OT - Boris Johnson and the Freedom of Speech

[Romanis]

Sorry gents, but maybe to turn our attention away from the excitement of deadline day, maybe a damp squib isn't so bad.

I don't see what's the big fuss about what he said. It's bleeding obvious!
I do understand some might find it offensive, but then the proper response should be

' 1 look at Boris Johnson, should erase any doubt that man descended from apes.'

He's a buffoon, a moron, heck, he even makes Donald Trump look like a genius!
The way he speaks, the mumbling, the choice of words and his mannerisms. God help us, if he becomes Prime Minister.

[MadAmster]

Speaks first............... and that's it. No thought. Before or after the fact.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I thought it was quite amusing myself, albeit perhaps lacking in subtlety. Every time I post a letter now, then I will see eyes looking out of the mailbox! If you cant laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

[Manofpride]

Wrong in what he said but they should be banned, this is UK 2018. Some children are made to wear these from the age of 4/5 years old.
I just don't think it's right.

[Romanis]

I thought it was quite amusing myself, albeit perhaps lacking in subtlety. Every time I post a letter now, then I will see eyes looking out of the mailbox! If you cant laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

Exactly, Monsieur, Exactly.

[MadAmster]

Western society has been built on, among other things, openness (in the main). That means seeing the face of the one you are communicating with. Their facial expression tells you a lot and helps you better interpret the words they speak. We can't do that with Muslims who cover their faces.

Female UK Prime Ministers and even the Queen cover their heads when visiting Muslim countries. They do so to adhere to local custom. A custom that appears nowhere in the Quran and has no basis in Islam. I have yet to understand why Muslims can come here and keep to their custom of face covering for women, something which goes totally against Western custom.

One reason for not allowing the Burkha is that you can't tell if it is a man or a woman behind the veil.

[ramAnag]

Boris Johnson knows exactly what he’s doing imo...divide and rule by pandering to the views of the stupid and the prejudiced.
Totally irresponsible and unhelpful comments and the recycling of a very old joke.
Not entirely keen on the burka myself but how different is it from dark glasses, scarves, hoodies, beards and peaked/baseball caps pulled down to shade the face?
Yesterday on the news a late middle aged woman was spouting nonsense about how unacceptable the wearing of the burka was...’might be a man under there’ she shrieked whilst wearing the sort of over sized sunglasses that covered her face from the middle of her nose to well above her eyebrows. Oh the irony...and by coincidence, she would have looked much better in a burka!

P.S. Certainly never seen a child wearing a burka MoP and aren’t there lots of examples these days of wondering whether some one is a ‘man or a woman’ MA?

[MadAmster]

aren’t there lots of examples these days of wondering whether some one is a ‘man or a woman’ MA?

Yes, but some butch geezer with a baritone voice in a dress is usually quite easy to spot ;)

[Geoff Parkstone]

Boris Johnson knows exactly what he’s doing imo...divide and rule by pandering to the views of the stupid and the prejudiced.
Totally irresponsible and unhelpful comments and the recycling of a very old joke.


I guess that I too must be stupid and prejudiced then.

What people do in the privacy of their own home is up to them - although ironically this is possible the one place that the Burka is cast aside! What people do when working in people facing jobs (eg in the case I have experienced, as a teller in a bank) is however quite different. To me its quite simple, when interacting with people in a workplace, be they customers or other employees, then the use of the Burkha is unacceptable. if you cannot accept that requirement, then don't take the job.

The complexities of having to deal with a colleague who you cannot see are just too much. How can you be sure it is the same person in there! Skype and conference calls would be pointless, and honestly, can you really say that you can have an open business discussion with a bin bag?

In between these two extremes, I find it hard to determine if its appropriate or not. The underlying problem is of course fear of Islamic jihad type attacks by bombers in the guise of "innocent women", but so far as I am aware, this disguise has not been used YET. We are a secular society, despite the protestations of sundry religions, and I think we should reflect that - I only see the Burka as inflaming divisiveness, and providing a focus for Islamaphobia

The reality is, though, that the Koran merely requires adherents to "dress modestly" and the burka and its derivatives are subsequent developments. predominantly islamic countries such as Turkey banned its use until very recently, Morocco is in a similarly restrictive condition and Azerbaijan (97% Moslem, mostly Shia) has banned its use in schools and universities.

So I think we need to simiiarly restrict its use - rather than an outright ban - eg in the workplace, in schools and universities, the police, the military etc. If someone wants to go to Sainsbury wearing one though, that's probably just about acceptable?

[ramAnag]

I guess that I too must be stupid and prejudiced then.

What people do in the privacy of their own home is up to them - although ironically this is possible the one place that the Burka is cast aside! What people do when working in people facing jobs (eg in the case I have experienced, as a teller in a bank) is however quite different. To me its quite simple, when interacting with people in a workplace, be they customers or other employees, then the use of the Burkha is unacceptable. if you cannot accept that requirement, then don't take the job.

The complexities of having to deal with a colleague who you cannot see are just too much. How can you be sure it is the same person in there! Skype and conference calls would be pointless, and honestly, can you really say that you can have an open business discussion with a bin bag?

In between these two extremes, I find it hard to determine if its appropriate or not. The underlying problem is of course fear of Islamic jihad type attacks by bombers in the guise of "innocent women", but so far as I am aware, this disguise has not been used YET. We are a secular society, despite the protestations of sundry religions, and I think we should reflect that - I only see the Burka as inflaming divisiveness, and providing a focus for Islamaphobia

The reality is, though, that the Koran merely requires adherents to "dress modestly" and the burka and its derivatives are subsequent developments. predominantly islamic countries such as Turkey banned its use until very recently, Morocco is in a similarly restrictive condition and Azerbaijan (97% Moslem, mostly Shia) has banned its use in schools and universities.

So I think we need to simiiarly restrict its use - rather than an outright ban - eg in the workplace, in schools and universities, the police, the military etc. If someone wants to go to Sainsbury wearing one though, that's probably just about acceptable?

My reference to the ‘stupid and prejudiced’ doesn’t refer to you Parky because your objections are, although debatable, largely logical.
Johnson’s weren’t and, imo, it ill becomes a recent Foreign Secretary and wannabe PM to resort to ridicule in the way that he did.
I think there was actually one example of a male terrorist escaping via the use of burka but that is beside the point because doubtless all the other forms of ‘disguise’ mentioned in my previous post have also been used by terrorists and criminals alike, but no one seeks to criticise them.
What I find worrying is that, as with the Referendum, the likes of Johnson, Banks and Farage will not hesitate to play the ‘sinister, suspicious, alien foreigner’ card in order to win the support of a section of the electorate. It’s happened more and more since the Referendum and the election of Trump which both seem to have somehow made bigotry more acceptable.

[Ram59]

On 1 practical point, I find it impossible to accept that the wearing of such items doesn't impede the ability to drive a car safely. If my vision was so restricted, I would have to declare it.

[ramAnag]

On 1 practical point, I find it impossible to accept that the wearing of such items doesn't impede the ability to drive a car safely. If my vision was so restricted, I would have to declare it.

No idea how restrictive they are, never worn one and not likely to. Not sure they’d be any worse than crash helmets or goggles which racing drivers, tractor drivers and some pilots wear though.

[Ram59]

No idea how restrictive they are, never worn one and not likely to. Not sure they’d be any worse than crash helmets or goggles which racing drivers, tractor drivers and some pilots wear though.

Use a bit of common sense RA, a helmet has a much bigger viewing area and is a tight fit which moves with the head. I would think that if you turned your head in a burka then the slot would not stay in the best position for viewing. Plus some burkas have mesh to further impede the view. I'm sure if I had tunnel vision, the DVLA would like to know about it.

Also, there are many establishments which demand that motorcyclists remove their helmet before entering the premises, yet allow the burka, why?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Is it just me or have all the niceties of posting (eg adding links, images, using colours, different fonts etc) been removed from this site now?

[ramAnag]

Use a bit of common sense RA, a helmet has a much bigger viewing area and is a tight fit which moves with the head. I would think that if you turned your head in a burka then the slot would not stay in the best position for viewing. Plus some burkas have mesh to further impede the view. I'm sure if I had tunnel vision, the DVLA would like to know about it.

Also, there are many establishments which demand that motorcyclists remove their helmet before entering the premises, yet allow the burka, why?

As I said previously Ram...I’ve no idea how much wearing a burka creates ‘tunnel vision’ or to what extent they move with the head. I’ve very limited experience of wearing a crash helmet and would suggest they do restrict peripheral vision a little as do cricket helmets.
I do know that the wearing of the burka has become a bit of a call to arms for those with a right wing agenda and I think, if I was considering committing a bank robbery, I’d find a crash helmet more useful than a burka.
All a bit much ado about nothing imo. As I’ve said, I’m not terribly keen on them, but then I have much the same attitude to major tattoos, body piercings and crucifixes and if no harm is being done it’s a case of live and let live for me.

[Ram59]

As I said previously Ram...I’ve no idea how much wearing a burka creates ‘tunnel vision’ or to what extent they move with the head. I’ve very limited experience of wearing a crash helmet and would suggest they do restrict peripheral vision a little as do cricket helmets.
I do know that the wearing of the burka has become a bit of a call to arms for those with a right wing agenda and I think, if I was considering committing a bank robbery, I’d find a crash helmet more useful than a burka.
All a bit much ado about nothing imo. As I’ve said, I’m not terribly keen on them, but then I have much the same attitude to major tattoos, body piercings and crucifixes and if no harm is being done it’s a case of live and let live for me.

I think if you were Rob a bank then a burka would be perfect. No identification poisoned and easy to conceal and use a firearm, then you could run around a corner and disguard it and blend into the background wearing normal clothing underneath.

I think that I've been reading too many detective novels.

[ramAnag]

I think if you were Rob a bank then a burka would be perfect. No identification poisoned and easy to conceal and use a firearm, then you could run around a corner and disguard it and blend into the background wearing normal clothing underneath.

I think that I've been reading too many detective novels.

Not sure about too many detective novels...think you’ve had too much something.>;)
Is ‘Rob a bank’ any relation to Rob the Ram...and what’s ‘poisoned identification’?

[GUNTERYY36]

First the 'cartoon crisis' and now this. Only the religion that must not be named could possibly be offended by a jocular remark about dress code. It's a pity those protesting this trivial faux pas weren't so forthcoming in condemning Rotherham and Manchester.

[ramAnag]

First the 'cartoon crisis' and now this. Only the religion that must not be named could possibly be offended by a jocular remark about dress code. It's a pity those protesting this trivial faux pas weren't so forthcoming in condemning Rotherham and Manchester.

Don’t agree.
1. Why describe the Muslim faith as ‘the religion that can’t be named’? It’s probably more talked about than any other.
2. Rotherham and Rochdale etc was the fault of a small minority of immigrants - amongst whom were many who described themselves as Muslim - and others, who should have known much better, acting in the misplaced name of political correctness.
3. Think you’ll find there was just as much sadness amongst the moderate Muslim community following the MEN Arena bombing as there was amongst ordinary Catholics following the IRA bombing in the same city. Only extremists and idiots will try and justify such atrocities.

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry gents, but maybe to turn our attention away from the excitement of deadline day, maybe a damp squib isn't so bad.

I don't see what's the big fuss about what he said. It's bleeding obvious!
I do understand some might find it offensive, but then the proper response should be

' 1 look at Boris Johnson, should erase any doubt that man descended from apes.'

He's a buffoon, a moron, heck, he even makes Donald Trump look like a genius!
The way he speaks, the mumbling, the choice of words and his mannerisms. God help us, if he becomes Prime Minister.

Looking down my Facebook feed and there’s an interesting divide. Maybe 90% of those who have a public profile and who have expressed an opinion condemn BJ and defend the right of Muslim women to wear burkas. Of those who are just ‘normal’ people I would guess 95% to 99% who expressed an opinion back Boris’ right to have an opinion AND agree with the point he’s making. That demonstrates yet again the massive disconnect between the elite and the proletariat in this country. He’s made a statement which has from
What I can see increased his appeal with ‘the great unwashed’ who continue to rail against those who in the past they would have had to doff their caps at.

Yes by the way he does come over as a bit daft

[MadAmster]

I have much the same attitude to major tattoos, body piercings and crucifixes and if no harm is being done it’s a case of live and let live for me.

Never even liked earrings in any size, shape or form and those big ones in the lobe..... huge turn off for me. As are nose rings and those through the lip. The tongue ring is, IMO, an abomination and cheek studs.... well, enough said.

I find it hard to understand how anybody would find these things attractive.

Am I really just too old to appreciate? More likely just an old fashioned, miserable git who doesn't move with the times.

Some people have tried to change my views on this. They failed..... big time. The only 2 items of "jewellery" I wear are a watch and my wedding ring. 40 something years ago, my girl friend at the time was Catholic and believed, absolutely and completely, in the teachings of that faith. She knew I was an Atheist and also knew my dislike of men wearing jewellery. I can't remember if it was Chrsitmas or a birthday but...... my present was a gold crucifix on a gold chain........ Really? You do know I am not going to wear this, EVER. The response was that she had hoped...... probably prayed too and then began to understand prayer doesn't work. Two and a half years we were together. Just a few months after the crucifix incident she dumped me, blaming my Soul all nighters (she was into C&W and never came to one), DJing, a few pints most days and going to 30 odd football matches a season...... You'll never be able to save a deposit on a house that way. 9 months later I bought my first house.......

