[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[jim mk2]

The US diaspora is between 3m and 8m depending on which figures you believe. No doubt there's plenty of rotten eggs among that lot. Would you like them back ?

[Steve Moss]

The US diaspora is between 3m and 8m depending on which figures you believe. No doubt there's plenty of rotten eggs among that lot. Would you like them back ?

No. It's quite all right. You can keep them. And I'd be glad to send a few million more your way. As immigration is an untarnished blessing for those with your professed world view, you should jump at the chance. Right?

[jim mk2]

So we keep the bad ones you export and you have to keep the bad ones you import.... including those from Somalia - sounds fair enough.

[Steve Moss]

So we keep the bad ones you export and you have to keep the bad ones you import.... including those from Somalia - sounds fair enough.

Nope. I prefer we send back the bad ones we imported and we bar the door to the bad ones we exported. Bad=out and good=in.

[Al]

Yep, he's foreign, dark skinned, so therefore he must be Muslim and religion is to blame. And of course home-grown Christian whites have never been known to use knives (or guns).

Of course he's a Muslim. He's Somali and a terrorist.

[jim mk2]

Nope. I prefer we send back the bad ones we imported and we bar the door to the bad ones we exported. Bad=out and good=in.

Ah, the "cake and eat it" option. The Brexiteers want that too - in the real world it won't work.

[onlyonetugay]

I doubt very much he'll be anywhere near as successful as Farage. For one, we now have brexit. Secondly try and get southerners to vote for a scouser.

Nigel Farage was a once in a generation politician and I take your point he will be a hard act to follow but his work is done. He wanted a referendum , got one and the people voted out . I don't blame him for wanting out. The vileness of the nasty , vindictive, far left racist hate mobs who detest the democratic process , test even the strongest characters . They win their battles with sewer politics and they've succeeded in infiltrating the Labour party, but thankfully they'll never win at the ballot box in a general election. Their support for Corbyn has left Labour unelectable but will it finally cause a once proud party, that represented patriotic working folk to disintegrate?

This then leads on to your second point. I'm not sure if Southerners would vote for Paul Nuttall or not , but let's assume they don't. If that's the case then they're more likely to vote for the Conservatives than the shambles that is Corbyn's Labour. So Labour, apart from in London, continue to lose ground in the South ( although I'm not sure it could get much worse) , However it's not about the south or southern voters , UKIP are gunning for the northern working class vote. Dan Jarvis a Labour moderate , who I'd like to see as Corbyn's replacement , said the same yesterday. The UKIP fox is in the Labour hen house. If they do a similar job on Labour to what the populist SNP did on on them in Scotland where does that leave Labour ? Seats in Oldham , Blackburn and other areas with a similar demographic make up ? Anywhere else ?

[Amo]

Yep, he's foreign, dark skinned, so therefore he must be Muslim and religion is to blame. And of course home-grown Christian whites have never been known to use knives (or guns).

If it quacks like a duck...

How many religiously-motivated Christian terrorists have there been in the last 30 years?

[Audax]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38140981

Brazil Chapecoense football team in Colombia plane crash

A plane carrying 81 people, including a top Brazilian football team, has crashed on its approach to the city of Medellin in Colombia.

Police say five people survived the crash but the rest of those on board died.

The chartered aircraft, flying from Brazil via Bolivia, was carrying members of the Chapecoense team.

The team was due to play in the final of the Copa Sudamericana, against Medellin team Atletico Nacional.

More At Link Above.

[den]

Nigel Farage was a once in a generation politician and I take your point he will be a hard act to follow but his work is done. He wanted a referendum , got one and the people voted out . I don't blame him for wanting out. The vileness of the nasty , vindictive, far left racist hate mobs who detest the democratic process , test even the strongest characters . They win their battles with sewer politics and they've succeeded in infiltrating the Labour party, but thankfully they'll never win at the ballot box in a general election. Their support for Corbyn has left Labour unelectable but will it finally cause a once proud party, that represented patriotic working folk to disintegrate?

