mercuryg

Jealous! Why does Anna not want to talk to me?

All good points, Canny Lass and Eggy; I think Mr Edmonds displays a degree of naivety with regard to the country he lives in and its transport systems. Here's a thing: when I was a kid I walked to school - hundreds of us did, a mile, a couple of miles, in all weathers - because Dad had gone to work and Mum didn't have a car. If we wanted, there was a bus, but that was boring, walking was more fun. These days, the road outside every school is crammed with cars every morning, so there's some of your extra traffic. Second point: I'm lucky enough to work from home (although a lot of hard work took place to allow me that privelige) and it is clear to me that, in the 21st century, a lot of miles are covered by commuters that are not necessary. How many office-based jobs could be done from home? After all, it's fair to say the majority of homes occupied by those of working age are hoolked up to broadband and have at least one home computer. An example - my brother in law just started a job as IT Manager for a chain of hotels/hostels; they don't have an actual office, he works largely from home when not on site. Many other organisations will see the benefit in terms of this very soon, and telecommuting will become far more popular. A further point that baffles me: why does everyone drive to work at the same time? Surely staggered start/finish times would serve to reduce congestion? I'd suggest all the above are more sensible points than simply raising one's hands, Blobby style, and declaring the country to be full.....

Bizarre in the extreme. I must say it's inventive to be stuck in a traffic jam and suddenly realise it is caused by immigration. I guess the extra 15milion cars (not to mention other vehicles) that have populated the same roads we were using in 1980 are all driven by immigrants. Or, perhaps the very modern trend for two car families - pretty much unheard of until the past couple of decades - is part of the problem. Mr Edmonds wasn't being brave: misguided, yes. Being stuck in traffic is not significant of the country being "full" and nor is it to do with immigration. Quite simply, there are more vehicles on the roads than ever before - everywhere in the world. The original post, with respect, clutches desperately at straws, takes 2 & 2 and makes 5, and many other cliches along the way.

I was, and am, a fan of his, and admired his ability to cross borders, so to speak, in terms of musical style. I'm no film buff so not really up to speed on that side of his career, but believe he had talent and on-screen presence. What has struck me, looking at social media feeds, this morning is that hec learly appealed across the age groups; few can claim a consistently successful career spanning teh breadth of time his achieved. i'm reluctant to refer to music stars as 'legends', but surely he comes close.

Happy Birtrhday 3G, have a great day,

I doubt that, webtrekker!

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.

"I've lost count of the times M$ has changed the default search on this machine to Bing without asking," Interesting, I have a coupel of month old W10 laptop and this happens to me. What can I do about it?

A genuine talent, Maggie.

"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?

Thanks Canny Lass; I like subjects that raise differing opinions. I grew up in an overtly white area of Cheshire, where exposure to religion(s) was limited as my family were not churchgoers (note that I was 'sent' to Sunday School to give me an opportunity to make my own mind up, which I did). Forty years later and I live in an overtly white area of Northunberland; the difference now is that I have educated myself on other religions, met and enjoyed discourse with persons of many religions, and take on board that some people are more committed than others to the word of their holy book. At school, our Religious Education classes were entirely committed to the teachings of the Bible, of Christianity; I doubt I heard Islam mentioned until I was well into my teens. Two contrasts - one girl in that class, at high school, was a devout believer who argued - bravely and I must say with admirable conviction - against an entire classroom that every word of The Bible was true. She couldn't be shaken, and it amazed me that someone as intelligent - for she was - could be so closed to other opinions; a few years later, at college, I befriended a lad in the class called Immi, a huge bear of a lad who we all found fascinating, because he was a Sikh. He was more than happy to tell us all about his religion and culture, and indeed took us to visit his Temple; we were welcomed with open arms by wonderfully friendly, colourful and interesting people who, quite frankly, must have seemed like they came from another world to us. He was a great guy - his only regret was that he had to return home after he graduated to marry, an arranged marriage - and he inspired my interest in the culture and religion of other peoples. Granted, followers of Islam are not as open and inviting as Sikhs (who I will assure you will welcome you at any point you want to visit a Gurdwara) but that's up to them. The point of the above is that the devout Christian girl I mentioned earlier made her religion far less accessible and inviting than that of the Sikh. I find it pleasing that, these days, my neices and nephews are taught about all religions and cultures.