I have always thought that she finally realised that the boy wasn't for turning..... I had actually had quite a few chats with their local priest who was a regular visitor at their house. He understood where I was coming from. He understood the reasons I had for not believing. The many contradictions in the bible for which he had no answer other than none of his flock had ever brought it up. How did he expect me to believe that 2 kangaroos had hopped from Australia to Mount Sinai to get on the Ark and then hopped all the way back (swam quite a bit of the way too). How could I worship a deity that allowed horrors to be perpetrated in his/her/its name without launching a barrage of lightning bolts at the jerks responsible...... again, he had no reply. He might have said God made it happen but realised that wouldn't sway me. He also didn't know what the carnivores ate during the "cruise". I suggested, with a grin on my face, that some species actually became extinct on the Ark..... he laughed at that one. Still had the odd pint in a local boozer with him after the break up.

[ramAnag]

Looking down my Facebook feed and there’s an interesting divide. Maybe 90% of those who have a public profile and who have expressed an opinion condemn BJ and defend the right of Muslim women to wear burkas. Of those who are just ‘normal’ people I would guess 95% to 99% who expressed an opinion back Boris’ right to have an opinion AND agree with the point he’s making. That demonstrates yet again the massive disconnect between the elite and the proletariat in this country. He’s made a statement which has from
What I can see increased his appeal with ‘the great unwashed’ who continue to rail against those who in the past they would have had to doff their caps at.

Yes by the way he does come over as a bit daft

Ah Andy, thought you’d gone the way of all FM mods and disappeared.>;)

Not sure what a survey of your ‘Facebook feed’ tells us. Know very little about Facebook or for that matter what you think a ‘normal’ person is, but I feel we should be in no doubt that Johnson and Co. have a not terribly well hidden agenda and will use the ‘disconnect’ you describe to simply further their own aims.
Don’t think anyone disputes Johnson’s right to have an opinion and voice it. There are both well founded and purely prejudicial reasons for objecting to the burka, the question though is whether Boris Johnson - sadly imo a potential leader of this country - raised the issue in an appropriate way.
Imo he didn’t, he has learned, from Trump, that tapping into the populist vogue for the language of reactionary ridicule, previously unacceptable and usually prejudicial statements can be a vote winner and he has acted totally irresponsibly in raising a divisive issue which, given the current state of affairs in this country, has little, if any, relevance.

This country faces a massive financial challenge to its future as a result of the Referendum result. Whether a few Muslim women wear a burka or not is utterly irrelevant to the challenges we face but I fear that Johnson recognises the probability of a second referendum and is already sowing the seeds of his ‘us and them’ campaign to achieve much the same aim as his bus and Farage’s completely misleading ‘refugee’ poster back in 2016.

Oh for a capable opposition!

[GUNTERYY36]

Re earlier post


1. Because if you do so you will stir up a hornet's nest and risk being called an Islamophobe, bigot, racist, etc. Why land yourself in bother? It's more talked about than any other religion because other faiths aren't so controversial and therefore newsworthy.

2. The fault of a small number of immigrants? Many of whom describe themselves as muslim? Little research has been done into the chilling deeds and causes of the Rotherham muslim atrocities so it's difficult to apportion blame to anyone. But suffice it to say, these deeds are mandated in their Holy Book.

3. Sadness? Forget the stage-managed TV footage of weeping Imams, I suspect muslims were more sad that such events were carried out in their name.

Boris Johnson has been lambasted for making a silly comparison but he cannot possibly have known the extent to which his words have been seized upon. It's lucky he didn't quote Holy Book scripture. Now that really would have elicited a response.

[Manofpride]

If any of your children married a Muslim and changed to their religion , could you accept your daughter or granddaughter wearing a burka? I for one would be so against it!

[MadAmster]

If any of your children married a Muslim and changed to their religion , could you accept your daughter or granddaughter wearing a burka? I for one would be so against it!

Can't see either of my sons wearing a Burka ;) I also doubt they would court and wed a girl they couldn't see (and more) prior to the wedding night.

[Manofpride]

Can't see either of my sons wearing a Burka ;) I also doubt they would court and wed a girl they couldn't see (and more) prior to the wedding night.

If your son married a muslim girl and they had a daughter, would it bother you if your granddaughter was wearing a burka?

[ramAnag]

If any of your children married a Muslim and changed to their religion , could you accept your daughter or granddaughter wearing a burka? I for one would be so against it!

Don’t really understand your point MoP. Of course I wouldn’t be happy...I wouldn’t be happy if they married into or were brought up according to the strictures of any religion come to that...or, God forbid, became involved with a Jehovah’s Witness or UKIP supporter.

Fact is though that some people want to wear a burka while others feel the need to wear a crucifix, a turban or a Forest shirt. I don’t understand any of those ‘needs’ tbh, but until they become synonymous with doing harm to people I’ll just think of it as a case of each to their own.

[Romanis]

If any of your children married a Muslim and changed to their religion , could you accept your daughter or granddaughter wearing a burka? I for one would be so against it!

Actually this burka thing is over-rated. There's no compulsion to wear but some purposely do it, to garner attention and show off their 'religiousness.' And back to actually - women are free to wear or not wear, with a veil during certain occasions or prayers. And also another fact - if the husband doesn't want the wife to wear one (veil), she doesn't have to. (No not going into the equality and rights of the women etc). Just the text which describes it. Take Malaysia's Dr Mahathirr, his wife was asked why she doesn't wear a veil? She replied, her husband forbade her to.
So there you have it, no compulsion, just dress modestly. And if your husband has no objections, you can dress as you like. So I don't why these Muslims men are making a fuss? Give your wife the choice, better still tell her no need to wear a veil or burka.

Now to your question? Oh I've pondered this many a time. I have members of my family who have married Muslims. Only 1 converted because he wanted to. He's quite into the Muslim thingy, so that's fine. His choice. Still another didn't convert and all the kids are non-Muslim Another also married didn't convert but allows his wife to continue with her religion. And my brother married a Muslim gal, he didn't; convert either, but allows his kids to be raised as Muslims.

So what would be my decision, well I'll leave t omy kids. It's their decision to make, even if I disagree with the choice or need to convert, I would respect the decision they take and do my best ensure they are happy. And if it doesn't work out, also doesn't matter, there will be no recriminations or I told you so's. Just come back, we'll be there for you. My role as a parent is to support my kids and respect their choices in life, unless of course, it's something dangerous or harmful to them.
If she wants to wear a burrka, it's okay with me, I'll even help to buy one.

[ramAnag]

Don’t agree again.
1) This may have once been the case but not any more. As long as criticism is reasonable and objective I don’t see that there’s a problem. However daft you or I might think the burka is, a major politician ridiculing an item of religious garb by comparing the wearers to letter boxes or bank robbers is neither reasonable nor objective. It is inflammatory and irresponsible.

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

3) I have no idea about ‘stage managed weeping Imams’ but I’m pleased we agree that most Muslims were ‘sad that such events were carried out in their name’. That’s what I suggested, just as I implied most Catholics would have felt about the excessively violent actions of the IRA that many of us grew up with between the 60’s-90’s.

P.S. Sorry...written in response to post #23.

[Andy_Faber]

Fact is though that some people want to wear a burka while others feel the need to wear a crucifix, a turban or a Forest shirt.

TOTALLY invalid argument and, in the hands of those with some degree of status or influence (such as, for instance Ruth Davidson) as potentially inflammatory as BJs original gob off. Crucifix, turbans and footy shirts are all badges of allegiance but I havent seen any hiding the wearers identity. If you value an open society you should be supporting the majority requirement for citizens to be open about who they are , not acting as an apologist for a group who seek to conceal themselves

[Romanis]

Just a quick comment on your Facebook feedback thingy Andrew.

I think whilst Facebook and whatever data gleaned from it, or even targeted articles, posts and ads there, can and does influence voters, raises one's profiles and opinions of certain segments of society, its impact is over-rated.

Primarily because such topics are the ones that will only attract the types of people who are interested in the matter. Therefore you'll get like as you say, 80% of comments supporting or opposing as the case maybe. So you'll go away thinking hey, this is the majority view but in reality it isn't and even if it does by only small margins and that too only for some aspects of the subject in question.

For example I've noticed in certain elections out here in Asia, if you go by Facebook alone, you'll think there's a groundswell of votes against the ruling party and they'll be surely defeated. Then come election day, you find they retained power rather handily. Why is this so? Because Facebook is generally the one place where govts have no control over and hence becomes the 'rendezvous' of opposition supporters.

So while you may have a point or maybe in this instance, it might be correct, I would caution in taking any feedback from Facebook as a given.

[MadAmster]

If your son married a muslim girl and they had a daughter, would it bother you if your granddaughter was wearing a burka?

Yes. Because I was born into an open society where the face tells you a lot about others with whom you interact. Your words can lie but the face often tells the truth. People moving into an open society should follow that society's custom.

The Queen, Maggie T and Mayhem. All 3 would wear a head scarf or similar when visiting Muslim countries. Adhering to the local custom. Dignatories visiting Israel always wear a keppel, respecting local custom.

Muslims move to Western countries and want to bring their Sharia Law with them and their clothing customs that go against our Western customs ane we are supposed to respect that. How about short term, long term and permanent visitors to the UK respecting UK custom and not cover their faces.

This respecting others customs looks very much like a one way street.

[ramAnag]

TOTALLY invalid argument and, in the hands of those with some degree of status or influence (such as, for instance Ruth Davidson) as potentially inflammatory as BJs original gob off. Crucifix, turbans and footy shirts are all badges of allegiance but I havent seen any hiding the wearers identity. If you value an open society you should be supporting the majority requirement for citizens to be open about who they are , not acting as an apologist for a group who seek to conceal themselves

Hardly ‘totally invalid’ Andy...the burka too is a show of ‘allegiance’ however I take your point about the others not providing an element of ‘disguise’ so...as I asked much earlier...where do you stand on hoodies, parkas, sunglasses, beards, wigs, baseball caps, flat caps, crash helmets and scarves etc?
Oh, and I’m not ‘acting as an apologist’ for anyone. I don’t like the damned things but I like witch hunts even less and while I don’t understand burka wearers I see no reason for any apologies.

[Andy_Faber]

Hardly ‘totally invalid’ Andy...the burka too is a show of ‘allegiance’ however I take your point about the others not providing an element of ‘disguise’ so...as I asked much earlier...where do you stand on hoodies, parkas, sunglasses, beards, wigs, baseball caps, flat caps, crash helmets and scarves etc?
Oh, and I’m not ‘acting as an apologist’ for anyone. I don’t like the damned things but I like witch hunts even less and while I don’t understand burka wearers I see no reason for any apologies.

The hoodies etc argument is a weak one, there will always be those with ill intent who use such disguise BUT, ask someone with no ill intent to remove a crash helmet or glasses to identify themselves and they probably will, do the same with a burka wearer and the lily allen brigade will be all over you like a rash. My issue isn’t even about the burka or its wearers it’s about the unfathomable ring of apologists that suddenly appear to defend ‘rights’

[Andy_Faber]

Just a quick comment on your Facebook feedback thingy Andrew.

.

Rom, first and to use a colloquialism ‘I’m not thick’, I do understand the way facebook can skew things. Second, I refer back to it regularly because it gives me a window on the world that I don’t see in my ‘were upper middle class and non of this really affects us’ social bubble. Mainstream media is no longer the place to go to get a feel for the way the country and the world is leaning IMO, nor the words of those in positions of authority

[Romanis]

Rom, first and to use a colloquialism ‘I’m not thick’, I do understand the way facebook can skew things. Second, I refer back to it regularly because it gives me a window on the world that I don’t see in my ‘were upper middle class and non of this really affects us’ social bubble. Mainstream media is no longer the place to go to get a feel for the way the country and the world is leaning IMO, nor the words of those in positions of authority

Sorry I wasn't really suggesting or attempting to suggest you didn't realise, more a general post and a 'for your information' type of post. But yeah, I can see it coming off as that by the way I posted.
Mainstream media can sometimes be the direct opposite to what people post on social media. Anyone reading either, might come away believing that's really case when in reality, the ordinary folk, don't even bother with either.. So yeah it's hard to pin down what's really is the reality if we just read 1 or the other. 1 really needs to read varying number of sites, to get the accurate reading.

Even the good ol' BBC, once the last bastion of unfiltered and unbiased news reporting, can no longer be entrusted with the barometer of public perception. Everyone seems to have an agenda.

[StensonRam]

Who gives a toss about politics especially on a football forum, boring!

[Romanis]

Who gives a toss about politics especially on a football forum, boring!

I think after today's result, a change of topic, even boring political ones ain't a bad idea.

[StensonRam]

Never, poor result granted but politics is ****, I would much rather discuss how bad we were

[ramAnag]

Who gives a toss about politics especially on a football forum, boring!

Leave it out Stenny. When you and Andy bang on about F1 or MA and Andy indulge in a bit of Northern Soul chat others don’t complain.
At least politics, sadly, impacts upon us all...if you’re not interested just ignore it...plenty do seem to contribute.

As for why we lost...we looked like a leaderless group (no Davis) who’d just met and were playing the best side in the Championship on current, two match, form...and that’s about what happened.

