Peter, I know your interest in pursuing this conversation any further is limited,

[Burney]

I think it is the assumption about what I want. For the record, I want the bad guys (the rapists and van hirers) out and the good guys (ye of every faith and creed, bereft of hate, of spite, of greed) to all go for a beer together (or whatever your poison of choice).

How we do this is just details. I leave that to those who are paid to arrange such things.

And without wishing to start the muck spreading, I am getting a bit ****ing sick of you all adopting the American version of the term liberalism as though it were some sort of insult.

Liberalism is a british invention; it enshrined so many of the things we take for granted today as our civil liberties. It is in the USA that it is used as an abusive term to beat the ‘left’ with. I will have no part of it whatsoever.

I am bit ****ing disappointed that Berni hasn’t pointed this out to be honest.

What you're saying is that you don't have a problem with the sea - just the bits of it that are flooding into your lungs and drowning you.

You can't separate the two things. The baddies don't spring fully-formed from nothing. They are educated,informed, tolerated, nurtured and tacitly encouraged by a community, a culture and a religion whose ideas should clearly exclude their adherents from your list of 'good guys'. And yet, legally speaking, the members of that community may not have done anything illegal, merely adhered to the tenets of their faith and culture as they see them. And here's the problem: your liberal (in its proper sense) belief in the freedom of others to worship and live as they see fit may have dire consequences for your (and others') ability to do the same.

In other words, you face the nightmare of a choice between competing and contradictory liberal values. Thus far, modern liberal western democracy has shown itself to be very bad at making that choice. Instead, it ends up giving lip service to one side (gay rights, women's rights, protection of children, etc), while in fact backing the side that explicitly opposes all those things. If that is your choice, then that's one thing. However, I don't think it is. I think most liberals (in its improper sense) genuinely believe in these things, but are so paralysed by their terror of being called racist or Islamophobic that they make hypocrites of themselves at every turn.

For instance, what could be more illustrative of this than modern, feminist women wearing hijabs in order to virtue signal about race? The sheer cognitive dissonance required to perform such an absurd act and not perceive the absurdity is at the heart of everything that is currently rendering the left ridiculous. For women who have long screamed that girls are oppressed, pigeonholed and coerced into harmful and oppressive sexist norms by everything from Barbie to push-up bras to stand there and nod bovinely while someone explains disingenuously that the hijab - a garment forced on women by patriarchy - is worn only by choice and in fact liberates you from the male gaze would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Anyone who can perform such a wilful act of self-delusion is just intellectually and morally bankrupt, I'm afraid. And the left currently couldn't find a consistent intellectual or moral line with both hands and a flash lamp.

[Peter]

What you're saying is that you don't have a problem with the sea - just the bits of it that are flooding into your lungs and drowning you.

You can't separate the two things. The baddies don't spring fully-formed from nothing. They are educated,informed, tolerated, nurtured and tacitly encouraged by a community, a culture and a religion whose ideas should clearly exclude their adherents from your list of 'good guys'. And yet, legally speaking, the members of that community may not have done anything illegal, merely adhered to the tenets of their faith and culture as they see them. And here's the problem: your liberal (in its proper sense) belief in the freedom of others to worship and live as they see fit may have dire consequences for your (and others') ability to do the same.

In other words, you face the nightmare of a choice between competing and contradictory liberal values. Thus far, modern liberal western democracy has shown itself to be very bad at making that choice. Instead, it ends up giving lip service to one side (gay rights, women's rights, protection of children, etc), while in fact backing the side that explicitly opposes all those things. If that is your choice, then that's one thing. However, I don't think it is. I think most liberals (in its improper sense) genuinely believe in these things, but are so paralysed by their terror of being called racist or Islamophobic that they make hypocrites of themselves at every turn.

For instance, what could be more illustrative of this than modern, feminist women wearing hijabs in order to virtue signal about race? The sheer cognitive dissonance required to perform such an absurd act and not perceive the absurdity is at the heart of everything that is currently rendering the left ridiculous. For women who have long screamed that girls are oppressed, pigeonholed and coerced into harmful and oppressive sexist norms by everything from Barbie to push-up bras to stand there and nod bovinely while someone explains disingenuously that the hijab - a garment forced on women by patriarchy - is worn only by choice and in fact liberates you from the male gaze would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Anyone who can perform such a wilful act of self-delusion is just intellectually and morally bankrupt, I'm afraid. And the left currently couldn't find a consistent intellectual or moral line with both hands and a flash lamp.