"The numbers game won't hack it for several reasons." I'm not sure about that, really. You mentioned earlier, 3G, the desire on the part of followers of Islam to 'outbreed' the rest with a view to taking over; that's all very well, but how are they going to do that? Some more, supposed, projected figures: the population of the UK in 2011 was around 63million; projections based on current growth rates say that, by 2037 - to give one example - it will be 73million, give or take a few. Now, currenty the number of people who are 'white' comes to around 55million; with people living longer than ever before, this raises an intereting question: let's use the figures above to move forward to the fabled 2050, when apparently the muslim population will exceed that of everyone else (not, remember, just the 'white'); an extra 10million, then, in 21 years (up to 2037) so we'll go overboard and say that, by 2050 the population might be 83 million (or, in fact, insert any figure you want.) Now, of course, by now we have at least 42million muslims in the country - a majority - which leaves 41million other. GIven the population of 'white' alone is growing at a steady rate - and that we are going to live longer, that means that the white (and other) population has declined by 13million since now, and the Muslim population increased by a colossal 37million. It doesn't work, does it? To be fair, the above is - as is every other supposition - precisely that, but it shows the extreme growth in Muslim UK population, and decline otherwise, needed to achieve the scaremongering Muslim majority that is needed to turn us into the Islamic State of the UK. Unless, of course, ordinary people like myself and the rest of you on here - in their millions - decide to convert to Islam. Or an asteroid wipes out ten million non-muslims. I like the discussion, by the way, it's inspired me to find some truly wonderful websites that spout such obvious lies they are great fun: try billionbibles.org. I feel sure the Daily Mail draws some of its 'facts' from there. It's highly reputable. It also led me to imamsonline.com - also worth a read.

"You are applying Western democratic values to a system which totally rejects same." Partly my point, 3G; this is a Western democratic society, and a few million Muslims is not about to change that. "But even in the case of Nazi Germany.." Had I quoted such you would have responded that I was 'applying Western etc etc' as above; in thiscase, you are: Nazi Germany was, as you well know, a different picture, and hardly relevant to the current commentary. "You are also making the mistake of equating Islam with other religions" No, I'm not; as is often the case, you are the one making the mistake that I - and others - do not understand the subject, and that you - in solitary - do. In genuine concern, having been exposed to the same scary headlines and articles as you and others, I opted (as I am wont to do) to delve a little further and see if there was, in fact, an opposite viewpoint to the overwhelming Islamophobia of current trends; there was, and is, and it's worth taking into account. Do you think they are insincere? Do you think they exaggerate? Yes, and yes; the former as I don't belierver they are representative of all muslims, and the latter because 'what is going to happen' is not going to happen. "In truth I think that's where we are likely heading too." Military control? For the sake of a few percent of the population? Don't be silly; I am of the opinion you are unfortunately susceptible to believing the extrreme in everything, for reasons I can't fathom. Two examples from when I was at junior school (forty years ago) spring to mind as indicators as to how 'experts' can conjur up statistics and suppositions to create an untrue future scenario: first, I was 'reliably' and repeatedly informed that the world would have run out of oil by now: I'm still putting petrol in my car, and oil is plentiful; second, if the medical experts were to be believed, more than half of us would have died of AIDS by now. The future never pans out as one might thing, politically, religiously or otherwise.

..."and all viewpoints will be equally valid right up to the inevitable day that shariah law is imposed on us all." Could you explain to me, and others, how this is actually going to happen, the imposition of shariah law? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it would take more than the presence of a few million muslims in the country to make it happen? There would have to be widespread changes in the laws of the land, obviously, which is not something that can be done in an instance. Who needs to pass such a colossal change in the law? And why would they do so? It simply doesn't make sense. Let's consider the figures for a minute: according to the last census, in 2011, almost 60% of the population claimed their religion as Christian; 4.4% were muslims. Around a quarter claimed no religion, so that leaves 20% other religions - fpur times as many as those who are muslims. Now, don't get me wrong as I am happy for anyone who wants to subscribe to a religion (I don't) but I can honestly asy that 60% of the people I know are NOT Christian, and would reckon that more than 25% are not religious. Indeed. the British Social Attitudes survey of 2015 gained a more honest, of you like, response: almost half were happy to admit to having no religion (with 42% Christian and 8% other religions). So, to cut to the chase, we are clearly not yet over-run with Muslims (even if qwe move the figures forward from 2011). So, how does the above equate to us seeing sharia law imposed? Anyone can see, quote clearly, that there is a long, long way to go before the proclaimed culture in which Great Britain becomes an Islamic state, surely? I surmise you wiill probablyt come back at me with the oft-trotted out 'Britain will have a majority muslim population by 20xx' - line; I leave the figure incomplete as it is purely supposition; run a quick web search and you'll find figures stating igt will happen by 2050, while there are otrher sources explaining why, by that date, the muslim population of the UK is unlikely to top 10%. Each is theoretical - and there are many other suggestions - and based purely on current demographic trends, which we all know change with the times naturally. The problem is that we can't see into the future, so thpse of us who think the 'we'll be a muslim nation soon and have sharia law imposed' simply cannot be accused of burying our heads in the sands; that happens ony when you deny something that is clearly evident - and this is not, by any means other than a bunch of potentially flawed statistics that can be interpreted in more than one way, and are done so to suit the needs of those with clear agendas. Of course, the muslim population will grow, but - despite the, again, oft bandied about birthrate statistics, the 'no religion' and christian population will, also; the only way a muslim majority could be achieved so quickly would be for others to stop reproducing. So, here's the thing; I spent a good half hour looking at population projections from various sources - you can do it too, it's fun, and far more informative than the Daily Mail - and can only conclude that the number of sources claiming the UK will become a muslim nation is outnumbered by those who say it won't; why, then, are we going to be subjected to sharia law? As earlier, such claim simply makes no actual, factual sense.

