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

[Monty92]

but just a few comments on your last post.

Firstly, your suggestion that these terrorists can't be inspired by scripture because they drink alcohol and don't always quote the Quran is so stupid that it frankly exposes just how shallow your understanding is of the subject.

Secondly, I don't "blame" the scripture in a moral sense in the slightest. Blame has very little to do with any of this. My only point is that acknowledging the nature of the problem is essential to solving it. And acknowledging the nature of the problem begins with acknowledging its roots are in Islamic scripture.

The reason we don't do this is because we fear that Muslims will lose their shít if anyone says that their holy book inspires evil because it advocates/justifies evil. But the problem is that these low expectations are entirely justified, as we see every time anyone points it out. But the answer cannot be to indulge this pathetic, infantile over-sensitivity but to empower those with the ability to reform Islam, i.e. other Muslims, to cut through this culture of denial.

But instead what happens? Muslim reformers who acknowledge the role of scripture are ostracised by Muslim communities, with the overt backing of western liberals. Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Centre in the US who put Majid Nawaz (a former Islamist but now a reformer who founded a counter-extremism think tank) on a list of anti-Muslim extremists!!!

These are the people who should be held up by everyone as role models for the entire muslim world. But a conspiracy of silence, led by muslims and endorsed by western liberals, mean they are unable to play a meaningful role. And that is why your "do anything, just don't offend them" policy is doomed to failure.

[Peter]

but just a few comments on your last post.

Firstly, your suggestion that these terrorists can't be inspired by scripture because they drink alcohol and don't always quote the Quran is so stupid that it frankly exposes just how shallow your understanding is of the subject.

Secondly, I don't "blame" the scripture in a moral sense in the slightest. Blame has very little to do with any of this. My only point is that acknowledging the nature of the problem is essential to solving it. And acknowledging the nature of the problem begins with acknowledging its roots are in Islamic scripture.

The reason we don't do this is because we fear that Muslims will lose their shít if anyone says that their holy book inspires evil because it advocates/justifies evil. But the problem is that these low expectations are entirely justified, as we see every time anyone points it out. But the answer cannot be to indulge this pathetic, infantile over-sensitivity but to empower those with the ability to reform Islam, i.e. other Muslims, to cut through this culture of denial.

But instead what happens? Muslim reformers who acknowledge the role of scripture are ostracised by Muslim communities, with the overt backing of western liberals. Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Centre in the US who put Majid Nawaz (a former Islamist but now a reformer who founded a counter-extremism think tank) on a list of anti-Muslim extremists!!!

These are the people who should be held up by everyone as role models for the entire muslim world. But a conspiracy of silence, led by muslims and endorsed by western liberals, mean they are unable to play a meaningful role. And that is why your "do anything, just don't offend them" policy is doomed to failure.


Yeah……..

I can pretty much see where I would go in responding to this. I have a fairly clear picture of where that will take you, and so on…….I thought we were making progress last week and we are going backwards again. I am not massively in the mood for the mud slinging and insults either.

Maybe we can end where we agree…this is something that muslim communities should be concerned about and should be addressing. Whether its attitudes, culture, ethnicity, religion….lets say that is their problem to identify. They know these people better than we do.

[redgunamo]

These are the people who should be held up by everyone as role models for the entire muslim world. But a conspiracy of silence, led by muslims and endorsed by western liberals, mean they are unable to play a meaningful role. And that is why your "do anything, just don't offend them" policy is doomed to failure.

Yeah, it's actually the other way about. Any conspiracy, such as it is, is led by western liberals, not muslims; they are merely the grateful beneficiaries.

From that point of view, the thing has rather been a resounding success already, not a doomed failure. Notice how Peter's sort refuses to give you even an inch on this. He doesn't have to, he's winning. Or at least, he's getting what he wants.

[redgunamo]

:hehe: Well played, P. Stand your ground and don't give 'em an inch!



Yeah……..

I can pretty much see where I would go in responding to this. I have a fairly clear picture of where that will take you, and so on…….I thought we were making progress last week and we are going backwards again. I am not massively in the mood for the mud slinging and insults either.

Maybe we can end where we agree…this is something that muslim communities should be concerned about and should be addressing. Whether its attitudes, culture, ethnicity, religion….lets say that is their problem to identify. They know these people better than we do.