Stop calling me a ****ing liberal!!!!

[Burney]

Stop calling me a ****ing liberal!!!!

Don't think I did, did I? I don't think you're a liberal. You're an authoritarian, big-state lefty.

[Peter]

Don't think I did, did you? I don't think you're a liberal. You're an authoritarian, big-state lefty.

It is certainly how it read.

What you write above is not a new proposition. It’s the quintessential paradox of western political philosophy- freedom in the first person and freedom from the second.

The law has traditionally (not so much recently) tended to focus on the separation of thought from deed. You can believe any old cobblers you choose and it will not impact on my liberty unless you act on it. One could argue here that the problem is not that these men have an appalling attitude to young white girls, it’s that they acted on that by raping them. You may also blame me (or the liberals) for the fact that they felt that they would get away with it.

I could point out the irony of you challenging beliefs based on these outcomes while at the same time being ultra critical of any modern law that attempts to tell us what we are allowed to believe or attempts to criminalise any action that is deemed to be based on belief. Thus common assault is commonly a slap on the wrist- give the CPS the slightest notion that the assault may have been motivated by race and it becomes racially-aggravated public order with a possible two year prison sentence.

You can’t have it both ways. If we are to go down the road of telling people what they can and can’t think then we must all travel together. And of course that works both ways- I am not saying that it is fine to pass laws telling us we have to like benders while at the same time excluding Muslims from it.

This is, of course, a legal perspective. The rule of law MUST trump all other beliefs, faith-based or otherwise. That is surely the crucial difference between us here in the West (with our separation of church and state) and them in their various ****holes where religion still dominates or explicitly rules.

The rule of law, b. Always a vote winner

[Burney]

It is certainly how it read.

What you write above is not a new proposition. It’s the quintessential paradox of western political philosophy- freedom in the first person and freedom from the second.

The law has traditionally (not so much recently) tended to focus on the separation of thought from deed. You can believe any old cobblers you choose and it will not impact on my liberty unless you act on it. One could argue here that the problem is not that these men have an appalling attitude to young white girls, it’s that they acted on that by raping them. You may also blame me (or the liberals) for the fact that they felt that they would get away with it.

I could point out the irony of you challenging beliefs based on these outcomes while at the same time being ultra critical of any modern law that attempts to tell us what we are allowed to believe or attempts to criminalise any action that is deemed to be based on belief. Thus common assault is commonly a slap on the wrist- give the CPO the slightest notion that the assault may have been motivated by race and it becomes racially-aggravated public order with a possible two year prison sentence.

You can’t have it both ways. If we are to go down the road of telling people what they can and can’t think then we must all travel together. And of course that works both ways- I am not saying that it is fine to pass laws telling us we have to like benders while at the same time excluding Muslims from it.

This is, of course, a legal perspective. The rule of law MUST trump all other beliefs, faith-based or otherwise. That is surely the crucial difference between us here in the West (with our separation of church and state) and them in their various ****holes where religion still dominates or explicitly rules.

The rule of law, b. Always a vote winner

I'm aware that the proposition is not a new one. And I'm aware of the importance of the primacy of the rule of law. However, there are are a couple of wrinkles thrown up by Islam.

The most fundamental wrinkle is that in the increased and increasing Islamic presence in the UK we are dealing with an existential threat to the very society whose laws you wish to see upheld. It's not like the IRA, who just wanted a united Ireland, or the NF, who just didn't like darkies. We are dealing with a large and growing demographic, many of whom hold abhorrent views and hold no brief for our system, who will come to wield increasing democratic power in the years to come and will have an ever-increasing degree of influence over our law-making. This is not a theoretical possibility, it is, at current demographic trends, a statistical certainty.