Gooch is an unsung giant of the age, a man with talent abounding and one who commanded great respect from his peers and achieved truly great things.

For what it's worth, I prefer to sit in the back seat of a taxi. Whether I am wearing my burka or not.

"Why is a Muslim doctor or nurse here in the first place?" Perhaps the money and terms of the job are better; or perhaps they were the best candidate for the job. Or they simply like it here? Or are British?

It's just ridiculous; what pleasure is to be gained from that sort of act? The tree looks great, and I must also add that the town itself - despite some obvious drawbacks - also looks great; the green and gold railings around the roundabout really do make a difference, and the flower displays have been beautiful, so credit to WBTC and others iinvolved for their efforts.

Interesting, and very worthy. An unsung hero of the times.

Some time ago I recall one of my nieces telling her mum that every time she left a light on a polar bear died. She'd been taught this at school. Of course, climate does change - it always has and always will - and I have little doubt that the colossal population of the planet has some influence on this, but I never bought the 'it's all our fault' stuff.

"Isn't it time we stopped tarring every muslim with the same Dirty brush." My point precisely, Canny Lass. It is time, and it's also time people took the time to become more educated on the subject (and your post above is a perfect place to begin!) I am not religious, yet I accept others right to believe; I find the whole Islamaphobia trait that is rife now to be wholly digusting; furthermore, it is exactly how the radical element want us to think. I feel very, very sorry for the everyday Muslims - here and elsewhere - who are viewed with suspicion for what I see as no reason at all. The actions of a few do not amount to those of all.

"If this really was a religion like other religions all these calls to violence would be excised, but they are not, and that simple fact is telling!" What? Seriously, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're happy to tar them all with the same brush? Are you saying that ALL muslims are acting violently and killing people, etc? Are you blind to the fact that most, in fact, go about their lives without troubling anyone, just as do the Hindu's, Sikhs, and others who live among our society? Are all Chinese Triads who cut peoples hands off etc? You're getting your radicals mixed up with the ordinary people who follow Islam. Furthermore, Christians have a history of bloody, needless violence throughout the ages; what about them?

I didn't see Brian 'having a pop' at anyone; he simpl;y positied a point that many would have made. It's a valid one. Maggie, I saw that news item too, about the Muslim girl on the train. I would have responded the same way as the other passengers, and am thankful that they had the guts to do it. Nobody deserves to be abused in such a fashion for their beliefs, colour, creed or whatever. The story says that hate crimes against muslims have risen something like 250% since the Paris attacks; that's hardly surprising given the utter ignorance of many people. How can we expect them to stand up and protest against ISIS when they are fearful of those in their own community?

The face says it all!

Yes, I have; I've personally spoken to Muslim friends in the north of England who are not only horrified, but are living in fear. These are good, honest working people who lead everyday lives and go about their religious doings without bothering others; I may not agree with their beliefs, but I'm unwilling to lump them in with radicals who are intent on killing people. That said, you are absolutely right - the Muslim community needs to stand up and speak out about these people, but then so did those opposed to the Nazi's in WW2. "BTW the petition doesn't say refugees, it says immigration. Exactly how those two entirely distinct concepts have come to be so comprehensively conflated is one of those wonders of bleeding-heart liberal left doublethink!" No, it's not, it's quite logical, and you're actually providing an example: when people mention 'immigrants' now, in this currentand recent climate, the image that pops up is not one of an Eastern European picking turnips outside Boston - which it once was - but of a middle eastern person, say, from Syria, a muslim, of course, for it is they who is 'the problem'. This is entirely because that's what the current news is focusing on - it's nothing to do with 'double think'. "I'm not sure that is entirely true." I see no part of my statement that is in any way untrue; there are terrorists here already, hence the stable door analogy; there are terrorists coming in with the refugees; there are people who need our help - because one man you saw interviewed didn't need our help does not mean other's don't. "The real question is how many refugees the oil-rich Arab countries taking, and it seems the answer to that is zero! " And? Are you suggesting a 'they're not doing it so why should we' approach? That's great, solves everything. It's my ball, I'm taking it home if you don't let me play. Perhaps I'm too soft, or maybe I see things in a different way to that you do, but Johnny Foreigner isn't the biggest problem the UK has right now. After all, without Mr Chahal's wonderrful emporium, where would I get my May San curry sauce?