[ramAnag]

The hoodies etc argument is a weak one, there will always be those with ill intent who use such disguise BUT, ask someone with no ill intent to remove a crash helmet or glasses to identify themselves and they probably will, do the same with a burka wearer and the lily allen brigade will be all over you like a rash. My issue isn’t even about the burka or its wearers it’s about the unfathomable ring of apologists that suddenly appear to defend ‘rights’

So, to be quite clear, I’m part of the ‘Lily Allen’ brigade (I’m not) for daring to defend burka wearers...while you, in your clear thinking way, don’t have an ‘issue’ with burkas only with those who see little harm in them, recognise no comparison to the wearing of hoodies, caps and sunglasses and, on the subject of free speech, run a site that doesn’t allow the words v***l or S****horpe.
Claro...glad we’ve cleared that up. Are you still thinking of voting Liberal...no confusion there then. ;D

[GUNTERYY36]

First, a quick broadside. I'm glad you lost because you relegated my own team Barnsley last year. :D

Don’t agree again.
1) This may have once been the case but not any more. As long as criticism is reasonable and objective I don’t see that there’s a problem. However daft you or I might think the burka is, a major politician ridiculing an item of religious garb by comparing the wearers to letter boxes or bank robbers is neither reasonable nor objective. It is inflammatory and irresponsible.

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

3) I have no idea about ‘stage managed weeping Imams’ but I’m pleased we agree that most Muslims were ‘sad that such events were carried out in their name’. That’s what I suggested, just as I implied most Catholics would have felt about the excessively violent actions of the IRA that many of us grew up with between the 60’s-90’s.

P.S. Sorry...written in response to post #23.
Last edited by ramAnag; Yesterday at 11:49 AM.

[GUNTERYY36]

Don’t agree again.
1) This may have once been the case but not any more. As long as criticism is reasonable and objective I don’t see that there’s a problem. However daft you or I might think the burka is, a major politician ridiculing an item of religious garb by comparing the wearers to letter boxes or bank robbers is neither reasonable nor objective. It is inflammatory and irresponsible.

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

3) I have no idea about ‘stage managed weeping Imams’ but I’m pleased we agree that most Muslims were ‘sad that such events were carried out in their name’. That’s what I suggested, just as I implied most Catholics would have felt about the excessively violent actions of the IRA that many of us grew up with between the 60’s-90’s.

P.S. Sorry...written in response to post #23.
Last edited by ramAnag; Yesterday at 11:49 AM.

[GUNTERYY36]

1. The comments may have been inflammatory and irresponsible but that says more about how muslims react to them than Boris J. They can't take a joke without wanting to punish someone. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. have found to their cost you don't tell jokes or draw cartoons about them.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by parents being 'poor and very inadequate white parents'. Are you implying that if a victim has parents that are poor and inadequate (please clarify what you mean by inadequate) then the abuse inflicted upon her is in some way attributable to the inadequacy of her parents? I'm no expert of the Quran either but I'm led to believe that a) the Prophet was the perfect human being and therefore muslims should strive to emulate him in every way b) the Prophet engaged in Rotherham-type behaviour.

3. There have a number of stage managed events. Not least the sickening spectacle of a policeman being prompted to kneel in submission to the Prophet following the latest atrocity. I don't have a sadness-ometer to measure the amount of their sadness.

It should also be mentioned that most muslim women are stupid and uninformed about why they wear head coverings. They haven't read the Quran and never will. In many cases I'll wager they wear a scarf because they think it's cool to do so. They have no idea that the whole point of their wearing it is so as not to look like a fallen women and inflame the desire of muslim men. They should wise up and learn that silly letter box comparisons are no big deal in the overall context.

Oh and finally, I didn't lose any sleep over your team's result. After relegating my own team Barnsley last year you desereve all you get. :)

[MadAmster]

2. I'm not sure what you mean by parents being 'poor and very inadequate white parents'. Are you implying that if a victim has parents that are poor and inadequate (please clarify what you mean by inadequate) then the abuse inflicted upon her is in some way attributable to the inadequacy of her parents? I'm no expert of the Quran either but I'm led to believe that a) the Prophet was the perfect human being and therefore muslims should strive to emulate him in every way b) the Prophet engaged in Rotherham-type behaviour.




Apparently, he married the girl when she was 6 and waited a whole 3 years brfore bedding her at the grand old age of 9.......

As for the treatment of non-Muslim women...... It is to be found in a video made by an Islamic Scholar. She is said to be controversial.

[GUNTERYY36]

Apparently, he married the girl when she was 6 and waited a whole 3 years brfore bedding her at the grand old age of 9.......

As for the treatment of non-Muslim women...... It is to be found in a video made by an Islamic Scholar. She is said to be controversial.


These 'scholars' failed their GCSEs in Theology. But fair play to them, they kid all of the people all of the time.

My above posts don't look quite right. Just put it down to dementia and following a lower league club. :(

[Andy_Faber]

So, to be quite clear, I’m part of the ‘Lily Allen’ brigade (I’m not) for daring to defend burka wearers...D

I think I commented earlier up that I do NOT include you in that faction, your arguments are well reasoned and worthy of consideration without resorting to name calling, threats to’out’, campaigns to boycott businesses (and I don’t mean corporations, I mean those of sole traders etc where it would REALLY hurt, etc etc). I have a friend in the music scene who dared to speak out, fairly objectively if not perfectly, on another ‘taboo’ subject and has been pretty much ostracised from one of her means of employment by a nasty social media campaign. It’s a jungle out there Rom, and fault on all/both sides I must say.

[ramAnag]

>;)
1. The comments may have been inflammatory and irresponsible but that says more about how muslims react to them than Boris J. They can't take a joke without wanting to punish someone. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. have found to their cost you don't tell jokes or draw cartoons about them.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by parents being 'poor and very inadequate white parents'. Are you implying that if a victim has parents that are poor and inadequate (please clarify what you mean by inadequate) then the abuse inflicted upon her is in some way attributable to the inadequacy of her parents? I'm no expert of the Quran either but I'm led to believe that a) the Prophet was the perfect human being and therefore muslims should strive to emulate him in every way b) the Prophet engaged in Rotherham-type behaviour.

3. There have a number of stage managed events. Not least the sickening spectacle of a policeman being prompted to kneel in submission to the Prophet following the latest atrocity. I don't have a sadness-ometer to measure the amount of their sadness.

It should also be mentioned that most muslim women are stupid and uninformed about why they wear head coverings. They haven't read the Quran and never will. In many cases I'll wager they wear a scarf because they think it's cool to do so. They have no idea that the whole point of their wearing it is so as not to look like a fallen women and inflame the desire of muslim men. They should wise up and learn that silly letter box comparisons are no big deal in the overall context.

Oh and finally, I didn't lose any sleep over your team's result. After relegating my own team Barnsley last year you desereve all you get. :)

1. He’s a complete prat in my opinion but Boris is a leading politician and possible future PM. His ancient letter box joke legitimises action by even more stupid individuals to give burka wearers a hard time. I don’t find that acceptable.
2. By inadequate I mean incapable, incompetent and not up to the job. It is a sad fact of life that, just as some people are not fit to keep animals, some are not capable of being fit and proper parents. That doesn’t for one moment diminish the responsibility of the actual perpetrators however it is, imo, a contributory factor in any honest and objective debate over what happened.
3. You brought up ‘stage managed’ sadness not stage managed atrocities.
4. ‘Most Muslim women are stupid...’ seems a pretty daft statement and we didn’t really send you down did we? You didn’t win enough points over the whole season and we had to win our last game to guarantee a top six place. S**t happens and as it happened...you were s**t.

[sixtiesram]

Johnson, in his article, stated without any ambiguity that the UK should not ban the headscarf or veil.

The only point at issue is the inclusion of his comments about "letterboxes" or "bankrobbers".

He knew what he was doing with these comments. He is not your average Joe, he has held one of the three important positions of state and we should expect him to take care to understand the implications of his words. Instead he chose to cultivate support from the far right to further his own personal political ambitions.

Why do so many people of very limited means swallow the garbage from very rich politicians like Rees-Mogg and Johnson?

[ramAnag]

Johnson, in his article, stated without any ambiguity that the UK should not ban the headscarf or veil.

The only point at issue is the inclusion of his comments about "letterboxes" or "bankrobbers".

He knew what he was doing with these comments. He is not your average Joe, he has held one of the three important positions of state and we should expect him to take care to understand the implications of his words. Instead he chose to cultivate support from the far right to further his own personal political ambitions.

Why do so many people of very limited means swallow the garbage from very rich politicians like Rees-Mogg and Johnson?

Entirely agree. Please stick around sixties...been like fighting a lone battle with this one on here sometimes.

[Andy_Faber]

This respecting others customs looks very much like a one way street.

MA, I have a friend from your place (expat like you, but German), who keeps ranting on about BJ going the way of Willie Deel, whats that story?

[Andy_Faber]

Entirely agree. Please stick around sixties...been like fighting a lone battle with this one on here sometimes.

And I almost agree too, apart from the observation that it is not the FAR right, it is much bigger than that. To me far right is tommy Robinson and his ‘footy thug in close season’ brigade, BJs appeal is to many ordinary Joes. Not a boast, an observation.

BJ appeals in the same way that Jeremy Corbyn does and in a way Theresa May never could, by having a human connection with ‘the people’. Regrettably (for her) TM just doesn’t have the human touch.

[GUNTERYY36]

@ Ramanag

I won't string out this jousting but just to say I do believe many muslim women are stupid. I concede not all of them as that isn't true. Indeed, since many are illiterate, they are uninformed rather than lacking in intelligence. Others are unwilling to examine their faith, too ready to (ironically) submit to their lords and masters here on earth and extremely confrontational.

But if I wore a swastika without knowing what it stood for people would call me (to put it kindly) stupid. And doubtlessly a whole number of other things. So I don't think it's a daft comment.

Although we were relegated because of the results over the season it does to an extent depend on perspective. When Barnsley went into their final game they shouldn't have done so resigned to their fate. They could have forgotten about their previous 45 results. They could have gone all out for three points, which would have saved them. Instead the players rolled over and unlike Bolton they were unwilling to put up a fight, all of which determined their final points tally.

@ Andy_Faaber

Tommy Robinson a football thug? In my view the man deserves a knighthood.

[MadAmster]

MA, I have a friend from your place (expat like you, but German), who keeps ranting on about BJ going the way of Willie Deel, whats that story?

Absolutely no idea who Willie Deel is. So I had a look on tinterweb....

I found one female who emigrated to America years ago and lost touch with her Dutch family and finally reconnected with them when she was 99. Unfortunately she was terminally ill so the contact didn't last long. He is probably not referring to her.

The only other close name that might be what he is on about due to his pronunciation is Willie Dille. She was a politician. Dutch MP from 2010 to 2012 for the PVV, that is Geert Wilders' party, right wing populist whose main platform is anti anything remotely connected to Islam. She has been a councillor in the Hague since then. Two years ago she said she had been raped by a group of Muslim men. She also refused to report the incident to the police or name the perpetrators. 4 days ago she committed suicide. Willie was, like Boris, a blonde.

Apart from the above, I have no idea to whom or to what your friend might be referring.

[Ram59]

Surely, we are all being side tracked by a couple of ill chosen words by a bumbling fool who has repeatedly said stupid things in the past.

The real issue should be about women in the 21st century being forced into living in such a way and the fear of upsetting certain religious leaders allowing it to happen even when it's in defiance of our rules of life.

Would any of you be happy for your sister or daughter to marry a Muslim and be forced to dress and act in that manner?

We live in a free society, these women through either force or brainwashing, don't.

[Romanis]

@ Ramanag

I won't string out this jousting but just to say I do believe many muslim women are stupid. I concede not all of them as that isn't true. Indeed, since many are illiterate, they are uninformed rather than lacking in intelligence. Others are unwilling to examine their faith, too ready to (ironically) submit to their lords and masters here on earth and extremely confrontational.

But if I wore a swastika without knowing what it stood for people would call me (to put it kindly) stupid. And doubtlessly a whole number of other things. So I don't think it's a daft comment.

.....

I think you're generalising a wee bit too far. No doubt you have a point - that these women might be dumb or illiterate and even too submissive. But I believe to claim many or even a majority is a wee bit too far.
Before you do, you must however consider the way the religion is practised or at the very least observed or supposed be observed by their adherents.

Islam is a religion that believes in submission. In fact I think the word Islam or Muslim, means submission. A Muslim is supposed to submit himself to Allah, the Almighty. The basic principle in Islam is to believe there's no other God except Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger. As such the words and teachings of Muhammad is to be observed and imitated as far as possible. The Quran itself is not a book which you can read cover to cover, it's a book of revelations made to Muhammad by God through the Angel Gabriel. To understand these verses, you need to read it in conjunction with the Hadiths (Muhammad's teachings) or some other similar book.

Muhammad himself says in these books that Allah is Supreme and not to be questioned. His dictates are to be followed without question. And man can never fully understand the reasons of Allah's dictates. You're supposed to follow them. Now I'm not gonna into the semantics of these. Whether it's true or logical, whether any Angel of God appeared to Muhammad and whether it's a prudent thing for Muslims to question their religion. All these is beside the point, Muslims are taught to follow these teachings (of course problems arise with interpretations and how a narrow reading might justify certain acts of violence etc). But the basic principle stands, they are supposed to follow the commands listed in the Quran.

So it's not just the women, the same is for men as well. And a very clear majority of Muslims are very happy and content to follow these instructions without question. Many Muslim if not most Muslim women are therefore comfortable and agreeable to it. So when you say:

Indeed, since many are illiterate, they are uninformed rather than lacking in intelligence. Others are unwilling to examine their faith, too ready to (ironically) submit to their lords and masters here on earth and extremely confrontational.