So you see the primacy of the rule of law is a splendid notion, but that law is not immutable. It is going to change to suit the changing demographics. And, while you and I may be spared the worst of it, our children and grandchildren look likely to have to live with a very different - and much less liberal - society to the one in which we grew up. Already we are seeing how what we took to be liberal fundamentals - intolerance of anti-semitism, gay rights, women's rights, child protection - are being compromised and undermined to pander to muslim communities who choose not to observe such niceties.

Because, of course, the rule of law is only effective when the law is applied evenly and without prejudice. That is not the case at the moment. Blind eyes and deaf ears have been being turned to muslim communities for decades now, which has facilitated everything from fatwahs and mass rape through honour killings and female infanticide to female genital mutilation. These practices are taking place now and they are not being treated with the seriousness they deserve. Why? Because there is a fear of the charge of racism, but also because there's a vested interest for some politicians in allowing these practices to continue just so long as the votes keep coming.

This stuff is happening now. It's still early-ish days, but it's happening and it's getting worse rather than better. So what do we do? Sit back and watch as 1,500 years of progress is torn down in the name of diversity while telling ourselves how tolerant we are? Or shout that the building's on fire in the hope that someone - anyone - might listen?

[Peter]

I'm aware that the proposition is not a new one. And I'm aware of the importance of the primacy of the rule of law. However, there are are a couple of wrinkles thrown up by Islam.

The most fundamental wrinkle is that in the increased and increasing Islamic presence in the UK we are dealing with an existential threat to the very society whose laws you wish to see upheld. It's not like the IRA, who just wanted a united Ireland, or the NF, who just didn't like darkies. We are dealing with a large and growing demographic, many of whom hold abhorrent views and hold no brief for our system, who will come to wield increasing democratic power in the years to come and will have an ever-increasing degree of influence over our law-making. This is not a theoretical possibility, it is, at current demographic trends, a statistical certainty.

So you see the primacy of the rule of law is a splendid notion, but that law is not immutable. It is going to change to suit the changing demographics. And, while you and I may be spared the worst of it, our children and grandchildren look likely to have to live with a very different - and much less liberal - society to the one in which we grew up. Already we are seeing how what we took to be liberal fundamentals - intolerance of anti-semitism, gay rights, women's rights, child protection - are being compromised and undermined to pander to muslim communities who choose not to observe such niceties.

Because, of course, the rule of law is only effective when the law is applied evenly and without prejudice. That is not the case at the moment. Blind eyes and deaf ears have been being turned to muslim communities for decades now, which has facilitated everything from fatwahs and mass rape through honour killings and female infanticide to female genital mutilation. These practices are taking place now and they are not being treated with the seriousness they deserve. Why? Because there is a fear of the charge of racism, but also because there's a vested interest for some politicians in allowing these practices to continue just so long as the votes keep coming.

This stuff is happening now. It's still early-ish days, but it's happening and it's getting worse rather than better. So what do we do? Sit back and watch as 1,500 years of progress is torn down in the name of diversity while telling ourselves how tolerant we are? Or shout that the building's on fire in the hope that someone - anyone - might listen?

We enforce the law, b. Whatever it takes- you know, like in Mississippi Burning.

I think the muslim population stands at roughly 5% in the UK. I think it will be a little while before they overcome us completely.

The key really is to get them to come for a beer. I keep saying it, but none of you ****ing listen!

[Ash]

We enforce the law, b. Whatever it takes- you know, like in Mississippi Burning.

I think the muslim population stands at roughly 5% in the UK. I think it will be a little while before they overcome us completely.

The key really is to get them to come for a beer. I keep saying it, but none of you ****ing listen!

I did, and commented on it, implicitly pointing out that they don't, on the whole, drink.

Not sure what the % needs to be before Islamist political parties start winning seats. Only needs a few to be asked to form a coalition, as we have seen to the displeasure of the left-footers in the six counties. What will the athletics team be called next?

[Sir C]

Stop calling me a ****ing liberal!!!!

If I may say, I find your language a little illiberal there, p.

In fact, I'm feeling a bit triggered

[Burney]

If I may say, I find your language a little illiberal there, p.

In fact, I'm feeling a bit triggered

I find it odd that p is getting cross about which sort of traitor he is, tbh.

[Peter]

I find it odd that p is getting cross about which sort of traitor he is, tbh.

Hmmmmmmm.........

That comment has been noted.

Noted!