[Sir C]

Yeah, it's actually the other way about. Any conspiracy, such as it is, is led by western liberals, not muslims; they are merely the grateful beneficiaries.

From that point of view, the thing has rather been a resounding success already, not a doomed failure. Notice how Peter's sort refuses to give you even an inch on this. He doesn't have to, he's winning. Or at least, he's getting what he wants.

One wonders about the Left's endgame, though. They clearly despise western civilisation; they have stripped our society of decency, and values, and imported a horde of Visigoths to rape and kill our citizens, but what is their ultimate goal? Surely they will have achieved only a Pyrrhic victory when the last decent middle-class male is dangling from a crane in the medieval hell-hole which used to be London? What do they have to gain?

[Peter]

Yeah, it's actually the other way about. Any conspiracy, such as it is, is led by western liberals, not muslims; they are merely the grateful beneficiaries.

From that point of view, the thing has rather been a resounding success already, not a doomed failure. Notice how Peter's sort refuses to give you even an inch on this. He doesn't have to, he's winning. Or at least, he's getting what he wants.

I like how I get automatically lumped in with anyone you don't like :D

I must get in touch with the western liberal conspiracy mob, I haven't hung out with them in ages. Good bunch of lads actually

[redgunamo]

One wonders about the Left's endgame, though. They clearly despise western civilisation; they have stripped our society of decency, and values, and imported a horde of Visigoths to rape and kill our citizens, but what is their ultimate goal? Surely they will have achieved only a Pyrrhic victory when the last decent middle-class male is dangling from a crane in the medieval hell-hole which used to be London? What do they have to gain?

I doubt they care, or perhaps they haven't really thought it through. In any case, they will have ****ed and contraceptive-pilled themselves into extinction soon so what difference does it make.

The French and the Germans want to rid themselves of the stench of World War 2, so they've stopped breeding and now work like demons instead (they don't really make any money, or anything; it's just that work itself has become their religion). Now, if you want to keep up with them economically, you must work as they do and also similarly abandon family and legacy and future and a' that too.

[redgunamo]

I like how I get automatically lumped in with anyone you don't like :D

I must get in touch with the western liberal conspiracy mob, I haven't hung out with them in ages. Good bunch of lads actually

You know I love you, P. I honestly didn't think you would disagree with any of that.

[Sir C]

I doubt they care, or perhaps they haven't really thought it through. In any case, they will have ****ed and contraceptive-pilled themselves into extinction soon so what difference does it make.

The French and the Germans want to rid themselves of the stench of World War 2, so they've stopped breeding and now work like demons instead (they don't really make any money, or anything; it's just that work itself has become their religion). Now, if you want to keep up with them economically, you must work as they do and also similarly abandon family and legacy and future and a' that too.

Fúck all this. I'm off to Zambia. It's the only safe place left.

[SWv2]

Yeah……..

I can pretty much see where I would go in responding to this. I have a fairly clear picture of where that will take you, and so on…….I thought we were making progress last week and we are going backwards again. I am not massively in the mood for the mud slinging and insults either.

Maybe we can end where we agree…this is something that muslim communities should be concerned about and should be addressing. Whether its attitudes, culture, ethnicity, religion….lets say that is their problem to identify. They know these people better than we do.

You sound weary P. What is troubling you?

A problem shared and all that fúcking nonsense. Do tell.

[redgunamo]

Fúck all this. I'm off to Zambia. It's the only safe place left.

Islam is on the march there too, I'm afraid. Just like in Mozambique, Malawi etc.

[Peter]

You know I love you, P. I honestly didn't think you would disagree with any of that.

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.

[Peter]

You sound weary P. What is troubling you?

A problem shared and all that fúcking nonsense. Do tell.

Have you ever had a long conversation with Monty?

[SWv2]

Have you ever had a long conversation with Monty?

He is still alive so from that you can assume I have not.

[redgunamo]

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.

Before all that though, don't you see that it's those very same principles which prevent you from supporting the kind of things that would get them out? It seems you're only whining because you, personally, might get blown up, which seems rather selfish as it fails to take into account any of the other undesirable social aspects. How are you going to throw them out? You couldn't even throw the redgunamos out! And the Islams know it.