It's not the case that they are that. They are educated, they are intelligent and happy to submit because of their faith. If you try to tell them not to and give your reasons however logical they may be, it will be dismissed as heresy. So the point is, if they are comfortable and agreeable, who are we from a different faith or with no faith even, to say they are wrong. Every different faith has something which we can pick bones at. And because Islam does not allow dissent, similarly it's not our purview to question them for accepting it as it is.

The only thing we can say, well if you're comfortable with thee edicts well and goodonya. But while we accept these practises of yours, similarly you must allow us to do things differently. And if you come to our society, we will give you space but your observance of your creed cannot interfere in the way our society is set.

As for your analogy to Nazism, that's a different matter isn't it? If the Nazis won the war and dominates society today, those who do not, will be considered stupid and a lot of other things. The victors write the history when it comes to war.

I'm not saying I disagree entirely with the point you're making, we may and will find some of the Islamic edicts daft and cannot fathom why people follow them. But it's their choice to make not ours.

[MadAmster]

As I have said earlier, The Queen, Merkel, Mayhem all cover their heads when they visit a Muslim country. They do so out of respect for local custom. Political leaders who visit Israel don the Keppel out of respect for local custom.

Western Europe is an open society where seeing someone's face is a local custom.

Can anybody explain to me why we respect others' customs but, when they come here, they don't respect ours? While you're at it, explain to me why we should accept it......

[Manofpride]

As I have said earlier, The Queen, Merkel, Mayhem all cover their heads when they visit a Muslim country. They do so out of respect for local custom. Political leaders who visit Israel don the Keppel out of respect for local custom.

Western Europe is an open society where seeing someone's face is a local custom.

Can anybody explain to me why we respect others' customs but, when they come here, they don't respect ours? While you're at it, explain to me why we should accept it......

We shouldn't accept it but while the Country is full of do gooders it will never change, we are supposed to be equals, not a chance. This Country is to afraid to speak in fear of offending. We daren't even fly the Union Jack!

[Ram59]

It's strange how we attack the BBC for NEGOTIATING cheaper contracts with women TV presenters, but we allow muslim men to treat their women like a lump of meat that belongs to them.

[ramAnag]

We shouldn't accept it but while the Country is full of do gooders it will never change, we are supposed to be equals, not a chance. This Country is to afraid to speak in fear of offending. We daren't even fly the Union Jack!

The problem with the flag, MoP, both Union Jack and Cross of St. George, is that they have been hijacked by the far right.
First the National Front, then the BNP and more recently Tommy Robinson and his thugs along with countless other football hooligans have taken to using both flags as emblems of their ‘organisations’ and beliefs.
I am patriotic to the extent that I’ll support England/GB in all sporting occasions and I am proud of some of our non sporting achievements over the centuries and many of the things we can offer the rest of the World, but I am sure I am not alone in feeling uncomfortable associating myself with a flag that has been besmirched in the way that it has over the last fifty years or so.

I’d like to see Tommy Robinson receive a sword somewhere GUNTERYY36...but not in the form of any knighthood. The man is an irrelevant troublemaking thug imo and it is perhaps better if our ‘conversation’ is at an end.

[Manofpride]

The problem with the flag, MoP, both Union Jack and Cross of St. George, is that they have been hijacked by the far right.
First the National Front, then the BNP and more recently Tommy Robinson and his thugs along with countless other football hooligans have taken to using both flags as emblems of their ‘organisations’ and beliefs.
I am patriotic to the extent that I’ll support England/GB in all sporting occasions and I am proud of some of our non sporting achievements over the centuries and many of the things we can offer the rest of the World, but I am sure I am not alone in feeling uncomfortable associating myself with a flag that has been besmirched in the way that it has over the last fifty years or so.

I’d like to see Tommy Robinson receive a sword somewhere GUNTERYY36...but not in the form of any knighthood. The man is an irrelevant troublemaking thug imo and it is perhaps better if our ‘conversation’ is at an end.

So what should we have for a national flag and don't say a blue one with a circle of gold stars!

[ramAnag]

So what should we have for a national flag and don't say a blue one with a circle of gold stars!

Lol! I’m not really saying there’s anything wrong with the ones we’ve got, just that they’re now associated with thuggish behaviour in a way which, for example, the Welsh and French flags aren’t.
Not sure how we claim it back.
Another thing which I don’t really understand is how the Union Jack has become synonymous with being flown in the worst places. It’s not entirely true I know, but as someone who has walked a fair bit of Derbyshire and Staffordshire it’s an almost unwritten rule that the shi**iest farms with the nastiest most irresponsible dog owners are identified by having a Union Jack flown proudly overhead.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Have the Welsh got a flag then?

I think what needs fixing as a priority is our dreadful national anthem, The Scotch, the Welsh etc have their own songs before sporting events but why do the English have to have that boring dirge. We could use Jerusalem, Rule Britannia, Land of Hope & Glory, or even Zadok the Priest - all stirring songs - but no: a montone dah dah dah dah di dah it is. Yuk

mind you we will probably have to use Quami Taranah or Sorude Melliye Jomhuriye Eslâmiye Irân soon enough to appease the likes of RA!!

[ramAnag]

Have the Welsh got a flag then?

I think what needs fixing as a priority is our dreadful national anthem, The Scotch, the Welsh etc have their own songs before sporting events but why do the English have to have that boring dirge. We could use Jerusalem, Rule Britannia, Land of Hope & Glory, or even Zadok the Priest - all stirring songs - but no: a montone dah dah dah dah di dah it is. Yuk

mind you we will probably have to use Quami Taranah or Sorude Melliye Jomhuriye Eslâmiye Irân soon enough to appease the likes of RA!!

1. Yes...it’s one of the more interesting ones with a dragon on it.
2. Quite agree about the national anthem...though not your selection of alternatives.
3. Please don’t deliberately misinterpret me and write such utter bollux...not even in jest.

[Romanis]

Have the Welsh got a flag then?

I think what needs fixing as a priority is our dreadful national anthem, ....... Yuk

mind you we will probably have to use Quami Taranah or Sorude Melliye Jomhuriye Eslâmiye Irân soon enough to appease the likes of RA!!

Nah, it's great. The Queen (or King) is the symbol of unity between the Home Nations. She's respected throughout the world. She's the epitome of all things British. Thus it's only proper to let the anthem remain. And it's also played throughout the world where she remains Head of State. They have both their national anthem and the royal anthem (used by the Governor-General)

And I think it's an okay song - music wise. Not too long, easy lyrics and representative of unity she brings to the country as a whole.
Why in the world should we even contemplate replacing it, when the whole world respects it and instantly knows who it represents when played?

[Trickytreesreds]

Here's a flag with a dragon on it.

Is this Welsh?


http://i67.tinypic.com/evcfth.jpg

[Manofpride]

XD love it!!!

[Ram59]

I think that we should use the national anthem where Britain is being represented and when the home nations are playing, it should precede the individual nations anthems. It not right that the English have taken ownership of it. The other nations should also be proud to sing the British anthem.

[GUNTERYY36]

@ Ramanag (post 60)

Sorry to have upset you. Perhaps I was too abrupt. I should have gone on to explain: I believe Tommy Robinson should get fairer treatment from the media by their being a little more objective in their reporting of him. He has just been thrown in prison on a trumped up charge and tortured while he was in there (he'll probably be sent back there next month). TV has frequently edited his EDL rallies in such a way as to make him appear a racist with no agenda other than to agitate and seek publicity. In fairness to him, he claims he wants to highlight the Rotherham grooming scandal and he is currently being demonised by the establishment for his opinions. Like Donald Trump, all reports on him are negative and portray him in the worst possible light.



Many apologies

[ramAnag]

@ Ramanag (post 60)

Sorry to have upset you. Perhaps I was too abrupt. I should have gone on to explain: I believe Tommy Robinson should get fairer treatment from the media by their being a little more objective in their reporting of him. He has just been thrown in prison on a trumped up charge and tortured while he was in there (he'll probably be sent back there next month). TV has frequently edited his EDL rallies in such a way as to make him appear a racist with no agenda other than to agitate and seek publicity. In fairness to him, he claims he wants to highlight the Rotherham grooming scandal and he is currently being demonised by the establishment for his opinions. Like Donald Trump, all reports on him are negative and portray him in the worst possible light.



Many apologies

Haven’t ‘upset’ me in the slightest GUNTERYY and no apologies necessary.

You are entitled to your opinion and if you choose to look up to and applaud the likes of Tommy Robinson that’s up to you.
The facts are however that the man you want to be given a knighthood is a far right activist with convictions for Contempt of Court, Breach of the Peace, Mortgage Fraud and - having been banned from entering the U.S. because of a drugs offence - attempting to enter the U.S. on a false passport.
That might be the stuff of heroes to you but in my world it makes him a complete arse and, because people like you appear to be taken in by him, an increasingly dangerous one at that.

[GUNTERYY36]

I think you're generalising a wee bit too far. No doubt you have a point - that these women might be dumb or illiterate and even too submissive. But I believe to claim many or even a majority is a wee bit too far.
Before you do, you must however consider the way the religion is practised or at the very least observed or supposed be observed by their adherents.

Islam is a religion that believes in submission. In fact I think the word Islam or Muslim, means submission. A Muslim is supposed to submit himself to Allah, the Almighty. The basic principle in Islam is to believe there's no other God except Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger. As such the words and teachings of Muhammad is to be observed and imitated as far as possible. The Quran itself is not a book which you can read cover to cover, it's a book of revelations made to Muhammad by God through the Angel Gabriel. To understand these verses, you need to read it in conjunction with the Hadiths (Muhammad's teachings) or some other similar book.

Muhammad himself says in these books that Allah is Supreme and not to be questioned. His dictates are to be followed without question. And man can never fully understand the reasons of Allah's dictates. You're supposed to follow them. Now I'm not gonna into the semantics of these. Whether it's true or logical, whether any Angel of God appeared to Muhammad and whether it's a prudent thing for Muslims to question their religion. All these is beside the point, Muslims are taught to follow these teachings (of course problems arise with interpretations and how a narrow reading might justify certain acts of violence etc). But the basic principle stands, they are supposed to follow the commands listed in the Quran.

So it's not just the women, the same is for men as well. And a very clear majority of Muslims are very happy and content to follow these instructions without question. Many Muslim if not most Muslim women are therefore comfortable and agreeable to it. So when you say:

Indeed, since many are illiterate, they are uninformed rather than lacking in intelligence. Others are unwilling to examine their faith, too ready to (ironically) submit to their lords and masters here on earth and extremely confrontational.

It's not the case that they are that. They are educated, they are intelligent and happy to submit because of their faith. If you try to tell them not to and give your reasons however logical they may be, it will be dismissed as heresy. So the point is, if they are comfortable and agreeable, who are we from a different faith or with no faith even, to say they are wrong. Every different faith has something which we can pick bones at. And because Islam does not allow dissent, similarly it's not our purview to question them for accepting it as it is.

The only thing we can say, well if you're comfortable with thee edicts well and goodonya. But while we accept these practises of yours, similarly you must allow us to do things differently. And if you come to our society, we will give you space but your observance of your creed cannot interfere in the way our society is set.

As for your analogy to Nazism, that's a different matter isn't it? If the Nazis won the war and dominates society today, those who do not, will be considered stupid and a lot of other things. The victors write the history when it comes to war.

I'm not saying I disagree entirely with the point you're making, we may and will find some of the Islamic edicts daft and cannot fathom why people follow them. But it's their choice to make not ours.

Well researched and a good read. I would just add though that what I said about illiteracy was probably ambiguous. I believe that half the world's muslims cannot read or write. Not specifically UK muslims. Also don't women go to hell if they nag their husbands too much? (Not quite the way you would have put it!).

Ultimately, you're right. It's their choice. But if they don't wise up and learn they won't be receiving a piece of Paradise's epicurean action then maybe they'll be less willing to submit to their menfolk here on earth.

[GUNTERYY36]

Haven’t ‘upset’ me in the slightest GUNTERYY and no apologies necessary.

You are entitled to your opinion and if you choose to look up to and applaud the likes of Tommy Robinson that’s up to you.
The facts are however that the man you want to be given a knighthood is a far right activist with convictions for Contempt of Court, Breach of the Peace, Mortgage Fraud and - having been banned from entering the U.S. because of a drugs offence - attempting to enter the U.S. on a false passport.
That might be the stuff of heroes to you but in my world it makes him a complete arse and, because people like you appear to be taken in by him, an increasingly dangerous one at that.


, I didn't say he was an 'hero' of mine. I don't have any heros. But I like to see justice done and when a man is thrown in prison (and then tortured by prison officers) for exercising his right to free speech and giving an opinion, that doesn't seem like cricket to me. Even he should be allowed to give an opinion without fear of a jail sentence. Also I'd like to know just what 'contempt of court' is and why in this case the 'offender' has received a lengthy jail sentence because of it. 'Mortagage fraud' is a joke and clearly designed to detain a political prisoner). Maybe we'll see Anjem Choudary charged for a litter offence but I won't hold my breath.

Far right activist? There's quite a few of them these days. If you grumble about the number of refugees sweeping into the country you're the reincarnation of Hitler.

[ramAnag]

, I didn't say he was an 'hero' of mine. I don't have any heros. But I like to see justice done and when a man is thrown in prison (and then tortured by prison officers) for exercising his right to free speech and giving an opinion, that doesn't seem like cricket to me. Even he should be allowed to give an opinion without fear of a jail sentence. Also I'd like to know just what 'contempt of court' is and why in this case the 'offender' has received a lengthy jail sentence because of it. 'Mortagage fraud' is a joke and clearly designed to detain a political prisoner). Maybe we'll see Anjem Choudary charged for a litter offence but I won't hold my breath.

