[Archived] News comment

[K-Hod]

"A Blackburn resident is his 50s from the Revidge area said he felt 'disgusted and intimidated' that such gatherings were happening in the town centre." Hardly surprising they had to meet in the Adelphi cos there isn't a single pub left on Revidge Road. None of the residents around there use them these days. Revidge Run has gone from hero to zero in little over a decade. On the cards the Hare and Hounds and the Royal Oak would have gone the same way too but for an enterprising local chap.

The decline of Blackburn's nightlife is embarrassing and will do amazingly well to recover. Bloody hell, if I lived in the 'Revidge Area' I'm not sure where you could go for a pint!

It isn't simply down to demographics, as folk from out of town (i.e. myself and many others) would travel in for a few jars in years gone by and would add to the numbers!

Pleasington isn't THAT far from 'the Revidge area' is it?

[Al]

I often wonder what planet you are living on thenodrog. You say that "Islamic issues" have dominated the headlines in the media this week, yet in the same post you say that those same stories are being under-reported.

You deride the media for reporting on a racially motivated massacre in an American church that happened just a few days ago, by complaining that a story that happened in April is not being talked about still. The hint is in the name - News. Anyway you then post the answer to your own complaint in the same post. A quick Google search tells us that 15 people were immediately arrested and are now facing murder charges for throwing those Christians overboard.

The problem with the media and politicians and the terrorist attack in Charleston is that it will be added to the huge pile of atrocities carried out by 'lone deranged individuals', the usual debate will be had about guns and race, and the US will again brush their centuries old problems under the carpet. That is the true media bias, the real political lie. They shrug their shoulders when it comes to domestic terrorism, saying it is the price you pay for freedom. Yet they are willing to waterboard, drone, invade two countries, spend trillions of dollars send thousands of their own military to die, and do whatever it takes to pre-emptively kill foreign extremists. All so they maintain the freedom to ignore the horrific violence in their own backyard.

Anyway lastly - it turns out now Enoch Powelladamus was actually warning the UK about the rise of jihadi-extremists. What a tragedy his message of division and mistrust was never truly appreciated. I tell you who would really like to see the mono-cultural, insular, intolerant utopia Powell was speaking of - Islamic Extremists.

There he goes again. Preaching about what we should do to support Islam in the UK from thousands of miles away IN KOREA.

[thenodrog]

A clue here Al....

http://270c81.medialib.glogster.com/media/ac/ac94789ece27e567f4939077e296c6455f4baae5a2a19509217f94dabe6c22b3/southkorea-pie-chart-jpg.jpg

[Mike E]

Are you talking about routinely arming all British police officers with a gun? I wouldn't agree with that. Give every officer a gun and more criminals will seek to arm themselves. The UK does not have a widespread gun violence problem. I would agree that some police in some areas might need to carry them due to the nature of the threats they face. But routinely arming every police officer? That would do more harm than good in my opinion.

It's an odd one really. I haven't thought it through properly. I just know that every cop I come across when holidaying in Spain wears a pistol-type weapon on their belt.

Perfectly respectable and courteous people with that little reminder in their back pocket.

[yoda]

It's an odd one really. I haven't thought it through properly. I just know that every cop I come across when holidaying in Spain wears a pistol-type weapon on their belt.

Perfectly respectable and courteous people with that little reminder in their back pocket.

The Gendarmes are armed in France too, one of their favourite lines in English is "respect the law" do that and they leave you alone

[jim mk2]

It's an odd one really. I haven't thought it through properly. I just know that every cop I come across when holidaying in Spain wears a pistol-type weapon on their belt.

Perfectly respectable and courteous people with that little reminder in their back pocket.

Why make a post when you haven't thought about it first ? It must be obvious why our police do not routinely wear guns - and why we are admired and respected all over the world because of it.

[Stuart]

Not all Americans should be tarred with the same brush...

This is pretty damned honest:

http://youtu.be/LJl9iqnvkOE

[Mike E]

Why make a post when you haven't thought about it first ? It must be obvious why our police do not routinely wear guns - and why we are admired and respected all over the world because of it.

