I have been on, there hasn't been a simple dichotomy between such people and people who could be described as being 'Muslim looking people', making that a foolish point to make

As for the concept of 'Muslim looking people', I'm intrigued. What do they look like exactly? I would accept that it is possible to make a well informed guess about the religion of some people, but how about the child that is the subject of this report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-Syria.html

And what of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, who was born to a white British mother and a father who had a Jamaican father. Was he of Muslim appearance? He was a convert to Islam, and, as I'm sure you'd agree, converts can be the most religiously dedicated (which is predictable given that they have chosen their faith rather than being born into it). Perhaps Reid was not searched when he boarded his flight from Paris to Miami (of all places), because he didn’t fit the profile being used that day?

It was not a fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue as it did, or at least that is what Professor Jay concluded. In most instances, it was a failure to recognise the abuse for what is was rather than seeing it as being consensual behaviour by children that the police had difficulty engaging with.

Insofar as much of the abuse in Rotherham was perpetrated by Taxi drivers and fast food workers, it is important that the police be aware that such people have proved to be high risk groups for offending of that type. The same applies for anybody of people that have contact with children, however, because it is that contact that allows abuse to take place. Ignoring that reality would also be foolish.

[a123]

I agree that there should be profiling, but making the profiling so obvious that a casual observer can spot it and failing to acknowledge that such an approach carries risk is simply foolish.

I agree that it would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids, but on the flights that I have been on, there hasn't been a simple dichotomy between such people and people who could be described as being 'Muslim looking people'.

As for the concept of 'Muslim looking people', I'm intrigued. What do they look like exactly? I agree that is possible to make a well informed guess about the religion of some people, but how about the child that is the subject of this report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-Syria.html

And what of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, who was born to a white British mother and a father who had a Jamaican father. Was he of Muslim appearance? He was a convert to Islam, and, as I'm sure you'd agree, converts can be the most religiously dedicated (which is predictable given that they have chosen their faith rather than being born into it. Perhaps Reid was not searched when he boarded his flight from Paris to Miami (of all places), because he didn’t fit the profile being used that day?

It was not a fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue as it did, or at least that is what Professor Jay concluded. In most instances, it was a failure to recognise the abuse for what is was rather than seeing it as being consensual behaviour by children that the police had difficulty engaging with.

Insofar as much of the abuse in Rotherham was perpetrated by Taxi drivers and fast food workers, it is important that the police be aware that such people have proved to be high risk groups for offending of that type. The same applies for anybody of people that have contact with children, however, because it is that contact that allows abuse to take place.

It's quite simple really from observing a number of news programmes since the Manchester atrocity they make it easy to identify themselves by starting any response with the opening stanza of "As a British Muslim .........."

I've not witnessed this phenomenon amongst other faiths, for example if someone asked for my opinion on something I wouldn't start my reply with "As a British Christian ..........."

[Ellis_D]

The word apologist gets thrown around in threads like these. Is there any better example than the way that you bend over backwards to defend the actions of the man that you call Tommy? He is fairly heavily convicted, but you explain all those convictions away in a manner that would have even the most dedicated defence advocates blushing. You only grudgingly accept that the ‘charity walk’ was probably a political stunt. You do a Nelsonian ‘I see no ships act’ act when watching the video. Your apologism is spreading too. I see that you now greet Turfmoorspirit’s latest offering by immediately giving him a way out – I would hope you only made the comment because you have been out drinking, and as it is Bank Holiday weekend, you have got carried away.

I'm not even going to waste both our time by responding to the rest. You are so sure about where you stand, I am so sure about where I stand, and nothing even of us will say will change each other's minds, so it's pointless discussing it further.

I will say, though, that I know more about Tommy's court cases than most on here, if not all, and I was merely trying to show that it's not all as black and white as leftist websites suggest.

And last night I was very drunk myself, and because of the time, very tired. But I was extremely shocked to see what Turf had put. Far from trying to offer him a way out as you suggest, I was merely trying to be diplomatic in my drunken state.

No surprise though, that you only chose to highlight that part if what I said and completely left out everything else I said on the matter.

[KerrAvon]

It also meant that Mustaf Jama who was wanted for the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky could get through airport security dressed in a burkha. He fled to Somalia, the country where he couldn't be deported to following his previous crimes as it was too dangerous for him.

What also meant that Mustaf Jama could get through airport security dressed in a burkha? The use of profiling? That seems unlikely to me. I assume he got through because he wasn't asked to remove his face covering. As far as I'm concerned, that should be a requirement at passport control, with female immigration officers carrying out the check if it would cause offence for it to be a male.

[KerrAvon]

It's quite simple really from observing a number of news programmes since the Manchester atrocity they make it easy to identify themselves by starting any response with the opening stanza of "As a British Muslim .........."

I've not witnessed this phenomenon amongst other faiths, for example if someone asked for my opinion on something I wouldn't start my reply with "As a British Christian ..........."

You are chucking your hand in with kempo to make foolish points? Fair enough. Each to their own.

[Shark27]

What also meant that Mustaf Jama could get through airport security dressed in a burkha?

The fear of investigating Muslims i.e. Airport security or passport control investigating whether that particular Muslim should be allowed to travel out of the country. Would you think that there would be any chance that a white person at that time would have been allowed through with their face covered up? I very much doubt it.

[a123]

You are chucking your hand in with kempo to make foolish points? Fair enough. Each to their own.

No it just irks me because it is totally unnecessary in most cases to need to say it and adds no weight whatsoever to the point the person is trying to make.

[KerrAvon]

I'm not even going to waste both our time by responding to the rest. You are so sure about where you stand, I am so sure about where I stand, and nothing even of us will say will change each other's minds, so it's pointless discussing it further.

I will say, though, that I know more about Tommy's court cases than most on here, if not all, and I was merely trying to show that it's not all as black and white as leftist websites suggest.

And last night I was very drunk myself, and because of the time, very tired. But I was extremely shocked to see what Turf had put. Far from trying to offer him a way out as you suggest, I was merely trying to be diplomatic in my drunken state.

No surprise though, that you only chose to highlight that part if what I said and completely left out everything else I said on the matter.

I think we could agree upon many things, Ellis, but never on your internment point, your belief that Anjem Choudary should have been allowed to march in Wootton Basset or upon your attempt to launder Tommy Robinson and his past.

To say that you know more about 'Tommy's' court cases than most on here is a very bold statement. How do you know that? How do you know about 'Tommy's' cases?

As for your complaint about my treatment of your response to Turfmoorsprit, I reproduced the whole of your post. How can you seriously claim that I was being selective?