Far right activist? There's quite a few of them these days. If you grumble about the number of refugees sweeping into the country you're the reincarnation of Hitler.

So maybe ‘hero’ was the wrong word but you suggested he should receive a knighthood which in turn implies a huge degree of admiration on your part.
I fully accept that there is a proper need for a fair and reasoned debate on the subject of immigration into this country. What I will never accept is that it should be conducted via an agenda determined by a far right racist loudmouth like Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
If you still don’t recognise my terminology then have a look at not just his ‘record’ but also his tweets. The man is a bigoted menace imo and the last person you should look to if we are to have a serious, sensible and sensitive debate in this country.

P.S. This ‘tortured by prison officers’ you refer to. What form is it alleged to have taken and how do you know?

[Manofpride]

What happened to free speech, like I mentioned before we are supposed to be equals, what a laugh!
I'm not a keen fan of Tommy at all but we all know he was wrongly jailed.

[GUNTERYY36]

What happened to free speech, like I mentioned before we are supposed to be equals, what a laugh!
I'm not a keen fan of Tommy at all but we all know he was wrongly jailed.

We shouldn't be surprised he was wrongly jailed. Not only does he 'offend' those who are acutely offended but has an irritating habit of of highlighting their beliefs. Robinson will always carry top weight as people would much rather call him names, e.g. menace, bigot, racist, loud mouth, etc. than debate what he says. Much easier to shut him up.

[Trickytreesreds]

We shouldn't be surprised he was wrongly jailed. Not only does he 'offend' those who are acutely offended but has an irritating habit of of highlighting their beliefs. Robinson will always carry top weight as people would much rather call him names, e.g. menace, bigot, racist, loud mouth, etc. than debate what he says. Much easier to shut him up.

If the government/Police/Social services stopped trying to cover things up. Then people like TR would have no platform.
What is it that these people feel they need to hide from the rest of us?

The racist/xenophobe/islamophobia jibes are designed to make you shut up.
TR refused to and the government has gone out of its way to harrass/jail him and family.
This is scary stuff really and goes against the grain of British democracy. ]
If we have a problem with a culture in this country, then we should deal with it. If said culture cannot change, then it needs out lawing.
I don't have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with Islam(the religion)
Islam depicts Muhammad as the supreme being and followers should try to emulate him. This same "supreme being", was a war monger who killed/enslaved. He also took a child for a wife, then had *** with her when she was 9. Its all there in the Qu'ran and Muslims are expected to follow that.

There is a consensus among Islam followers that what has happened was the girls fault and that comes from the teachings.
TR highlights this and the law has tried to gag him wrongly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3X5Lqf3e1A

[Ram59]

So we're not to do anything about Muslim's treatment of womenfolk because a majority of them accept it.

If that's the case why did we give women the vote, why did we get the *** equality act and pay them the same for the same job as men? Why did we allow gays to be open in their relationships? A majority of all those affected were happy with their circumstances, but the civilised society that we live in decided that these people were not being treated fairly.

If Muslims want to live in our country then they should be prepared to live by our practises when required. This doesn't mean that the wearing of the Burka should be banned wholesale because we live in a free world and you should be free to wear what you want. But in certain circumstances because of security or safety or other situations which aren't compatible to our way of life, then the burka should not be worn.

Next we'll be allowing them to be punished under sharia law rather than our own judicial system.

Wether our not it is accepted, the wearing of the Burka, like fgm is a crime against female Muslims. Just as women not having the vote or equal pay or gays having equal rights, were last century.

If no one had acted then, would we still be living with those unacceptable practises now?

[MadAmster]

Here's my take on the Tommy stitch up. He was, good n proper.

Not that I think he was innocent. He was outside a courtroom, reporting on a case which had reporting restrictions in place. He ignored them and broadcasted anyway. IMO, the police were right to arrest him. Where it all went pear shaped was that the judge didn't take the evidence seriously. Admitted himself that he hadn't given the video more than a cursory glance......

I think that he will get found guilty again, quite rightly too, for contempt of court. The suspended 3 month sentence from his previous (2017) contempt case will kick in. He will get a couple of months on top of that and then, taking into account time served, he will walk out of court a free, but convicted, man.

[ramAnag]

MA, with you being one of the more reasonable on here I’m genuinely confused. On the one hand you suggest TR was stitched up, a few lines later you suggest he will be found guilty again and ‘quite rightly too’. Which do you agree with? If he was ‘stitched up’ - which imo he wasn’t - how can you applaud his being found guilty again?

Ram59, I totally accept your criticisms of the inequalities implicit within the Muslim faith and share your concern, but Muslims are not alone. The vast majority of organised religions have always displayed a very questionable attitude to women and Catholics still adhere to what, imo, is the ridiculous belief that ‘only a baptised man validly receives sacred ordination’. We surely need to educate not alienate.

Tricky...as ever you are spouting your usual one eyed nonsense in a thinly disguised anti Muslim rant.
So...why just single out Muhammad in the area of what are now, quite rightly, considered to be inappropriate relationships?
What about Richard II for instance who took Isabella of Valois as his wife at the age of 6 I believe? Like your own example...historically irrelevant I agree, but let’s look at more recent white western icons...Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis or Bill Wyman for example, who all displayed a staggering penchant for under age young girls...and what does that tell us about modern day western beliefs? Absolutely nothing.
As for rejecting Islam because it includes a belief in the ‘supreme being’, what about the Bible which states very clearly (Exodus 20:3) that God commands ‘You shall have no other God than me’? How far removed is that from suggesting a belief in Allah as a supreme being?

Finally your closing comment about there being a ‘consensus amongst Muslim followers’ about it ‘being the girls fault’ is just bollux.
There will always be low lifes amongst all communities, including religious ones, who seek to abdicate moral responsibility in favour of satisfying their own needs...Catholic priests anyone? In this particular instance those within the grooming gangs were 100% responsible for what happened imo, but bad parenting of and behaviour by the victims was also a factor. That’s not an excuse, just a fact that I have first hand professional experience of. Doesn’t lessen the wrongdoing of the perpetrators at all, or those who tried to cover it all up, but to say the majority of Muslims consider it to have been the girls fault is just untrue and the sort of lie that is aimed at perpetuating divisiveness within this country.

[Andy_Faber]

RA I think you need to read MA's post again I think his summing up was spot-on, and the whole incident reflected equally badly on TR himself and those in positions of law and order

On a more general point, would you at least consider the notion that 'the Muslim issue' has a demographic not a lot different to 'The Brexit issue' and 'the Trump issue' - the supposed elite predominantly siding one way, the man and woman in the street, partly through the breaking down of traditional means of mass-communication, siding the other way. That's certainly my observation, this forum being typical in it's leaning, although actually one of the best in its lines of argument, yours included

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky...as ever you are spouting your usual one eyed nonsense in a thinly disguised anti Muslim rant.
So...why just single out Muhammad in the area of what are now, quite rightly, considered to be inappropriate relationships?
What about Richard II for instance who took Isabella of Valois as his wife at the age of 6 I believe? Like your own example...historically irrelevant I agree, but let’s look at more recent white western icons...Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis or Bill Wyman for example, who all displayed a staggering penchant for under age young girls...and what does that tell us about modern day western beliefs? Absolutely nothing.
As for rejecting Islam because it includes a belief in the ‘supreme being’, what about the Bible which states very clearly (Exodus 20:3) that God commands ‘You shall have no other God than me’? How far removed is that from suggesting a belief in Allah as a supreme being?


1. Why single out Muhammad and inappropriate relationships? Well because it goes on through that book to this very day. It may be hard to hide a child bride in this country, but the belief of what is acceptable is in many forms world wide. The same way as FGM is acceptable to huge amount.

2. Isabella, yep you conveniently pluck a practice from 600 years ago, which I have to say is long dead in western culture. It was also a marriage of convenience due to the 100 years war. Of course Islam doesn't still live 600 years in the past does it? lol

3. EP, JLL, BW ARE AND WERE PEDO'S.!!!! They should have been locked up and the key thrown away. Chuck MJ into that category as well.
I'm sure Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism/Judism didn't force them into it either.

4. You choose to quote Exodus? LOLOLOLOL
If it had escaped you, the Bible comes as two books. Old and New Testament.

Muhammads opposite was Jesus Christ. Last time I looked, JC wasn't slaughtering anyone, conquering lands nor taking child brides.
Neither were nor are his teachings telling anyone to take non believers of Christianity as slaves and war trophies.
This happens today in Mosque teachings in this country. FACT!

So you can deny what you want. Those Pakistani descended muslims, targeted white under age girls. Not Muslim girls, plied them with drink and drugs and passed them around like *** toys.
Have any of their wives or family condemned them or divorced them? NO.
It's been going on for years, by the same religious group and when challenged nothing was done.
This last line sums it all up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20316934

Now I'll ask again, why did the Government/Police/Social services fail to do anything about it, when they had known for years?
TR gets lifted from in front of a court and within HOURS!!! Is behind bars.

You wonder why folks are suspicious/irate/sick of it all?

[MadAmster]

MA, with you being one of the more reasonable on here I’m genuinely confused. On the one hand you suggest TR was stitched up, a few lines later you suggest he will be found guilty again and ‘quite rightly too’. Which do you agree with? If he was ‘stitched up’ - which imo he wasn’t - how can you applaud his being found guilty again?

.

He broke the Law. He was arrested for it but the trial happened less than 5 hours after his arrest. He was given a lawyer he didn't want, he wanted his own. The judge apparently didnt take any evidence fro Yaxley-Lennon. He also said he hadn't spent much time reading the charges nor had he watched the content of the video and the prosecution didnt have the video shown to identify which part of it was in contempt of court.

The way it all happened was a stitch up. This time we will hopefully see the evidence properly presented. So more the way it was done than that he was arrested........ if you see the difference, if I have explained it better this time.

[ramAnag]

I didn’t ‘conveniently pluck a practice from 600 years ago’ at all. I chose one of many examples which I also described as historically irrelevant. In case it’s escaped your notice the Quran was written rather longer ago than a mere six hundred years.

So ‘EP, JLL, MJ and BW ARE AND WERE PEDO’s’. Really? Actually they aren’t/weren’t, they were obsessed with under age virgins not pre-pubescent children which is the definition of a *****phile. At least know what the terminology you use actually means and while I may share your condemnation of such behaviour a great many white westerners appear to hold them in the same high esteem regardless.

What am I ‘denying’? I 100% condemn grooming gangs. I also 100% condemn those members of the establishment who tried to cover up what was happening, all too often in the name of political correctness. I just happen to have what I suspect to be a greater professional awareness of the realities of what was going on and I don’t have to rely on a six year old video clip to substantiate my point. Much has changed in that time Tricky, there were, and probably still are some Muslim abusers...likewise there were, and probably still are, abusers within the Catholic community and the higher echelons of the establishment, but you, in your inimitable and obsessive way, will only concentrate on one of those groups. Wonder why?

Finally, if you’re genuinely concerned about the ***ual abuse/exploitation of young people you might wish to concentrate on what’s happened to the Westminster Pa edophile dossier rather than repetitively attacking your usual whipping boys.

[Trickytreesreds]

I didn’t ‘conveniently pluck a practice from 600 years ago’ at all. I chose one of many examples which I also described as historically irrelevant. In case it’s escaped your notice the Quran was written rather longer ago than a mere six hundred years.

So ‘EP, JLL, MJ and BW ARE AND WERE PEDO’s’. Really? Actually they aren’t/weren’t, they were obsessed with under age virgins not pre-pubescent children which is the definition of a *****phile. At least know what the terminology you use actually means and while I may share your condemnation of such behaviour a great many white westerners appear to hold them in the same high esteem regardless.

What am I ‘denying’? I 100% condemn grooming gangs. I also 100% condemn those members of the establishment who tried to cover up what was happening, all too often in the name of political correctness. I just happen to have what I suspect to be a greater professional awareness of the realities of what was going on and I don’t have to rely on a six year old video clip to substantiate my point. Much has changed in that time Tricky, there were, and probably still are some Muslim abusers...likewise there were, and probably still are, abusers within the Catholic community and the higher echelons of the establishment, but you, in your inimitable and obsessive way, will only concentrate on one of those groups. Wonder why?

Finally, if you’re genuinely concerned about the ***ual abuse/exploitation of young people you might wish to concentrate on what’s happened to the Westminster Pa edophile dossier rather than repetitively attacking your usual whipping boys.

Of course I know how long ago the Qu'ran was written.
The point which escapes you, is that the bible in both forms was used as a method of control, just like the Qu'ran is.
That was hundreds of years ago and western society separated politics from religion, as a guiding rule of thumb.
Islam is seen as the only laws man must follow, as the teachings tell them, all mans laws are to be ignored except he rule of God.
In essence, Sharia law.
Now you may not be aware of this, but for a modern culture. Four in ten Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. Half want homo***uality out lawed.

This is the situation now. Look at the crimes being committed under these teachings. What will it be like in another 50 years?
The point which you are avoiding, as you have a dislike of Yaxley Lennon.
Is that every citizen in this country has a right of fair treatment under UK law. Even your beloved EU is supposed to promote that.
He should have been arrested for the right reasons and treated the same as everyone else. He wasn't. He was in prison in less than 5 hours.
There is a reason for that, it is called gagging.

