Re: The government has finally broken the BNP...
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:03 pm
Goddamnit, Max. What sort of fucking reply is that? Is your plan just to abuse my poor eyes with a such a block of text as that? Paragraphs, man, paragraphs! It doesn't take much to tap the return key now and again.
Anyway, (gulp), here goes:
[quote]Sam Slater, I stand by what I said about how the British way of life is being destroyed and not 'changed' as such.[/quote]
Why isn't 'changed' a more accurate description of what you're fearing may happen to the British way of life? (and I'm even cutting you a little slack in not demanding an explanation of what 'British life' is supposed to be) That's like saying punk 'destroyed' music. It didn't, it just changed it slightly, even enriching it. You're just using emotive language to enforce a point of view that doesn't have anything to back it up. It's an easy tactic to use: when you can't appeal to a man's sense of logic with facts you appeal to his emotions with exaggerations and metaphor. I have no doubt at all that Islamic culture will change British culture, just like black music and fashion influences the young of today. When I listen to some old hip-hop stuff from the mid 80s I don't see that as having destroyed the punk, pop, rock and blues that came before. I don't look at an Italian restaurant or Chinese take-away and think they're destroyed British cuisine, I see it as enriching and influencing it. How can you justify the terminology you used? And try and answer my points in a reasonable manner, if you please, instead of just reiterating your own views. Anyone can express an opinion. I want the reasoning, and maybe if I'm lucky, a few facts that fits in with that reasoning.
[quote]Hearing English spoken in the street, or having neighbours who regard themselves as British, is something that exists only by chance now in inner-city areas, not by design, and the more people we take the more that will happen.[/quote]
Why are you upset at hearing other languages spoken in the street? Surely we can choose to socialise using any language we want? I'm not saying newcomers to this country shouldn't need to learn English, but surely these foreign languages you're hearing are people speaking their mother tongue amongst friends? I get by with a little French (I wish I had time to learn more) and find it important to use it if I'm in France, unlike most Brits. However, if I met a fellow Brit and got into a conversation I'd naturally speak in English since it's the language I find easiest to express myself. I don't see why you have a problem here.
[quote]Immigration IS out of control - how else can you describe Blair wanting 15,000 from eastern Europe and we end up with over one million? How else can you describe the fact that every European can come and live here (that's 26 other countries worth of people) and when you add in the people that have the right to move to those countries, their former colonies, who can then move here, the figure is literally hundreds of millions.[/quote]
How does any of that make it out of control? The only immigration 'out of control' could be considered the illegal immigrants who manage to avoid border controls and the like. I think the rough estimate of legal immigrants is around half a million. Even then you would have to detract the number officially known to authorities because they're in the system and thus controlled. But, being a generous guy, I'll let you take that half of that 500,000 and say 250,000 are outside the system. That's less than 0.5% of the population (less than 1% if you want to take the whole half million as being outside the system) and so that's hardly 'out of control'. That's like saying one single house, on an estate of 1000 homes has found a single, solitary mouse and calling it a pest problem that is 'out of control!'. It's just more emotive nonsense from you, I'm afraid. I have no quarrel a reasoned debater who's of the opinion that immigration levels cause problems in some areas of the UK, but I'm not having this 'out of control' claptrap.
[quote]On the issue of Sharia Courts, people who have no respect for our judicial system and want another way of doing things are going to want that way of doing things more and more - and as the numbers increase there will be more pressure for us to adapt our way of doing things to suit them.[/quote]
But isn't that democracy? Isn't that what you said you were standing for? Of course there's a minority who don't like how we do things. Hell, there are plenty of white folk, who's whole known family tree were born here who don't like the ways we do things, and this is why we can vote for parties who's policies reflect our views. Personally I detest a good proportion of what Sharia is and have already expressed my views and worries about them becoming more common, but I also realise that there are some aspects of Sharia we can learn from and should consider adopting. I'd prefer a written constitution that protects certain rights and philosophies myself because democracy is flawed when a large enough percentage of the electorate are so easily guided by sensationalism and exaggeration and there's a good chance of something completely dangerous or immoral is voted in.
[quote]I dont agree with you that Sharia Courts are a kind of local-level thing which operate under the ultimate umbrella of the British Courts.[/quote]
Surprise, surprise. You have a view with no facts to back it up and won't change your mind no matter what anyone says....right? I asked you to come up with a single case of a Sharia court ruling, that is deemed illegal under British law, and yet still stood. Can you? You make big claims, Max, it's about time you showed us the money!