But not respected in our own country.

And I'm happy to post a suggestion without thinking it through. It's an observation that it works very well in Europe yet we don't have it here.

[Audax]

Official: Father in D.C. mansion murders strangled, beaten, burned - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/dc-mansion-fire-bloody-bat/index.html

The Democrat Party is the historic home of the Ku Klux Klan, I think Leftists still keep up the hate speech.

Why don't we hear about all of the black on white crime in the US like above and call it Racially Motivated as well? Though this event above is the worse of the worse resulting in the killing of 4 people, a family of 3 and a Maid, I'd always keep in my mind the whole picture, not the wrong Whitey did in some incident and ignore the rest.

[Audax]

That the Ku Klux Klan's historic home was the Democrat Party really fits the leftist vitriol Ultrablue spews, to me, it is hate speech. Taking shots at fox news or whatever is a refuge of cowardice .

Hey Ultra Blue, you haven't answered me before so I don't expect an answer;

But if it be the tons of black on white violence that has occurred as in the Mansion Murders or the many cases where newspapers don't even report on color because of the risk of upsetting the community, who do you think kills more, white on black crime or black on white crime?? http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/dc-mansion-fire-bloody-bat/index.html

Anyway, Ultra basically, has shown a total lack to speak about the issues, ignores, whatever and that's fine. Time to say this is really just the same attitude, you find in the Guardian, the left is really the refuge of hate.

They've got one story, they can wave in the air. Again, if 570 people have gotten killed in 30 years of mass shootings and 10,000 people get killed in drink driving accidents a year in the US, I wonder why everyone is not protesting for alcohol to be made illegal.

Let alone, the John Stewart show, comedy central, whatever it is, fairly obscure.

Hate to ruffle feathers. But we should be balanced.

There are several commentators in the States today saying all the usual things after a mass shooting: this was a lone wolf attack, he was simply a sick, mentally ill individual, it is not indicative of any wider issue, evil like this will always exist, the best thing individuals can do is be vigilant and good guys with guns will prevail. Basically they are saying there is nothing America can do to stop the frequency of these kinds of atrocities. Individual Americans should live with the threat and the Feds should leave them to it.

However, these are the same commentators who fully back the 'War on Terror', who believe that the government needs to be given the power to profile, to monitor, and in some cases detain people if they as much as suspect they may be somehow connected to terrorism in the name of Islam. These commentators believe that Islamic terrorism can and must be stopped, and that the best way to go about it is to give the government the ability to trample the rights of the individual.

The hypocrisy of these people is blatant and intolerable. The actions of this bloke in Charleston were the very definition of terrorism. He chose that church because he knew the message it would send. He targeted black people exclusively, not only out of hatred, but because he knew the wider effects his actions would have. He is a terrorist. Now what is government surveillance for if it is not to root out violent extremists intent on killing innocent people as part of a wider political goal?

Now personally I am against the kind of catch all surveillance programmes that were exposed by Edward Snowden and others. I am glad to see sections of the Patriot Act were left to expire last month. But those on the right in the US who are for the government having these powers, as part of a War on Radical Extremists do have a huge blind spot when it comes to White Power Extremists. They should be putting as much emphasis on domestic, racist terrorism as they do on Islamic terrorism.

Simply put, if you believe we must try everything we can to stop Islamic terrorism, then you must believe we should do the same to stop all terrorism.

http://blackgenocide.org/ In the US, think, a black baby has 5 times more of a chance to be aborted than a white baby. Who champions this "reproductive right", the left.

[otto man]

There he goes again. Preaching about what we should do to support Islam in the UK from thousands of miles away IN KOREA.

The sad thing Al, is that it's those of his ilk that have created the enemy within by their very tolerance and need to accommodate and what is even sadder is their refusal to recognise it. But I bet if I moved into his home as a guest and within a short space of time demanded that I brought my family as well and then started demanding he and his family lived how I wanted them to live he'd ask me to leave or live by his rules. But of course he'll never admit that. Google the term "Useful idiots", check out the origins of "isms" as in "racism" "sexism" etc etc and you'll see it's nothing more than a political tool for subduing freedom of speech and controlling the masses. Time to wake up and smell the coco! But of course it won't happen. It makes me want to weep seeing what has happened to our once Great Britain.