So the question remains. Why does the powers that be(government/Police/Social) hush things up and ignore crimes right under our noses, under the fear of being branded a racist?
Are we going down the Sweden model?
Sweden is imploding with this Liberal "lets hug and love" everyone attitude, when not asking questions. Elections soon in Sweden, lets see what the public think of it there.
Unfortunately, like Germany/Italy/France coalition governments rule, so even the majority miss out.

This is fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJX5wSpXCE&t=63s

[Geoff Parkstone]

" Now you may not be aware of this, but for a modern culture. Four in ten Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. Half want homo***uality out lawed."

Seems like the far right may have more in common with the Moslems than they think then - both want to persecute homo***uality. There is an unholy alliance for you.

It is indeed strange that the Moslems and the far right actually have much in common in their rather intolerant views on anyone deviating from societal norm. Most of the more extreme elements of Islam would fit in very nicely in the Nazi party, sharing many similar views. Thank **** thy havent got together and joined forces.

[GUNTERYY36]

" Now you may not be aware of this, but for a modern culture. Four in ten Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. Half want homo***uality out lawed."

Seems like the far right may have more in common with the Moslems than they think then - both want to persecute homo***uality. There is an unholy alliance for you.

It is indeed strange that the Moslems and the far right actually have much in common in their rather intolerant views on anyone deviating from societal norm. Most of the more extreme elements of Islam would fit in very nicely in the Nazi party, sharing many similar views. Thank **** thy havent got together and joined forces.

Maybe but Islam should be treated with respect.

[ramAnag]

Of course I know how long ago the Qu'ran was written.
The point which escapes you, is that the bible in both forms was used as a method of control, just like the Qu'ran is.
That was hundreds of years ago and western society separated politics from religion, as a guiding rule of thumb.
Islam is seen as the only laws man must follow, as the teachings tell them, all mans laws are to be ignored except he rule of God.
In essence, Sharia law.
Now you may not be aware of this, but for a modern culture. Four in ten Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. Half want homo***uality out lawed.

This is the situation now. Look at the crimes being committed under these teachings. What will it be like in another 50 years?
The point which you are avoiding, as you have a dislike of Yaxley Lennon.
Is that every citizen in this country has a right of fair treatment under UK law. Even your beloved EU is supposed to promote that.
He should have been arrested for the right reasons and treated the same as everyone else. He wasn't. He was in prison in less than 5 hours.
There is a reason for that, it is called gagging.

So the question remains. Why does the powers that be(government/Police/Social) hush things up and ignore crimes right under our noses, under the fear of being branded a racist?
Are we going down the Sweden model?
Sweden is imploding with this Liberal "lets hug and love" everyone attitude, when not asking questions. Elections soon in Sweden, lets see what the public think of it there.
Unfortunately, like Germany/Italy/France coalition governments rule, so even the majority miss out.

This is fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJX5wSpXCE&t=63s

I agree Tricky - step back in amazement! - pretty much all religion came into being as a means of social control and in many ways remains that way. I actually have little time for any of them I just don’t see any huge difference between the teachings of Islam and the teachings of other major religions. Think we’d be better off without any of them tbh, but then I neither need religion in my life or share any aspects of your ‘agenda’.

It’s not a question of disliking Yaxley-Lennon/Robinson or whatever he calls himself. I don’t know him - thankfully - but yes I abhor everything he and his followers stand for and even if you have the tiniest degree of time for what he says - I don’t - one look at his tweets should leave you in no doubt about him being an overtly racist bully boy. Perhaps that appeals to you...personally I think he and the EDL are things we would all be better off without.

Oddly your ‘figures’ about Muslim beliefs as regards homo***uality would probably be replicated in many sections of traditional British society. I’d guess that at least 40% of Mail and Express readers would want the same and a much higher percentage would welcome the return of the death penalty and quite possibly chopping the hands off thieves, especially Pakistani ones. It is a paradox that Parky hints at, whereby hard core Muslims and Jews are actually far closer to the extreme right than any other part of the political spectrum and indeed it seems perfectly reasonable to describe extreme Muslims and Zionists as fascist in outlook. The irony does not escape me.

On the other hand, if the figure is - as you say - 40%, that clearly means that 60% of Muslims don’t subscribe to the views you describe. So, by your own argument, a significant majority of those who refer to themselves as Muslim don’t actually want Sharia law or the outlawing of homo***uality. Maybe we should build on that...educate both the Muslim extremists along with the Mail, Sun and Express readers rather than alienating them and deepening the divide as the likes of you and Yaxley Lennon seem to wish to do.

[i961pie]

[QUOTE=GUNTERYY36;38978238]

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

Funny that because all the news reports I heard described the culprits as Asian and not Pakistani. Why don't they say when a Brit commits a crime he is European?

[GUNTERYY36]

" Now you may not be aware of this, but for a modern culture. Four in ten Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. Half want homo***uality out lawed."

Seems like the far right may have more in common with the Moslems than they think then - both want to persecute homo***uality. There is an unholy alliance for you.

It is indeed strange that the Moslems and the far right actually have much in common in their rather intolerant views on anyone deviating from societal norm. Most of the more extreme elements of Islam would fit in very nicely in the Nazi party, sharing many similar views. Thank **** thy havent got together and joined forces.

Just a footnote to that figure, Geoff Parkstone. A breathtaking seven in ten UK muslims admit they wouldn't inform the police if they knew that a terror attack was being planned. This means that if they hadn't been so loyal to those responsible then the lives of innocent kids at a pop concert might well have been spared. Heartbreaking but this is what we're up against.

[ramAnag]

Just a footnote to that figure, Geoff Parkstone. A breathtaking seven in ten UK muslims admit they wouldn't inform the police if they knew that a terror attack was being planned. This means that if they hadn't been so loyal to those responsible then the lives of innocent kids at a pop concert might well have been spared. Heartbreaking but this is what we're up against.

And this ‘breathtaking’ figure comes from where? The Tommy Robinson little book of make believe?
We try to provide evidence for our figures on here Gunteryy. Personally I find the suggestion that 70% of UK Muslims would not report an intended terror attack as offensive as it is unbelievable.
Terror attacks are largely indiscriminate, Muslims die and get injured too you know, so do please explain...where did you get this 70% figure from and how do you know ‘this is what we’re up against’?

[Trickytreesreds]

Here's one.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

[Geoff Parkstone]

[QUOTE=GUNTERYY36;38978238]

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

Funny that because all the news reports I heard described the culprits as Asian and not Pakistani. Why don't they say when a Brit commits a crime he is European?

Oh come on, Pie, you must surely realise that Brits don't commit crimes, its just those naughty immigrant chappies and asylum seekrs

[Geoff Parkstone]

On the other hand, if the figure is - as you say - 40%, that clearly means that 60% of Muslims don’t subscribe to the views you describe. So, by your own argument, a significant majority of those who refer to themselves as Muslim don’t actually want Sharia law or the outlawing of homo***uality. Maybe we should build on that...educate both the Muslim extremists along with the Mail, Sun and Express readers rather than alienating them and deepening the divide as the likes of you and Yaxley Lennon seem to wish to do.

Lets round that down a bit for the sake of simplification. Lets say 34.73 percent of Muslims want homo***uality made illegal. That clearly means that 65.27% of Muslims don’t subscribe to the views Tricky describes - or have not expressed a view. So, by your own argument, a significant majority of those who refer to themselves as the electorate don’t actually want to stay in the EU. Maybe we should build on that

.... oh hang on, my phraseology has gone all wonky here. you cant have it both ways round!!

[GUNTERYY36]

And this ‘breathtaking’ figure comes from where? The Tommy Robinson little book of make believe?
We try to provide evidence for our figures on here Gunteryy. Personally I find the suggestion that 70% of UK Muslims would not report an intended terror attack as offensive as it is unbelievable.
Terror attacks are largely indiscriminate, Muslims die and get injured too you know, so do please explain...where did you get this 70% figure from and how do you know ‘this is what we’re up against’?

So, AnagRam

[ramAnag]

Here's one.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

Oh ffs Tricky...give it a rest. The Gatestone Institute is a right wing anti Muslim think tank...what do you expect it to say?
Probably where GUNTERYY got his ridiculous stat from too.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Shhhhhhhhhhh noone mention Huddersfield

31 charged, many named, some cannot be. By my reckoning every one named sounds Moslem, with one possible exception. Mostly in 30s, and generally charged with rape and trafficking of under aged girls.

Plus ca change, la meme chose

[GUNTERYY36]

Oh ffs Tricky...give it a rest. The Gatestone Institute is a right wing anti Muslim think tank...what do you expect it to say?
Probably where GUNTERYY got his ridiculous stat from too.

So any stats we disapprove of can easily be refuted by discrediting their source?

This is what we're up against

By the way, you're getting too hung up on Tommy Robinson. Isn't that 37 names you've called him so far? Forget the man as he's clouding your take on Islamic scripture.

[ramAnag]

Shhhhhhhhhhh noone mention Huddersfield

31 charged, many named, some cannot be. By my reckoning every one named sounds Moslem, with one possible exception. Mostly in 30s, and generally charged with rape and trafficking of under aged girls.

Plus ca change, la meme chose

Quite right Parky, and very pleased I am to see such ‘people’ brought to justice. They do indeed all have Muslim names and all the offences date back between six and thir**** years...which is kind of what I’ve been saying. No excuses, this should never have been covered up and should have been dealt with years ago but things have changed.

Gunteryy...one cannot help but discredit Tricky’s source...it’s a very right wing organisation which aims to discredit Muslims...it has no credibility at all in this context.
As for ‘discrediting’ your source, you’ve still to name it...anyone can make up a figure...and while we’re at it, who’s this ‘we’ as in ‘this is what we’re up against’? Sounds distinctly sinister to me. Maybe you’re referring to you and Tricky...you and Robinson perhaps...maybe you’re part of some organisation.
Either way, the source of your statistic would be helpful while an inability/refusal to reveal it might lead people to believe it might just be made up.

[MadAmster]

And this ‘breathtaking’ figure comes from where? The Tommy Robinson little book of make believe?


Probably. Like as not also the source of his claim of having his cell "directly opposite the prison mosque"........... only problem being that the prison doesn't have a mosque. Hung by your own petard Yaxley-Lennon.

[ramAnag]

Probably. Like as not also the source of his claim of having his cell "directly opposite the prison mosque"........... only problem being that the prison doesn't have a mosque. Hung by your own petard Yaxley-Lennon.

Oh yeah, that’s just reminded me...another of Gunteryy’s claims that I asked him to substantiate...that Yaxley-Lennon-Robinson had been ‘tortured’ in prison.
Anything to add on that one Gunteryy?
All I could find was that he claimed ‘mental torture’ because he didn't have his own TV, didn’t trust the food and thought there were too many Muslims locked up alongside him...poor love!

[Trickytreesreds]

Oh ffs Tricky...give it a rest. The Gatestone Institute is a right wing anti Muslim think tank...what do you expect it to say?
Probably where GUNTERYY got his ridiculous stat from too.

You obviously didn't read all of it. But then again I'm not surprised.
You seem happy that Laxley Lennon can be banged up without due procedure being followed. I have to question what your leanings are?

btw if you had read the whole article, then you would have noted that it was used as evidence in a channel 4 documentary.
If you feel the way you do about the information used, then you need to act now, because millions will have seen it.
The press have used it as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homo***uality-sharia-law

But Islam is such a wonderful teaching, it couldn't possibly corrupt anyone and no one is bound to get hurt.

And they all lived happily ever after.

[ramAnag]

You obviously didn't read all of it. But then again I'm not surprised.
You seem happy that Laxley Lennon can be banged up without due procedure being followed. I have to question what your leanings are?

btw if you had read the whole article, then you would have noted that it was used as evidence in a channel 4 documentary.
If you feel the way you do about the information used, then you need to act now, because millions will have seen it.
The press have used it as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homo***uality-sharia-law

But Islam is such a wonderful teaching, it couldn't possibly corrupt anyone and no one is bound to get hurt.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Of course I didn’t read it. I look at the source of your attachments and invariably decide that life’s too short to give them any further attention.
It’s like asking Kenny Burns to give an objective assessment of Derby’s promotion prospects...never gonna happen!
As regards Islam being such a ‘wonderful teaching’ you know perfectly well that I have little time for either Islam or any other organised religion.
Neither do I profess myself to be sufficiently expert on Islam...pretty good at recognising bigotry and what has curiously become known as ‘fake news’ (aka being economical with the truth) when I see it though.

[Andy_Faber]

Of course I didn’t read it.

Did you read my post #80 though? It was intended as a serious question looking for a serious answer, maybe you didn't read it as such or it just got lost in the jousting of the following 20 or so posts

[ramAnag]

Did you read my post #80 though? It was intended as a serious question looking for a serious answer, maybe you didn't read it as such or it just got lost in the jousting of the following 20 or so posts

Sorry Andy, for what it’s worth I always read your posts and, sadly, I have to agree with much of post #80.
On the subject of the impact of communication...the way in which various aspects of the media have been able to influence public opinion has always been a concern, but if anything - as I suspect we saw earlier tonight - modern communication has provided each vaguely literate individual with the ability to pass off dangerous nonsense as ‘fact’.

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry Andy, for what it’s worth I always read your posts and, sadly, I have to agree with much of post #80.
On the subject of the impact of communication...the way in which various aspects of the media have been able to influence public opinion has always been a concern, but if anything - as I suspect we saw earlier tonight - modern communication has provided each vaguely literate individual with the ability to pass off dangerous nonsense as ‘fact’.

