Petition to Call a Temporary Halt to All Immigration

[Canny lass]

I remember that our dear, departed friend, Keith Lockey used this 'doh' occasionally and I Always meant to ask him what it meant but never got round to it, I'm very sad to say. Pity, because it's obviously central to the understanding of the post ( #73). Just now I'm not understanding any of it. However, I feel that all will become clear when I get an answer. You were joking about the female deer - weren't you?

[pilgrim]

if its good enough for homer simpson its good enough for the great british public.

[Maggie/915]

It is good to see this particular thread loose it's impetus with humour.

Bedlington and the NE have always dealt with serious subjects but then introduced a humorous approach.

Ie ''Wor Geordies lost his Penka'

Or 'Keep your feet still Geordie Hinny'

Come back Keith Lockey , we need you and your humour.

[threegee]

Umm.. that's doe - I've noticed the left can't spell either!   I put this down to teachers being more concerned with imparting lefty mumbo jumbo in empty minds than teaching the three Rs! 

 

The Sound of Music is actually so non-PC that if you explained it to the likes of Tony's rent-a-mob friends they'd be picketing the cinemas!  Fleeing the Nazis is perhaps all they need to know! 

[mercuryg]

"even the security services are struggling for information"

 

I doubt this very much. Because they don't tell us about it doesn't mean they don't know. I'd venture they are well aware of who is what, where and when. You could help, of course, by sending them the videos you show us.

 

The basis of this discussion boils down to: 3G believes we are heading towards being a Muslim country, with their laws and customs imposed upon us (Indeed, it is apparently inevitable); I, and I think others, find that an utterly ridiculous scenario that is not borne out by any actual facts. Yes?

[Canny lass]

YES!

[Canny lass]

"You can't be serious!"

 

I'm being perfectly serious!

Everything is relative, 3g, everything is relative. If there are more non-Muslims than Muslims in the UK (which there are) then it stands to reason that the greater majority of referrals may also come from non-Muslims, or are you perhaps suggesting that it's only/mostly Muslims who have any information that would help to "identify individuals and groups at risk of radicalisation from all groups, such as Islamist extremists or the far-right" (my underlining) as the Prevent Project sets out to do? If so, why would they keep it to themselves? They don't want to be subjected to crimes of terror or crimes of hate any more than the rest of us!

 

What eveidence is there to bear out your theory - if I'm hearing you correctly - that it is Muslims who, in the majority, ought to know about people at risk of being radicalised to either one extreme or the other? If so were the case, then the security services wouldn't require any further information. The fact that the security services are asking for this information rather blows a hole in the theory supported by some people that ALL and ONLY Muslims are terrorists.

 

The number of referrals is nothing to get your blood pressure up for. At this moment in time neither you nor I know just how many of these 3 288 referrals are genuine. Have all been investigated? Have you considered that many, or indeed all, of them may be based on hate rather than on genuine knowledge? It wouldn't be the first time something like that had occurred. Remember the Black Panther murders in the 70s? Hundreds of potential suspects were interviewed, some in Bedlington,and most of them had been reported by people with a personal grudge, pranksters and the odd idiot who got a kick out of wasting police time and public funds. So, among the 3 288 referrals it may turn out that there is only one, if any, that gives any accurate information and that referral can just as well come from any religious Group.

 

The number of referrals from the Muslim Community isn't either anything to get excited about, given that we have no information regarding the number of referrals received from other religious groups - at least not in this article. Ask yourself why the percentage of referrals from other religious groups hasn't been presented in this article. Do we get to know what percentage of referrals have been received from Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Quakers, Catholics, Mormons, Sikhs, Bahá'iists, devil-worshippers, agnostics, atheists or any other Group of people connected by their belief? No we don't - so it may just be that the 8.6%referrals from Muslims represents a high referral rate when fairly compared with other referral sources. As I said earlier - everything is relative, 3g, everything is relative. Without knowing how other religious groups have referred potential victims of radicalisation we cannot draw conclusions as to whether or not the Muslim community's rate of referral is  lower, higher or equal to that of any other religious group.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating so let's wait and see.