[quote]It was not because of 'the incompetence of individual officers' that muslim demonstrators with their very offensive placards weren't arrested - this was a directive from up on high. The Police who are despatched to oversee a large demonstration don't just do what they like - they are told by senior commanders that their position should be towards this and that on the day. They were clearly told to have a softly-softly approach, evident by the fact no one was nicked at the Danish Embassy protest or at that thing recently where the Dutch MP arrived in Westminster.[/quote]
I agree with you on the Danish Embassy placards. Some of those protesters were inciting hatred and calling for people to be killed; they should have been arrested and charged. But that was nearly 4 years ago and you're now talking about the recent protest regarding Geert Wilders. There was no 'beheading' placards like you stated and no news sources who covered the story are saying there was. You also gave me a link to a pic from a protest that looks suspiciously like one from an older protest and not the Geert Wilders one. I have an inclination that you may have been trying to deceive me, Max, and if you were it was for no other reason than to prove a point by using false evidence. Now, I could easily understand how someone with real prejudices against Muslims would sink to using false evidence, but you're not prejudiced at all so I'm at a loss as to why you did it (if indeed it wasn't just a mistake of course). I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just easily muddled up.
[quote]The English Defence League, with their 'stop the Islamification of Britain' campaign get referred to as 'a bunch of thugs' by politicans - even a BBC news reader, Tim Wilcox, called them that - something way outside the BBC's remit of impartiality.[/quote]
I've not really followed the news surrounding this English Defence League so I'm not in a position to judge whether they're thugs or not.
[quote]It is what could be described as almost grovelling to Islamic protesters, an extreme level of protection and reluctance to arrest, and passers-by who complain about how offensive these people are being getting threatened with arrest instead, that is what I have an issue with.[/quote]
But most religions get special treatment that way. I have to credit the Islamic clerics because they scored big time when everyone accepted the term 'islamophobia'. They've succeeded in having it looked upon in the same light as racism so as to scare people who genuinely dislike the religion. The word is a firewall, to shield the religion from criticism and because we're all indoctrinated as a society to respect 'faith' we're prone to these cheap tactics. Trouble is, real racists do use it as a stick to beat Muslims with and so it reinforces the Islamists' claims that islamophobia is akin to racism. It's a pity the knuckleheads can't see that their hatred for anything different just makes it worse for all concerned.
Anyway, for a third time: was my original assessment of you accurate?
Anyway, (gulp), here goes:
[quote]Sam Slater, I stand by what I said about how the British way of life is being destroyed and not 'changed' as such.[/quote]
Why isn't 'changed' a more accurate description of what you're fearing may happen to the British way of life? (and I'm even cutting you a little slack in not demanding an explanation of what 'British life' is supposed to be) That's like saying punk 'destroyed' music. It didn't, it just changed it slightly, even enriching it. You're just using emotive language to enforce a point of view that doesn't have anything to back it up. It's an easy tactic to use: when you can't appeal to a man's sense of logic with facts you appeal to his emotions with exaggerations and metaphor. I have no doubt at all that Islamic culture will change British culture, just like black music and fashion influences the young of today. When I listen to some old hip-hop stuff from the mid 80s I don't see that as having destroyed the punk, pop, rock and blues that came before. I don't look at an Italian restaurant or Chinese take-away and think they're destroyed British cuisine, I see it as enriching and influencing it. How can you justify the terminology you used? And try and answer my points in a reasonable manner, if you please, instead of just reiterating your own views. Anyone can express an opinion. I want the reasoning, and maybe if I'm lucky, a few facts that fits in with that reasoning.
[quote]Hearing English spoken in the street, or having neighbours who regard themselves as British, is something that exists only by chance now in inner-city areas, not by design, and the more people we take the more that will happen.[/quote]
Why are you upset at hearing other languages spoken in the street? Surely we can choose to socialise using any language we want? I'm not saying newcomers to this country shouldn't need to learn English, but surely these foreign languages you're hearing are people speaking their mother tongue amongst friends? I get by with a little French (I wish I had time to learn more) and find it important to use it if I'm in France, unlike most Brits. However, if I met a fellow Brit and got into a conversation I'd naturally speak in English since it's the language I find easiest to express myself. I don't see why you have a problem here.