B understands, I think, but he is at heart, one of you anyway.

[Burney]

One wonders about the Left's endgame, though. They clearly despise western civilisation; they have stripped our society of decency, and values, and imported a horde of Visigoths to rape and kill our citizens, but what is their ultimate goal? Surely they will have achieved only a Pyrrhic victory when the last decent middle-class male is dangling from a crane in the medieval hell-hole which used to be London? What do they have to gain?

Self-negation. They hate themselves and - by extension - the society whence they sprang. At a truly fundamental and almost unthinking level they believe western civilisation to be inherently and irredeemably corrupt and evil. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that their ideology and education tells them that it's wrong and bad. It therefore follows that anything that destroys that evil is an axiomatic good - even if the belief system that underpins it runs counter to almost all of their ideas of social justice.

[Ash]

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).


The great thing about North London Turks, such as those you grew up with, is that you can go for a beer with them. wd Ataturk. Shame Turkish secularism has just been batted back into the 20th century. :-(


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.


It really might help if contemporary liberalism wasn't so bleedin illiberal, of course. Free speech? LOOOOOOOL! Tolerance for different opinions? ROTFLMAO! and so on.

Shake we call it #fakeliberal?

[redgunamo]

Self-negation. They hate themselves and - by extension - the society whence they sprang. At a truly fundamental and almost unthinking level they believe western civilisation to be inherently and irredeemably corrupt and evil. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that their ideology and education tells them that it's wrong and bad. It therefore follows that anything that destroys that evil is an axiomatic good - even if the belief system that underpins it runs counter to almost all of their ideas of social justice.

I agree, but it's more than that. Nobody really minds a bit of corruption and evil; that's why we elected the Donald. There seems to be a certain special sort of corruption and evil they take exception to, I believe, related to the particular perpetrators of it.

Like the Islamic dress code conundrum; western feminists don't support bans precisely because it is essentially western men proposing them.

[Ash]

Self-negation. They hate themselves and - by extension - the society whence they sprang. At a truly fundamental and almost unthinking level they believe western civilisation to be inherently and irredeemably corrupt and evil. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that their ideology and education tells them that it's wrong and bad. It therefore follows that anything that destroys that evil is an axiomatic good - even if the belief system that underpins it runs counter to almost all of their ideas of social justice.

True leftism should stand full square behind enlightenment values and by extension western civilisation, despite critiques of capitalism and imperialism.

[SWv2]

True leftism should stand full square behind enlightenment values and by extension western civilisation, despite critiques of capitalism and imperialism.

Good man A.

706

[Ash]

Good man A.

706

That should Open Up the discussion.

[redgunamo]

True leftism should stand full square behind enlightenment values and by extension western civilisation, despite critiques of capitalism and imperialism.

https://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/trump-pence-front14.jpg

[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.

[Burney]

True leftism should stand full square behind enlightenment values and by extension western civilisation, despite critiques of capitalism and imperialism.


Yes. But it doesn't. Leftism and anti-western/identity politics are now inextricably intertwined, I'm afraid. Given a choice between the west and pretty much anyone else, they'll back the anyone else.

[Peter]

The great thing about North London Turks, such as those you grew up with, is that you can go for a beer with them. wd Ataturk. Shame Turkish secularism has just been batted back into the 20th century. :-(



It really might help if contemporary liberalism wasn't so bleedin illiberal, of course. Free speech? LOOOOOOOL! Tolerance for different opinions? ROTFLMAO! and so on.

Shake we call it #fakeliberal?

Ok, first of all the majority of those I grew up with were Turkish Cypriots- very different from your actual Turk, although the rule still applies. Great bunch of lads the Cypriots.

As I said, this has nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism in a british sense. It is adopting the American use. I never use it.

Gladstone would be turning in his grave.

[SWv2]

That should Open Up the discussion.

Very good A, on form today.

[SWv2]

Ok, first of all the majority of those I grew up with were Turkish Cypriots- very different from your actual Turk, although the rule still applies. Great bunch of lads the Cypriots.

As I said, this has nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism in a british sense. It is adopting the American use. I never use it.

Gladstone would be turning in his grave.

Which were the ones that would sell you bottles of Efes in the early hours when all other avenues had been explored?