Cry God for Harry! England and Saint George!

[ultrablue]

That the Ku Klux Klan's historic home was the Democrat Party really fits the leftist vitriol Ultrablue spews, to me, it is hate speech. Taking shots at fox news or whatever is a refuge of cowardice .

It's true the likes of George Wallace in Alabama and other Dixie Democrats were the defenders of racial segregation. This just shows that race in America is not a question of left and right. It has always been a cross party issue. Attitudes on race are broadly geographical, not ideological.

Hey Ultra Blue, you haven't answered me before so I don't expect an answer;

That's partly because I struggle to find questions in your posts.

But if it be the tons of black on white violence that has occurred as in the Mansion Murders or the many cases where newspapers don't even report on color because of the risk of upsetting the community, who do you think kills more, white on black crime or black on white crime?? http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/dc-mansion-fire-bloody-bat/index.html

Ah ok found one. What I think happens doesn't matter. I'll turn to the facts:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2012.xls

Clearly the majority of white victims are murdered by other white people, and the majority of blacks murderers kill black victims. There are roughly twice as many black on white murders as there are white on black murders. So that is the initial answer. However, if we are talking about racial tensions we have to take a look a motivations. In crimes where racial differences were the primary or partial motivation (hate crimes), the sides flip. There are more hate crimes committed by whites on blacks than blacks on whites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33159947

Anyway, Ultra basically, has shown a total lack to speak about the issues, ignores, whatever and that's fine. Time to say this is really just the same attitude, you find in the Guardian, the left is really the refuge of hate.

They've got one story, they can wave in the air. Again, if 570 people have gotten killed in 30 years of mass shootings and 10,000 people get killed in drink driving accidents a year in the US, I wonder why everyone is not protesting for alcohol to be made illegal.

Not sure where you got those numbers on shootings from Audax. Here are the ones I found: over 900 in 7 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/

As for making alcohol illegal, the US tried that. It didn't work out so well.

Drink driving is a huge problem in the States. I've seen some disturbingly relaxed attitudes towards it with my own eyes when I lived, studied and worked across the South for 2 years. A lot of good people are working hard to bring those fatality numbers down. But drawing a comparison to the problem of mass shootings in frankly a bit bizarre.

Let alone, the John Stewart show, comedy central, whatever it is, fairly obscure.

Obscure? 2.5 million people in the US alone would disagree. The night of the Charleston Church attack he interviewed Bill Clinton. He is doing a better job informing people than a lot of cable news channels too.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

Hate to ruffle feathers. But we should be balanced.

http://blackgenocide.org/ In the US, think, a black baby has 5 times more of a chance to be aborted than a white baby. Who champions this "reproductive right", the left.

No idea how you got from my post on how surveillance could be used to track domestic terrorists to post a link about abortion rights. The website you linked to doesn't exist.

There he goes again. Preaching about what we should do to support Islam in the UK from thousands of miles away IN KOREA.

The main point of that post was the refusal on behalf of many in the US media and their politicians to face up to domestic terrorism and violence. I didn't say much at all about Islam in the UK, other than to point out that Enoch Powell said nothing about Islamic extremism. Powell wanted to divide the country on ethnic lines, exactly as the likes of Anjem Choudry does. Inclusive attitudes always lessen the chance of violence. That can be seen throughout history.

As for me living in Korea, I am an immigrant. It gives me perspective. Don't assume to understand immigration without trying it.

[Paul]

Cry God for Harry! England and Saint George!

Henry V invaded France threatening the Dauphin he would bring terrible carnage to the country. Henry justifies this by claiming to have been sent by God to inflict God's will upon the French as punishment for their wickedness. By doing so he shifts responsibly for his actions on to his enemy.

The campaign was funded by the Church.

Possibly not the best quote to have chosen.