Very true, there's 'supposition as fact' on all sides - Facebook is rife with it, a sort of 'Swale Delux'. I really think BBC have lost the plot though, and their obsession with pushing diversity is having a detrimental (ie non-liberal) effect on public opinion.

[ramAnag]

Very true, there's 'supposition as fact' on all sides - Facebook is rife with it, a sort of 'Swale Delux'. I really think BBC have lost the plot though, and their obsession with pushing diversity is having a detrimental (ie non-liberal) effect on public opinion.

‘Supposition as fact’ is the tip of the iceberg imo, Andy.
All too often I suspect there is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I believe GUNTERYY’s ‘facts’ about his ‘70% of Muslims’ figure and his Tommy Robinson ‘tortured by prison officers’ claim - neither of which he has returned to substantiate - both fall into that category.
Unless challenged such ‘facts’ begin to become absorbed by the less questioning and more suggestible amongst us which is enormously dangerous.
Don’t really follow your BBC argument though. You’re too intelligent to say things without thinking them through but I just don’t recognise this ‘obsession with diversity’ you speak of. Examples?

[Andy_Faber]

‘Supposition as fact’ is the tip of the iceberg imo, Andy.
All too often I suspect there is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I believe GUNTERYY’s ‘facts’ about his ‘70% of Muslims’ figure and his Tommy Robinson ‘tortured by prison officers’ claim - neither of which he has returned to substantiate - both fall into that category.
Unless challenged such ‘facts’ begin to become absorbed by the less questioning and more suggestible amongst us which is enormously dangerous.
Don’t really follow your BBC argument though. You’re too intelligent to say things without thinking them through but I just don’t recognise this ‘obsession with diversity’ you speak of. Examples?

I'll PM you on that one

[GUNTERYY36]

‘Supposition as fact’ is the tip of the iceberg imo, Andy.
All too often I suspect there is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I believe GUNTERYY’s ‘facts’ about his ‘70% of Muslims’ figure and his Tommy Robinson ‘tortured by prison officers’ claim - neither of which he has returned to substantiate - both fall into that category.
Unless challenged such ‘facts’ begin to become absorbed by the less questioning and more suggestible amongst us which is enormously dangerous.
Don’t really follow your BBC argument though. You’re too intelligent to say things without thinking them through but I just don’t recognise this ‘obsession with diversity’ you speak of. Examples?

I doubt there's any point in providing a link to you about anything, RamAnag. You'll no doubt use your sidestepping strategy again in which you dodge content you don't like by claiming not to have read it.

[GUNTERYY36]

What does interest me is your admission you're not 'sufficiently expert' on Islam. Maybe if you spent more time reading it than wasting your life following the fortunes of Robinson then you'd be able to discuss it more expertly.

[ramAnag]

I doubt there's any point in providing a link to you about anything, RamAnag. You'll no doubt use your sidestepping strategy again in which you dodge content you don't like by claiming not to have read it.

Apologies Gunteryy...I suffered the forum equivalent of locking myself out.
Strange that you only seem to come on here to challenge my politics and write nothing about football...anyway...I don’t know about me ‘sidestepping’ things. I simply choose to take little notice of sources where objectivity plays second fiddle to ‘agenda’. You on the other hand seem to have palpably failed to back up/source your allegations about Muslims, almost certainly because your 70% figure is total and dangerous nonsense.

[GUNTERYY36]

Apologies Gunteryy...I suffered the forum equivalent of locking myself out.
Strange that you only seem to come on here to challenge my politics and write nothing about football...anyway...I don’t know about me ‘sidestepping’ things. I simply choose to take little notice of sources where objectivity plays second fiddle to ‘agenda’. You on the other hand seem to have palpably failed to back up/source your allegations about Muslims, almost certainly because your 70% figure is total and dangerous nonsense.
Life can be so unfair, RamanAnag, what with you locked out and TR locked in ;) You're too sensitive about my challenging your views, I just

happened to notice an interesting thread and took part in it. I happen to be an avid supporter of Barnsley and in the unlikely event of someone mentioning them I'll be happy to join in.

[ramAnag]

Life can be so unfair, RamanAnag, what with you locked out and TR locked in ;) You're too sensitive about my challenging your views, I just

happened to notice an interesting thread and took part in it. I happen to be an avid supporter of Barnsley and in the unlikely event of someone mentioning them I'll be happy to join in.

Not sure about your life being ‘unfair’ comment or how I am being ‘sensitive’, Gunterry.
I’ve often spoken with one of the Barnsley fans on here...nice chap...called Acido...can’t say you seem terribly prolific over there on Tykes Mad though.
I suppose I just find it quite odd when people come from nowhere to make overtly controversial political comments, especially when they are of the ‘70% of Muslims think’ variety and then prove completely unable to substantiate them.

[GUNTERYY36]

Not sure about your life being ‘unfair’ comment or how I am being ‘sensitive’, Gunterry.
I’ve often spoken with one of the Barnsley fans on here...nice chap...called Acido...can’t say you seem terribly prolific over there on Tykes Mad though.
I suppose I just find it quite odd when people come from nowhere to make overtly controversial political comments, especially when they are of the ‘70% of Muslims think’ variety and then prove completely unable to substantiate them.

It was just a throwaway comment, ramAnag, don't worry about it. Life's unfair for everyone. It's true I'm not a prolific poster there but I'm sure I'll receive an invitation some time. Acido's a nice bloke, not a bad word against anyone, but then 70% of all Barnsley fans are. ;)

[ramAnag]

It was just a throwaway comment, ramAnag, don't worry about it. Life's unfair for everyone. It's true I'm not a prolific poster there but I'm sure I'll receive an invitation some time. Acido's a nice bloke, not a bad word against anyone, but then 70% of all Barnsley fans are. ;)

That’s the difference Gunteryy, some comments are indeed just ‘throwaway’ while others, like the ones you made about Muslim women and 70% of Muslims, just need throwing away with the rest of the trash.

[GUNTERYY36]

That’s the difference Gunteryy, some comments are indeed just ‘throwaway’ while others, like the ones you made about Muslim women and 70% of Muslims, just need throwing away with the rest of the trash.



Ouch.

I'll try not to throw away this comment too far. Western Muslim women who choose not to dress modestly ignore the teachings of the Holy Book they claim to observe. The obedient ones show they are, presumably, content to be oppressed by men. Those that haven't read the book might as well dress like an astronaut.

I said stupid. Okay, misinformed, feeble minded, uneducated, take your pick.

[ramAnag]

Ouch.

I'll try not to throw away this comment too far. Western Muslim women who choose not to dress modestly ignore the teachings of the Holy Book they claim to observe. The obedient ones show they are, presumably, content to be oppressed by men. Those that haven't read the book might as well dress like an astronaut.

I said stupid. Okay, misinformed, feeble minded, uneducated, take your pick.

I’ve made my choice about your comments thanks. Does seem strange how you’ve never come back at all about your 70% claim though.

[GUNTERYY36]

I’ve made my choice about your comments thanks. Does seem strange how you’ve never come back at all about your 70% claim though.


Interestingly, the same survey revealed that more than half of muslims think that homo***uality should be illegal in Britain and 23 per cent of Muslims want Sharia to replace British law in certain parts of the country.

Apparently, 39 per cent of Muslims think that their wives should always obey their husbands and 31 per cent think it was acceptable to have more than one wife.

Still, as these figures are so implausible I won't elaborate upon them. I will say, however, that your earlier comment that you find such comments 'offensive' quite revealing.

[ramAnag]

Interestingly, the same survey revealed that more than half of muslims think that homo***uality should be illegal in Britain and 23 per cent of Muslims want Sharia to replace British law in certain parts of the country.

Apparently, 39 per cent of Muslims think that their wives should always obey their husbands and 31 per cent think it was acceptable to have more than one wife.

Still, as these figures are so implausible I won't elaborate upon them. I will say, however, that your earlier comment that you find such comments 'offensive' quite revealing.

I haven’t actually said anything at all about ‘such comments’...largely because you haven’t made them before.
Neither do I find them particularly implausible...I have little time for any organised religion...I’d guess a similar percentage of Catholics and many white working class male adults would feel the same about homo***uality and their wives ‘obeying’ them and your figures actually suggest that a huge majority of Muslims (77%) don’t want Sharia Law so I’m really not sure what your point is.

To be clear...you have made two suggestions that I object to. Firstly that ‘Muslim women are stupid’ and secondly that ‘70% of Muslims’ would conceal the truth about a proposed terrorist attack.

While the first statement is itself too stupid to warrant further discussion, the second is the one you have repeatedly failed to substantiate or reveal a source for. Unfortunately people, apparently such as yourself, who support the EDL and claim that Tommy Robinson should be knighted are all too willing to make such claims in an effort to divert from the truth and cause divisiveness within our society.

[GUNTERYY36]

I haven’t actually said anything at all about ‘such comments’...largely because you haven’t made them before.
Neither do I find them particularly implausible...I have little time for any organised religion...I’d guess a similar percentage of Catholics and many white working class male adults would feel the same about homo***uality and their wives ‘obeying’ them and your figures actually suggest that a huge majority of Muslims (77%) don’t want Sharia Law so I’m really not sure what your point is.

To be clear...you have made two suggestions that I object to. Firstly that ‘Muslim women are stupid’ and secondly that ‘70% of Muslims’ would conceal the truth about a proposed terrorist attack.

While the first statement is itself too stupid to warrant further discussion, the second is the one you have repeatedly failed to substantiate or reveal a source for. Unfortunately people, apparently such as yourself, who support the EDL and claim that Tommy Robinson should be knighted are all too willing to make such claims in an effort to divert from the truth and cause divisiveness within our society.

Where do I say I support the EDL? I don't. You should be careful with such accusations.

[MadAmster]

Where do I say I support the EDL? I don't. You should be careful with such accusations.

He doesn't say you do support the EDL. What he says is "apparently such as yourself". He appears to think you may be at least sympathetic to the EDL based on remarks made in this thread. What you say and the way you say it leads others to make assumptions which is why rA uses the word "apparently".

[ramAnag]

Where do I say I support the EDL? I don't. You should be careful with such accusations.

I really don’t think I need to be ‘careful’ Gunteryy.
As MA correctly points out, the word ‘apparently’ indicates a probability, not any claim to fact and in any case...on 13th August you clearly stated that you felt Tommy Robinson to be deserving of a knighthood.
Along with conveying every appearance of being a racist thug, Tommy Robinson is the co-founder of the EDL. One imagines that you believe it is his political beliefs and actions that would entitle him to the title of ‘Sir’ - rather than his low level criminal activities - and thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that the EDL holds some attractions for you.
Feel free to carry on arguing if you wish but please don’t try and become threatening.

[GUNTERYY36]

I really don’t think I need to be ‘careful’ Gunteryy.
As MA correctly points out, the word ‘apparently’ indicates a probability, not any claim to fact and in any case...on 13th August you clearly stated that you felt Tommy Robinson to be deserving of a knighthood.
Along with conveying every appearance of being a racist thug, Tommy Robinson is the co-founder of the EDL. One imagines that you believe it is his political beliefs and actions that would entitle him to the title of ‘Sir’ - rather than his low level criminal activities - and thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that the EDL holds some attractions for you.
Feel free to carry on arguing if you wish but please don’t try and become threatening.


You most certainly do need to be careful. Any mention or of supporting the EDL and any other so-called far right organisation needs to be used carefully and sparingly. Just as you wouldn't cite verses from the Quran and use them to question modern day practices by 'moderate or 'peaceful'muslims'.

You constantly use the knighthood remark as a stick to beat me with yet know full well it wasn't meant literally. The comment by Donald Trump in the US election campaign concerning Mexico sending their rapists over the border was similar though admittedly one which he later regretted given the backlash from H Clinton. So let's 'put that to bed'.

TR's tries to highlight the events of Rochdale and Rotherham but is thrown in prison for his comments as they would presumably upset adherents of the religion that must not be named. As someone speculated earlier on this thread, why does the government shut him up? What have they got to hide? Why do they need to burst into his home and ransack the place? Giving a nonsensical 'far right' label is just a means of convincing people like you that he's a menace to society. Yes, the EDL were a disorganised mob who shouldn't be taken seriously but TR's current accusations most assuredly should.

You need to stop flying into a rage and consulting your dictionary of abusive names every time TR is mentioned. You would be better advised giving an objective assessment of what he says.

[ramAnag]

You most certainly do need to be careful. Any mention or of supporting the EDL and any other so-called far right organisation needs to be used carefully and sparingly. Just as you wouldn't cite verses from the Quran and use them to question modern day practices by 'moderate or 'peaceful'muslims'.

You constantly use the knighthood remark as a stick to beat me with yet know full well it wasn't meant literally. The comment by Donald Trump in the US election campaign concerning Mexico sending their rapists over the border was similar though admittedly one which he later regretted given the backlash from H Clinton. So let's 'put that to bed'.

TR's tries to highlight the events of Rochdale and Rotherham but is thrown in prison for his comments as they would presumably upset adherents of the religion that must not be named. As someone speculated earlier on this thread, why does the government shut him up? What have they got to hide? Why do they need to burst into his home and ransack the place? Giving a nonsensical 'far right' label is just a means of convincing people like you that he's a menace to society. Yes, the EDL were a disorganised mob who shouldn't be taken seriously but TR's current accusations most assuredly should.