They were decent sorts. Wouldn't trust any of them of course.

[Burney]

Which were the ones that would sell you bottles of Efes in the early hours when all other avenues had been explored?

They were decent sorts. Wouldn't trust any of them of course.

Those are the fellas. Cut your throat as soon as look at you. Very good barbers, though. Ironic, that.

[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]

Those are the fellas. Cut your throat as soon as look at you. Very good barbers, though. Ironic, that.

Your throat, perhaps. Not mine. They loved me.

Those shops are all run by Poles now. The beer is better but the banter isn't great.

[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. :shrug:

[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

[Peter]

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

Hmmmmmmm.........

That comment has been noted.

Noted!

[SWv2]

Hmmmmmmm.........

That comment has been noted.

Noted!

Hmmm, you do appear quite feisty today Pedro.

Sort it out.

[Peter]

Hmmm, you do appear quite feisty today Pedro.

Sort it out.

Don't you start.

[SWv2]

Don't you start.

Charming.

I offer the hand of friendship, a sounding point for your woes, a soldier to stand beside you in the face of attack from Berni and the Dutch.

Frankly you can go fúck yourself you big hairy Liberal ****.

[Sir C]

Charming.

I offer the hand of friendship, a sounding point for your woes, a soldier to stand beside you in the face of attack from Berni and the Dutch.

Frankly you can go fúck yourself you big hairy Liberal ****.

Can't we all just be friends? I appreciate you've had a drink, but there's no need to get punchy. For a start your wife will be confused if you use up all your aggression before you get home. #punchthewifeandpissinthewardrobe

[Peter]

Charming.

I offer the hand of friendship, a sounding point for your woes, a soldier to stand beside you in the face of attack from Berni and the Dutch.

Frankly you can go fúck yourself you big hairy Liberal ****.

You called me Pedro.

I cant tell you it didn't hurt.

[Peter]

Can't we all just be friends? I appreciate you've had a drink, but there's no need to get punchy. For a start your wife will be confused if you use up all your aggression before you get home. #punchthewifeandpissinthewardrobe

You, Sir, are a disgrace.

How dare you level such accusations against my Irish friend.

[Sir C]

You, Sir, are a disgrace.

How dare you level such accusations against my Irish friend.

Don't blame me, p. I'm not a simple genetic organism designed to turn Guinness into piss :shrug:

[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?

[SWv2]

Can't we all just be friends? I appreciate you've had a drink, but there's no need to get punchy. For a start your wife will be confused if you use up all your aggression before you get home. #punchthewifeandpissinthewardrobe

I shall report you for hate stuff if you do not immediately desist and apologise.

Don't think I won't!!

[Sir C]

I shall report you for hate stuff if you do not immediately desist and apologise.

Don't think I won't!!

Aww, I'm only joshing mate, don't lose your spuds over it :thumbup:

[Burney]

I shall report you for hate stuff if you do not immediately desist and apologise.

Don't think I won't!!

For the record, Sir C is much more Irish than me. More than half my blood is English, which cancels out the Irish, whereas I'm not sure his Dutch blood is strong enough to withstand the genetic assault that is Irishness.

[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!

[Sir C]

For the record, Sir C is much more Irish than me. More than half my blood is English, which cancels out the Irish, whereas I'm not sure his Dutch blood is strong enough to withstand the genetic assault that is Irishness.

That is the worst thing you've ever said.

[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?

[SWv2]

That is the worst thing you've ever said.

Did you ever get your passport?

[Sir C]

Did you ever get your passport?

No, my conscience wouldn't let me do it in the end.

[Peter]

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?

But many of them do drink, that's the point. Well, all the ones in the pub, certainly.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

He is still alive so from that you can assume I have not.

I'd assume you'd be the one to have died......you know, as a result of boredom ;-)

[Burney]

That is the worst thing you've ever said.

Call the hate crime police imo.

Unwarranted accusations of Irishness can be pretty damaging imo.

[Burney]

But many of them do drink, that's the point. Well, all the ones in the pub, certainly.

Oh, p! Bless your well-intentioned soft lefty assimilationist fantasies.
You think we're all going to end up one happy band of drunkards?
No. No, I'm afraid not.
Kipling knew it. East is East, West is West and all that. The twain will only go so far.