[otto man]

Henry V invaded France threatening the Dauphin he would bring terrible carnage to the country. Henry justifies this by claiming to have been sent by God to inflict God's will upon the French as punishment for their wickedness. By doing so he shifts responsibly for his actions on to his enemy.

The campaign was funded by the Church.

Possibly not the best quote to have chosen.

I couldn't think of a better! Henry (rightly or wrongly) believed he had a claim to the French crown and in 1415 began his first campaign in France which ultimately saw the French humbled at Agincourt. A battle in which fewer than 6,000 English troops many racked by dysentery, hunger and exhaustion after a forced march of roughly 240 miles defeated an army that outnumbered them at least five to one. This was a victory of such scale that it sent shock waves throughout Europe(Not until Waterloo would we see the like of such a magnificent victory) and cemented the English Archer in history and I for one as an Englishman am proud of our place on the worlds stage. So thank you for your twisted and inaccurate rational for Henrys campaign but I say again ... Cry God for Harry! England and Saint George!

[Paul]

err it's not a twisted and inaccurate rational, to quote Shakepeare and Henry's words:

But this all lies within the will of God,

To whom I do appeal, and in whose name

Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on

To venge me as I may, and to put forth

My right hand in a well-hallowed cause

I don't do a lot of Shakespeare, and had to check this first, but as it happened Henry V was a compulsory text at school so I have some vague memory of it. It's pretty clear in the play Henry sees himself as asserting God's will and his own right to rule France plus the campaign was funded by the Church. I'm not arguing with the history, the historical importance, the nature of the English victory etc. I'm querying one thing:

You dislike sections of Islam and Muslims citing their religion, laws and wish to impose their perception of Allah's will but it seems to be OK if, in the name of God, an English king invades another country to inflict God's vengence on the population?

Can you explain the difference?

[otto man]

err it's not a twisted and inaccurate rational, to quote Shakepeare and Henry's words:

But this all lies within the will of God,

To whom I do appeal, and in whose name

Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on

To venge me as I may, and to put forth

My right hand in a well-hallowed cause

I don't do a lot of Shakespeare, and had to check this first, but as it happened Henry V was a compulsory text at school so I have some vague memory of it. It's pretty clear in the play Henry sees himself as asserting God's will and his own right to rule France plus the campaign was funded by the Church. I'm not arguing with the history, the historical importance, the nature of the English victory etc. I'm querying one thing:

You dislike sections of Islam and Muslims citing their religion, laws and wish to impose their perception of Allah's will but it seems to be OK if, in the name of God, an English king invades another country to inflict God's vengence on the population?

Can you explain the difference?

Firstly using Shakespeare as a rational is a very odd way of trying to explain Henry's reasons for his campaign. You do realise it's a play don't you? A play that was written around 178 years after Henry's death, so to suggest a playwrights lines are accurate is laughable. Now quite how you've managed to find a reference to islam in my post is beyond me, as is your attempt to draw a parallel between islam and two Christian monarchs disputing their rights to a crown. The whole of the Medieval western world was Christian at that time and as such your analogy is redundant.

[yoda]

Paul,

The French deserve a slap everyday of the week

The main point of that post was the refusal on behalf of many in the US media and their politicians to face up to domestic terrorism and violence. I didn't say much at all about Islam in the UK, other than to point out that Enoch Powell said nothing about Islamic extremism. Powell wanted to divide the country on ethnic lines, exactly as the likes of Anjem Choudry does. Inclusive attitudes always lessen the chance of violence. That can be seen throughout history.

As for me living in Korea, I am an immigrant. It gives me perspective. Don't assume to understand immigration without trying it.

I had that t shirt, gave it back though, one thing I agree with Jim mk2 on is, Britain (England in particular) is the best country on the planet, just a pity we are a bit to soft and accommodating sometimes.

[Al]

The main point of that post was the refusal on behalf of many in the US media and their politicians to face up to domestic terrorism and violence. I didn't say much at all about Islam in the UK, other than to point out that Enoch Powell said nothing about Islamic extremism. Powell wanted to divide the country on ethnic lines, exactly as the likes of Anjem Choudry does. Inclusive attitudes always lessen the chance of violence. That can be seen throughout history.