 

Oh, one final question, - for today - if as you state "The whole purpose of the scheme is to encourage those mythical moderate Islamists to come forward with what they know about radicalisation" why then does the Prevent Strategy work with "a wide range of sectors, including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and Health"? Why not just concentrate directly on the Muslim Community?

Edited December 30, 2015 by Canny lass

[pilgrim]

i did mention a march for peace and against daesh - organised by would you belive the Mosques  in Newcastle.

I see that whilst our fellow brits are suffering due to flooding, other fellow brits are looting the properties and stealing,

The army has been deployed to assist with sandbagging etc. several biker gangs have deployed themselves to patrol the streets to deter looters, with the backing of the police (now theres a group that is discriminated against - you can put a sign in a pub 'no bikers' but nothing else can be banned)

and on a final note - many folk have travelled to York from the surrounding areas to fill sandbags, some from as far away as Benwell and other parts of Newcastle . they are all muslims and it was organised by the Mosques councils. Maybe we should try speaking to them instead of juts condemning as it seems to me they have a far better insight than the press and if you want to play the numbers game there would appear to be a higher proportion doing good works than among the general population.. 

[Maggie/915]

That's a YES from me too mercuryg

The propaganda war is at work on both sides.

[Canny lass]

Thanks for sharing that bit of news Pilgrim. I'm all for speaking to people. Getting it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak and Maggie, you are so right! The propaganda war is two-sided.

[threegee]

...are you perhaps suggesting that it's only/mostly Muslims who have any information that would help to "identify individuals and groups at risk of radicalisation from all groups, such as Islamist extremists or the far-right" (my underlining) as the Prevent Project sets out to do? If so, why would they keep it to themselves? ...

 

Oh, one final question, - for today - if as you state "The whole purpose of the scheme is to encourage those mythical moderate Islamists to come forward with what they know about radicalisation" why then does the Prevent Strategy work with "a wide range of sectors, including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and Health"? Why not just concentrate directly on the Muslim Community?

 

...yes I am!  But in our massively PC society no one can profile, so we have to go through the pretence that this scheme applies to all religious groups.  They keep it to themselves because of misplaced loyalty and peer direction - the same as any closed group does!

The answer to that final paragraph is that the net needs to be spread as wide as possible; that the groups that you mention also include significant numbers of less extreme Muslims who know a spade when they see a spade, and those groups are the people that most come into contact with potential radicals - not the general population as you so want to pretend,

 

You mention "proof of pudding": so did we have a problem with terrorist extremists bent on bringing down our society and replacing it with a theocracy before we had a significant adoption of Islamic beliefs in our country?  No matter how much the left puffs and gyrates on this one the facts are the facts - take your rose coloured glasses off and look at the Quaran, then ask your Muslim friends exactly how much of it they believe. They will hedge around the subject because the actual answer is all of it; it's not just a religious book it's a manual for life.  They don't interpret it for themselves, this is delegated to extremists.  This recipe for life includes the physical elimination of all other belief sets that don't conform, and the total eradication of the Jews. This is what you are making lengthy excuses for!

 

OK, so I will now answer my own question as to where the moderate Muslims are:  They are mostly here!

[Canny lass]

"yes I am! ... we have to go th(o)rough the pretence that this scheme applies to all religious groups. They keep it to themselves."

 

Well, they are clearly not doing a very good job! You, to name just one, seem to know all about it. If these Groups are so closed how are YOU getting all this inside information?

 

" The answer to that final paragraph is that the net needs to spread as wide as possible; that the Groups that you mention also include significant numbers of less extreme Muslims ... and those Groups are the people that most come into Contact with potential radicals"

 

Firstly I would like to Point out that, I am not only  'mentioning' these Groups I am, in fact, quoting the UK Government's publication 2010 - 2015 Government Policy on Counter Terrorism of which the Prevent Project is part. That said, I again have to ask - how do you know this? What is, for example, a 'significant' number? You clearly know the number in order to be able to place this determining adjective Before it. How do you know that it's this Group of extreme radicals that "most come into Contact with potential radicals"? You clearly know who they are, both the extreme and the potentials among them. Where do you get this information?

 

"so did we have a problem with terrorist extremists bent on bringing down our society" ...  "before we had a significant adoption of Islamic beliefs  in our country"?