You need to stop flying into a rage and consulting your dictionary of abusive names every time TR is mentioned. You would be better advised giving an objective assessment of what he says.

1) I’m not given to ‘flying into rages’.
2) How am I meant to know ‘full well’ that you didn’t mean the ‘knighthood remark’ literally? All I know of you is what you write.
3) No idea where Trump fits into this.
4) TR went to prison for contempt of court. Plenty of others, from all sides of the political spectrum ‘tried to highlight’ the issues and ‘events’ of Rochdale, Rotherham and elsewhere. The difference is...they didn’t break the law in their desire to further their own agenda.

Suggest that, rather than me being ‘careful’ you shouldn’t write what you later tell us all you didn’t mean. It’s really quite reasonable to conclude that, if someone speaks so highly of another individual then they are likely to be perceived as respecting that person and their beliefs/actions.

[MadAmster]

Gunter, here are a few facts.......

The trial TR reported on was subject to reporting restrictions because the trial is linked to and has commonalities with other ongoing trials. Some of the victims are the same. Some of the suspects/defendants are the same. In order to give them a fair trial, names and verdicts are not to be linked. Anything that might have the slightest influence on the other trials being fair and just may not be reported. It appears TR did just that. That is against the Law.

I think that, in his retrial, he will be found guilty and his sentence will be time served.

He knows exactly what Contempt is as he has been found guilty of it before. He will know what he can and can't report. Go outside of those parameters and you put yourself in danger of arrest.

I have yet to hear him condemn the 3 white guys recently jailed for raping babies. If he really is what he makes himself out to be, he would be all over that case like a rash too....... maybe you can enlighten us as to why he isn't all over it.

[mistaram]

1) I’m not given to ‘flying into rages’.
2) How am I meant to know ‘full
well’ that you didn’t mean the ‘knighthood remark’ literally? All I know of you is what you write.
3) No idea where Trump fits into this.
4) TR went to prison for contempt of court. Plenty of others, from all sides of the political spectrum ‘tried to highlight’ the issues and ‘events’ of Rochdale, Rotherham and elsewhere. The difference is...they didn’t break the law in their desire to further their own agenda.

Suggest that, rather than me being ‘careful’ you shouldn’t write what you later tell us all you didn’t mean. It’s really quite reasonable to conclude that, if someone speaks so highly of another individual then they are likely to be perceived as respecting that person and their beliefs/actions.

Don't i just wish I had your patience

[ramAnag]

Don't i just wish I had your patience

You must have a fair bit, mista...watching Derby as often as you do. ;D

[mistaram]

You must have a fair bit, mista...watching Derby as often as you do. ;D

Yes that can really test you But how you keep your cool with some of the idiots in here always amazes me Must be all though years teaching i suppose I just can't keep cool if somebody tries to humiliate me i will retaliate Mind you there are exceptions the wife for one I don't mess with her i could never win there

[GUNTERYY36]

Yes that can really test you But how you keep your cool with some of the idiots in here always amazes me Must be all though years teaching i suppose I just can't keep cool if somebody tries to humiliate me i will retaliate Mind you there are exceptions the wife for one I don't mess with her i could never win there

You don't have to keep your cool. If you don't agree with someone's point of view you can always challenge it or send them to the back of the class or something. Go for it.

[GUNTERYY36]

Gunter, here are a few facts.......

The trial TR reported on was subject to reporting restrictions because the trial is linked to and has commonalities with other ongoing trials. Some of the victims are the same. Some of the suspects/defendants are the same. In order to give them a fair trial, names and verdicts are not to be linked. Anything that might have the slightest influence on the other trials being fair and just may not be reported. It appears TR did just that. That is against the Law.

I think that, in his retrial, he will be found guilty and his sentence will be time served.

He knows exactly what Contempt is as he has been found guilty of it before. He will know what he can and can't report. Go outside of those parameters and you put yourself in danger of arrest.

I have yet to hear him condemn the 3 white guys recently jailed for raping babies. If he really is what he makes himself out to be, he would be all over that case like a rash too....... maybe you can enlighten us as to why he isn't all over it.

RamAnag, I agree that when TR violated reporting restrictions on an ongoing trial he was breaking the law. He should have been punished accordingly. But speaking strictly as a layman, I think 13 months seems an excessively long sentence. As did a similarly long sentence for the man who threw a pork chop outside a mosque. Still, I digress. As I alluded to earlier, it's a great shame the media don't report on individual cases of muslim 'grooming' to the same extent as they do technicalities in the trial of everyone's favourite pantomime villain. I haven't heard of the case you mentioned concerning the three white guys. But if it's true I agree, he should come out and condemn it.

By the way, some threads lead to exchanges that become a little (unnecessarily) personal. But I have not consciously tried to 'humiliate' you. But if that has happened I apologise unreservedly.

[ramAnag]

RamAnag, I agree that when TR violated reporting restrictions on an ongoing trial he was breaking the law. He should have been punished accordingly. But speaking strictly as a layman, I think 13 months seems an excessively long sentence. As did a similarly long sentence for the man who threw a pork chop outside a mosque. Still, I digress. As I alluded to earlier, it's a great shame the media don't report on individual cases of muslim 'grooming' to the same extent as they do technicalities in the trial of everyone's favourite pantomime villain. I haven't heard of the case you mentioned concerning the three white guys. But if it's true I agree, he should come out and condemn it.

By the way, some threads lead to exchanges that become a little (unnecessarily) personal. But I have not consciously tried to 'humiliate' you. But if that has happened I apologise unreservedly.

I think you’re confusing mista and myself Gunteryy. I didn’t mention a case of ‘three white guys’, mista did and I can assure you I have never felt ‘humiliated’ by you or anyone else on here. That was another of mista’s suggestions
Mista was, understandably in the circumstances, offering me support because arguing with you is a little like banging one’s head against a brick wall. You make a ridiculous statement, in this case about how ‘70% of Muslims’ behave and then, when challenged, change the subject completely, fail to substantiate it or claim ‘never to have meant it literally’.
Tbh I have some seriously more pressing matters that are of genuine concern to me at the moment and arguing with people who use such ‘tactics’ as you do is a waste of my time.
I’m not quite sure what your aim is. You don’t come from or have any interest in Derby County...you say very little - a few anti Derby jibes apart - about football and you seem hell bent on having a political argument with me in your effort to justify the actions of a few right wing, racist bigots such as Robinson and his EDL.
People on here may well be heartily sick of politics featuring on this forum but I think the likes of MoP, Ram59 and occasionally Andy would agree that, although we regularly disagree, I am nothing if not respectful of their position and consistent in my arguments. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about you and my time may be put to much better use elsewhere.

[MadAmster]

RamAnag, I agree that when TR violated reporting restrictions on an ongoing trial he was breaking the law. He should have been punished accordingly. But speaking strictly as a layman, I think 13 months seems an excessively long sentence. As did a similarly long sentence for the man who threw a pork chop outside a mosque. Still, I digress. As I alluded to earlier, it's a great shame the media don't report on individual cases of muslim 'grooming' to the same extent as they do technicalities in the trial of everyone's favourite pantomime villain. I haven't heard of the case you mentioned concerning the three white guys. But if it's true I agree, he should come out and condemn it.

By the way, some threads lead to exchanges that become a little (unnecessarily) personal. But I have not consciously tried to 'humiliate' you. But if that has happened I apologise unreservedly.

I don't know if this will help you find the 13 month sentence a little less excessive but he didn't get 13 months for THIS contempt of court. The sentence was made up of 2 parts. Once found guilty, the 3 month suspended sentence he was given in 2017 for contempt of court - he reported on a trial of Asian Muslims which was subject to reporting restrictions (sound familiar?) when he shouldn't have - and, as this was a repeat offence, very similar to the one only a year earlier, he was given a harsher sentence of 10 months for the 2018 offence. He appears not to have learned from the first suspended sentence and a harsher one is only to be expected.

[GUNTERYY36]

I don't know if this will help you find the 13 month sentence a little less excessive but he didn't get 13 months for THIS contempt of court. The sentence was made up of 2 parts. Once found guilty, the 3 month suspended sentence he was given in 2017 for contempt of court - he reported on a trial of Asian Muslims which was subject to reporting restrictions (sound familiar?) when he shouldn't have - and, as this was a repeat offence, very similar to the one only a year earlier, he was given a harsher sentence of 10 months for the 2018 offence. He appears not to have learned from the first suspended sentence and a harsher one is only to be expected.

MadAmster, I have no reason to doubt what you say. When treated in isolation, most fair-minded people will agree justice has been served. But my point is that there are a growing number of cases where Pakistani muslim rapists have been found guilty but given much lighter (or no) sentences. And the parents of the victims of Rotherham, Rochdale, etc. won't give a damn about the rights and wrongs of a celebrity trial. I'm quite sure they would rather see more publicity for these vile and heartbreaking crimes than hear of the media circus highlighting TR's brush with the law.

[MadAmster]

MadAmster, I have no reason to doubt what you say. When treated in isolation, most fair-minded people will agree justice has been served. But my point is that there are a growing number of cases where Pakistani muslim rapists have been found guilty but given much lighter (or no) sentences. And the parents of the victims of Rotherham, Rochdale, etc. won't give a damn about the rights and wrongs of a celebrity trial. I'm quite sure they would rather see more publicity for these vile and heartbreaking crimes than hear of the media circus highlighting TR's brush with the law.

Gunter, Totally agree with you on the severity of the Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby etc crimes. Those responsible, when found guilty, deserve long sentences. To the best of my recollection, sentences of years in double figures have been handed down. That is not leniency. I have seen press reports saying that 3 of the guilty who were born in Pakistan will be sent back there after serving their sentences. You appear to have knowledge of some lenient sentences of which I am unaware. I am definitely unaware of rapists being found guilty and getting no sentence whatsoever as you state. I look forward to your informing me of the charges and sentences I appear to have missed.

[ramAnag]

MadAmster, I have no reason to doubt what you say. When treated in isolation, most fair-minded people will agree justice has been served. But my point is that there are a growing number of cases where Pakistani muslim rapists have been found guilty but given much lighter (or no) sentences. And the parents of the victims of Rotherham, Rochdale, etc. won't give a damn about the rights and wrongs of a celebrity trial. I'm quite sure they would rather see more publicity for these vile and heartbreaking crimes than hear of the media circus highlighting TR's brush with the law.

Okay, my last word on the subject.
You don’t seem to like facts but let’s introduce some. A Rotherham grooming gang, which included four men of Pakistani origin and two remarkably white sounding women - Karen McGregor and Shelley Davies - received a combined total of 103 years.
The most severe sentence was 35 years and one of the women received just an 18 month suspended sentence.
Very significant sentences then, on average, and a bloody good thing too.

It may not suit your agenda to compare the relative length of Robinson/Yaxley Lennon’s thir**** month sentence for contempt of court but to say grooming gang members are treated leniently in comparison simply isn’t true.

I doubt you’ll find anyone on here who would defend any form of child abuse or those who misguidedly tried to hide the truth via some sort of blinkered notion of political correctness. It was entirely wrong but times have changed. Response towards and knowledge of grooming gangs has become much more high profile. There are numerous dramas, documentaries and news items dealing with the issue and rightly so.

The likes of you and Robinson/Lennon however just seem to want to keep banging on about Muslims. You conveniently forget the other more startling facts about where the majority of child abuse actually takes place and I suspect that I, along with others on here, know why.

So may I suggest you take your hang ups and prejudice elsewhere...the EDL Forum perhaps, they’ll probably love your divisive rhetoric there...personally I think it’s utter bollux.

[Andy_Faber]

my point is that there are a growing number of cases where Pakistani muslim rapists have been found guilty but given much lighter (or no) sentences.

Gunter, it'd be useful for the conversation if you could provide evidence of this, if you can't its just rabble-rousing and that usually gets deleted by me, whatever side of whatever discussion such stuff comes from. So put up (with evidence) or shut up, basically.

[GUNTERYY36]

I think you’re confusing mista and myself Gunteryy. I didn’t mention a case of ‘three white guys’, mista did and I can assure you I have never felt ‘humiliated’ by you or anyone else on here. That was another of mista’s suggestions
Mista was, understandably in the circumstances, offering me support because arguing with you is a little like banging one’s head against a brick wall. You make a ridiculous statement, in this case about how ‘70% of Muslims’ behave and then, when challenged, change the subject completely, fail to substantiate it or claim ‘never to have meant it literally’.
Tbh I have some seriously more pressing matters that are of genuine concern to me at the moment and arguing with people who use such ‘tactics’ as you do is a waste of my time.
I’m not quite sure what your aim is. You don’t come from or have any interest in Derby County...you say very little - a few anti Derby jibes apart - about football and you seem hell bent on having a political argument with me in your effort to justify the actions of a few right wing, racist bigots such as Robinson and his EDL.
People on here may well be heartily sick of politics featuring on this forum but I think the likes of MoP, Ram59 and occasionally Andy would agree that, although we regularly disagree, I am nothing if not respectful of their position and consistent in my arguments. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about you and my time may be put to much better use elsewhere.

ramAnag, after your latest two posts I doubt you have much time left to post anywhere! ;)

No anti-Rams jokes from me. I just wish we could swap our players for yours. And manager. You could even have Oakwell as your training ground. Oh, and super wealthy owners that might just as well be skint. :(

[mistaram]

You don't have to keep your cool. If you don't agree with someone's point of view you can always
challenge it or send them to the back of the class or something. Go for it.

Well I never even mentioned you But if the cap fits wear it