As for me living in Korea, I am an immigrant. It gives me perspective. Don't assume to understand immigration without trying it.

No Enoch Powell had the foresight to see exactly what we have now in this country and particularly in the Blackburn area, a country for ever divided because of the huge irreconcilable differences in culture between the indigenous population and the intrusive Muslims. It is interesting to compare it to the Jews, Chinese and Caribbean people who have integrated with few problems.

[ultrablue]

I agree with Jim mk2 on is, Britain (England in particular) is the best country on the planet,/quote]

I agree. It is a fact that can only really be appreciated by spending time abroad. Our reputation around the world for fairness, tolerance and justice has been a common strain wherever I have been. It is a repreputation well deserved and hard earned too. Despite some of the less than friendly rhetoric we hear from some on the far right, our country remains generous and well respected. Long may these true British values continue.

[thenodrog]

err it's not a twisted and inaccurate rational, to quote Shakepeare and Henry's words:

But this all lies within the will of God,

To whom I do appeal, and in whose name

Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on

To venge me as I may, and to put forth

My right hand in a well-hallowed cause

I don't do a lot of Shakespeare, and had to check this first, but as it happened Henry V was a compulsory text at school so I have some vague memory of it. It's pretty clear in the play Henry sees himself as asserting God's will and his own right to rule France plus the campaign was funded by the Church. I'm not arguing with the history, the historical importance, the nature of the English victory etc. I'm querying one thing:

You dislike sections of Islam and Muslims citing their religion, laws and wish to impose their perception of Allah's will but it seems to be OK if, in the name of God, an English king invades another country to inflict God's vengence on the population?

Can you explain the difference?

As you say 'in the play'. Means nothing. Shakespeare was a simple playwright, not a historian.

ooops.... just spotted otto man has already explained that to you.

[thenodrog]

The main point of that post was the refusal on behalf of many in the US media and their politicians to face up to domestic terrorism and violence. I didn't say much at all about Islam in the UK, other than to point out that Enoch Powell said nothing about Islamic extremism. Powell wanted to divide the country on ethnic lines, exactly as the likes of Anjem Choudry does. Inclusive attitudes always lessen the chance of violence. That can be seen throughout history.

You are wrong. To quote directly from Powell's speech in '68. Check out the final paragraph and one has to be impressed by his perception. At that time there were very few muslims in the UK in comparison to the numbers who have arrived since.

"The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. " Enoch Powell.

[Mike E]

No Enoch Powell had the foresight to see exactly what we have now in this country and particularly in the Blackburn area, a country for ever divided because of the huge irreconcilable differences in culture between the indigenous population and the intrusive Muslims. It is interesting to compare it to the Jews, Chinese and Caribbean people who have integrated with few problems.

So Enoch Powell was wrong then, surely? Apart from where muslims are involved.

[yoda]

So Enoch Powell was wrong then, surely? Apart from where muslims are involved.

You are ignoring Al's point that the other immigrants he mentioned seem to integrate without to many problems, Enoch Powell was pro integration, something which some people overlook when they need a headline.

[Al]

So Enoch Powell was wrong then, surely? Apart from where muslims are involved.

I think Yoda answered that for me. Powell actually mentions the Commonwealth immigrants who had successfully integrated. I believe he had Muslims in mind as he knew that their medieval religion was incompatible with the British society and lifestyle. He was absolutely correct as has been proven. Any sort of integration is miles away and probably impossible. Certainly in the short term.

[Mike E]

I think Yoda answered that for me. Powell actually mentions the Commonwealth immigrants who had successfully integrated. I believe he had Muslims in mind as he knew that their medieval religion was incompatible with the British society and lifestyle. He was absolutely correct as has been proven. Any sort of integration is miles away and probably impossible. Certainly in the short term.

Ah ok, whenwhenever his speech gets mentioned it seems to be in a general anti-immigration kind of post. Didn't know it was more reasonable than that.