 

I deliberately did not cite the "replacement with a theocracy" bit as I've already demonstrated that this is not about to happen. However, I Think you may have misunderstood my comment regarding the proof of the pudding being in the eating. I was referring to the referrals being investigated and having the results to hand but yes, we have dealt with terrorism in the UK Before. Me knowingly, you are not so Young that that you did not live through the IRA terror attacks related to Northern Ireland, and neither are you so old that senility has caused you to forget them. Of course we have had terrorism - solved by dialogue and negotiation if my memory serves me right.

 

I didn't bother to read the link. It's from The New York Times Magazine, for goodness sake! I'd rather chew off my own right leg! Are you serious! A 'Sunday supplement' ( you may as well read 'tabloid') that's been going steadily downhill for many decades. Just googled it to make sure that statement still holds and yep - it appears to. They introduced a 'funny page' a few years ago and it died the Death after a year. They couldn't even get that right and now I read that they've hired the former editor of Oprah Winfrey's Magazine to try and get it afloat again. Oh dear, oh dear! Doesn't appear to be doing the trick though.

 

My rose-coloured spectacles?

The nice thing about spectacles is that you can at least see something through them and they can be removed, if wished. The blind, on the other hand, have (someof them) never had the pleasure of seeing and will remain forever blind.

 

And on that note I leave you to enjoy what remains of the year and wish you all the best for 2016 when we can continue our discussion.

 

Hopefully by then you will have managed to answer some of the outstanding questions, which would make the discussion much more interesting.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Canny lass

[pilgrim]

perhaps propaganda is too strong a word .. disinformation is perhaps more acurate. the press inflate incidents and denigrate their responsibilities by falsehoods ( nice to see the witch-hunt  regarding a memo on the Broadwater riots, which at the time was a valid opinion and comment - I note that the same newspaper has not published its redline banner headlines from the same period, nor the many other reports over the years)

the question you have to ask is - what do they know that I don't? and how reliable is that and do I trust these people? (the press I mean and I suppose most politicians)

this present situation will not go away (although - actually it will as all things do) its how we deal with it now and in the best way.

do we grasp the opportunity to alienate a huge swathe of our population which we rely on or do we embrace the opportunity to be inclusive?

I would be interested to see what level of security clearance those who are most vociferous on the subject have.................... 

[webtrekker]

CL, again, with due respect, you should have read the link...

[Maggie/915]

I am not too keen on clicking onto links.

If someone has a point to make then they could make the case with reference to the information they believe is available.

However never say never and never belief all you read.

Bluff and double bluff.

Statistics and dammed lies.

I like a hard copy to read and I prefer to read with a degree of 'Well he / she would say that wouldn't he/ she'

To quote a certain lady in a certain court case.

[mercuryg]

CL, again, with due respect, you should have read the link...

 

For what it's worth I read the link, and have a couple of comments on it; the first is relative to this discussion, in that the link isn't. It's a rambling story - told in a rather glib fashion, about ISIS, the persecution of Christians in the MIddle East (wow, that's new...) and so on, while we are talking about the UK, the Muslim population here and how that will affect our futuire, the future of this country. Unless you believe ISIS is about to start destroying churches and such in the UK and taking over, then the article is a world away from being relevant to us.

 

My second comment is from a professional point of view, as an Editor and Copywriter; the article is horrible, and as an eloquent writer Canny Lass can rest assured she was better off not reading it. I'm about to draft a mail to the editor at the magazine in question offering my services as a sub-ed, as those they have are clearly not doing their job, or they don't have any. The article is 5000words long, often incoherent, and uses journalistic methods that are meant to 'tug at the heartstrings' but instead leave you wondering whether the characters are fictional. It's clunky and far too long - I could lop a couple of thousands of needless words off and still make the same point - ans I venture few people will bother reading to the end as a result. And I thought the NYT would have high standards.

[Canny lass]

It's been the same for years, Mercuryg - the supplement I mean! Right up there with the former News of the World in my opinion.

[webtrekker]

Looks like we're on the low end of the IQ scale then threegee! I bow to my superiors.

[mercuryg]

I doubt that, webtrekker!