[quote]Immigration IS out of control - how else can you describe Blair wanting 15,000 from eastern Europe and we end up with over one million? How else can you describe the fact that every European can come and live here (that's 26 other countries worth of people) and when you add in the people that have the right to move to those countries, their former colonies, who can then move here, the figure is literally hundreds of millions.[/quote]
How does any of that make it out of control? The only immigration 'out of control' could be considered the illegal immigrants who manage to avoid border controls and the like. I think the rough estimate of legal immigrants is around half a million. Even then you would have to detract the number officially known to authorities because they're in the system and thus controlled. But, being a generous guy, I'll let you take that half of that 500,000 and say 250,000 are outside the system. That's less than 0.5% of the population (less than 1% if you want to take the whole half million as being outside the system) and so that's hardly 'out of control'. That's like saying one single house, on an estate of 1000 homes has found a single, solitary mouse and calling it a pest problem that is 'out of control!'. It's just more emotive nonsense from you, I'm afraid. I have no quarrel a reasoned debater who's of the opinion that immigration levels cause problems in some areas of the UK, but I'm not having this 'out of control' claptrap.
[quote]On the issue of Sharia Courts, people who have no respect for our judicial system and want another way of doing things are going to want that way of doing things more and more - and as the numbers increase there will be more pressure for us to adapt our way of doing things to suit them.[/quote]
But isn't that democracy? Isn't that what you said you were standing for? Of course there's a minority who don't like how we do things. Hell, there are plenty of white folk, who's whole known family tree were born here who don't like the ways we do things, and this is why we can vote for parties who's policies reflect our views. Personally I detest a good proportion of what Sharia is and have already expressed my views and worries about them becoming more common, but I also realise that there are some aspects of Sharia we can learn from and should consider adopting. I'd prefer a written constitution that protects certain rights and philosophies myself because democracy is flawed when a large enough percentage of the electorate are so easily guided by sensationalism and exaggeration and there's a good chance of something completely dangerous or immoral is voted in.
[quote]I dont agree with you that Sharia Courts are a kind of local-level thing which operate under the ultimate umbrella of the British Courts.[/quote]
Surprise, surprise. You have a view with no facts to back it up and won't change your mind no matter what anyone says....right? I asked you to come up with a single case of a Sharia court ruling, that is deemed illegal under British law, and yet still stood. Can you? You make big claims, Max, it's about time you showed us the money!
[quote]It was not because of 'the incompetence of individual officers' that muslim demonstrators with their very offensive placards weren't arrested - this was a directive from up on high. The Police who are despatched to oversee a large demonstration don't just do what they like - they are told by senior commanders that their position should be towards this and that on the day. They were clearly told to have a softly-softly approach, evident by the fact no one was nicked at the Danish Embassy protest or at that thing recently where the Dutch MP arrived in Westminster.[/quote]
I agree with you on the Danish Embassy placards. Some of those protesters were inciting hatred and calling for people to be killed; they should have been arrested and charged. But that was nearly 4 years ago and you're now talking about the recent protest regarding Geert Wilders. There was no 'beheading' placards like you stated and no news sources who covered the story are saying there was. You also gave me a link to a pic from a protest that looks suspiciously like one from an older protest and not the Geert Wilders one. I have an inclination that you may have been trying to deceive me, Max, and if you were it was for no other reason than to prove a point by using false evidence. Now, I could easily understand how someone with real prejudices against Muslims would sink to using false evidence, but you're not prejudiced at all so I'm at a loss as to why you did it (if indeed it wasn't just a mistake of course). I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just easily muddled up.
[quote]The English Defence League, with their 'stop the Islamification of Britain' campaign get referred to as 'a bunch of thugs' by politicans - even a BBC news reader, Tim Wilcox, called them that - something way outside the BBC's remit of impartiality.[/quote]
I've not really followed the news surrounding this English Defence League so I'm not in a position to judge whether they're thugs or not.
[quote]It is what could be described as almost grovelling to Islamic protesters, an extreme level of protection and reluctance to arrest, and passers-by who complain about how offensive these people are being getting threatened with arrest instead, that is what I have an issue with.[/quote]
But most religions get special treatment that way. I have to credit the Islamic clerics because they scored big time when everyone accepted the term 'islamophobia'. They've succeeded in having it looked upon in the same light as racism so as to scare people who genuinely dislike the religion. The word is a firewall, to shield the religion from criticism and because we're all indoctrinated as a society to respect 'faith' we're prone to these cheap tactics. Trouble is, real racists do use it as a stick to beat Muslims with and so it reinforces the Islamists' claims that islamophobia is akin to racism. It's a pity the knuckleheads can't see that their hatred for anything different just makes it worse for all concerned.
Anyway, for a third time: was my original assessment of you accurate?