[Canny lass]

On 2015-12-26 at 20:59, Canny lass said:

And finally, for this evening at any rate, Point 5:

 

"Sharia law is already imposed in our country" (posted today 12.57 PM)

 

This statement is in direct opposition to your statement yesterday (10.09 PM), that "all viewpoints will be equally valid right up to the inevitable day that Sharia law is imposed on us all." I can't seem to find any reference to this anywhere in the British legal system. Could you please quote me, or at least direct me to, the relevant paragraphs.

 

So, just to recap, what I'm asking for is, apart from an explanation as to how I recognise a muslim soley by his appearance (perhaps you missed the question?):

 

1. a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto
2. a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people
3. one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees
4. a source of the given definition for "true refugee"
5. a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.

3g, Copy and paste gave no response. A requested link gave no response. lets try your third bit of advice.

You promised to answer if I bumped it up. Here it is! 

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

On 12/28/2015 at 13:39, Canny lass said:

What does 'doh' mean?

 

[Canny lass]

Now, that is interesting! Thanks Eggy!

[Canny lass]

BUMP!

And finally, for this evening at any rate, Point 5:

 

"Sharia law is already imposed in our country" (posted today 12.57 PM)

 

This statement is in direct opposition to your statement yesterday (10.09 PM), that "all viewpoints will be equally valid right up to the inevitable day that Sharia law is imposed on us all." I can't seem to find any reference to this anywhere in the British legal system. Could you please quote me, or at least direct me to, the relevant paragraphs.

 

So, just to recap, what I'm asking for is, apart from an explanation as to how I recognise a muslim soley by his appearance (perhaps you missed the question?):

 

a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto

a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people

one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees

a source of the given definition for "true refugee"

a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.

3g, Copy and paste gave no response. A requested link gave no response. lets try your third bit of advice.

You promised to answer if I bumped it up. Here it is! 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Canny lass

[threegee]

a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto

The word ghetto is yours - I believe I used the word ghettoisation.  Anyway, lets not argue that one - I will go with ghetto and bow to a former government Equalities Commission watchdog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3533041/Warning-UK-Muslim-ghettoes-Nation-nation-developing-says-former-equalities-watchdog.html

a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people

Because the Ugandan Asians numbered only 27,200, and they were all genuine refugees.  Many of them were already British citizens of high educational standard, spoke good English, and were familiar with the British way of life.  They didn't have a belief-set which required the elimination of all other belief-sets either!
The current immigration figures are being suppressed by Cameron, and when they are eventually produced they won't tell the truth for several reasons; it's very likely that the real figure is way over double that every single month of the year.  I'd guess that including illegals and not counting out ex-pats (who practically all retain British citizenship and will return at some point anyway) that might be the figure for ten quiet days.

one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees

Have you actually looked at the skyline of one of our major cities lately?   http://mosques.muslimsinbritain.org/maps.php#/town/London

...and how about not worrying about the safety of your child, or good old British tolerance?

a source of the given definition for "true refugee"

The common sense definition: someone who comes for temporary refuge from a natural disaster or political persecution, and who is minded to return from whence they came at the earliest possible moment.  It most certainly doesn't include people of a mindset so screwed up that it has messed up their own country to the point of horror, and then come to impose that same lunacy on the people they beg shelter from.  It also doesn't include people who take their annual holidays back in the country they "fled" from!

a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.

There are 85 recognised Islamic courts to operating across the UK, and those are only the ones a blind government wants to know about.  Wink -- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sharia-law-alive-well-uk-6957168

Now lets look at Sweden:

From a Swede's perspective...

But that was 2012 and I wonder how she feels about it right now?!

Here's a more picturesque oldie from back in lowish-immigration, pre-Merkel-madness, 2012.  Great place you had there!

 

[Canny lass]

9 hours ago, threegee said:

The word ghetto is yours - I believe I used the word ghettoisation.

The word you used was "ghettoise" (25 Dec 2015) but let's not split hairs. My argument now, as was then , is that the root of 'ghettoise' is 'ghetto' and therefore your understanding of the word ghetto was relevant to the discussion. It still is, so that question stands waiting to be answered. I look forward to it.