This then leads on to your second point. I'm not sure if Southerners would vote for Paul Nuttall or not , but let's assume they don't. If that's the case then they're more likely to vote for the Conservatives than the shambles that is Corbyn's Labour. So Labour, apart from in London, continue to lose ground in the South ( although I'm not sure it could get much worse) , However it's not about the south or southern voters , UKIP are gunning for the northern working class vote. Dan Jarvis a Labour moderate , who I'd like to see as Corbyn's replacement , said the same yesterday. The UKIP fox is in the Labour hen house. If they do a similar job on Labour to what the populist SNP did on on them in Scotland where does that leave Labour ? Seats in Oldham , Blackburn and other areas with a similar demographic make up ? Anywhere else ?

UKIP are only a threat because of the position that Labour finds itself in. It's going to take a labour drubbing at the next general election to enable the removal of Corbyn. Only then will the party be able appoint the right leader who can get the backing of the MP's then make inroads into the Tories. The Labour Party isn't dead yet. They're a bit like rovers at the moment. They need to hit rock bottom, then hope that will rid them of the harmful forces and allow them to move forward.

[joey_big_nose]

If it quacks like a duck...

How many religiously-motivated Christian terrorists have there been in the last 30 years?

Quite a few in the US.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/15/how-the-justice-department-is-stepping-up-its-response-to-domestic-extremists/

In the UK Jo Cox can squarely be put at the door of White nationalism.

The whole targeting of Islam as "fundamentally evil" by sections of the press and public is just as stupid as the 19th century targeting of Catholics, or the 1950s targeting of socialists in the US.

Faiths come in many hues. Plenty of Christians around with crackpot ideas. Plenty of Jews. Plenty of Hindus. Extremism is a choice not something inherent in a believer of whatever faith.

As soon as you get into accusing guilt just by being a member of a faith group you are @#/?.

[Audax]

Then, I'd say secularists have crackpot ideas as well.

They just caught a Somali at Ohio State, the difference is these things happen every single day, whereas a secularists might say, "oh, look at this one incident" and that accused killer of Jo Cox likely had a mental disease they say.

But we've got this stuff going on with Islamists every single day of the week and some of the worse massacres since World War II in Iraq and Syria.

Data has been shown that those mass shootings in the US have been done by those with connections to liberalism, Jared Loughner for instance, that shooter, Holmes, at Aurora Colorado, coming from liberal Democrat homes, if one is going to start pointing fingers at others, then, look closely. Columbine, Colorado.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Quite a few in the US.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/15/how-the-justice-department-is-stepping-up-its-response-to-domestic-extremists/

In the UK Jo Cox can squarely be put at the door of White nationalism.

The whole targeting of Islam as "fundamentally evil" by sections of the press and public is just as stupid as the 19th century targeting of Catholics, or the 1950s targeting of socialists in the US.

Faiths come in many hues. Plenty of Christians around with crackpot ideas. Plenty of Jews. Plenty of Hindus. Extremism is a choice not something inherent in a believer of whatever faith.

As soon as you get into accusing guilt just by being a member of a faith group you are @#/?.

Its a sound argument in principle but like a lot of these types of arguments, I don't see how it can be applied with any success in the real world.

If the reaction to every Islamic terrorist attack is "well you get them in every religion" then basically nothing is done to affect the trend. Tens of thousands of people are killed in the name of Islam every year, tens of thousands more will be killed every year into the near future. What's the answer for the families of all those victims, apart from don't be Islamophobic?

If the police carried out one stop and search a year in say Tower Hamlets and someone you knew was stabbed, would it sit well with you if the police response was "well violent crime can happen anywhere and we only do one a year in random village in Buckinghamshire so we're not going to discriminate by doing more than one a year here".

Seems to me that if you want to deny a problem has any fundamental causes or pattern, you've zero chance of preventing it from happening again.

[onlyonetugay]

UKIP are only a threat because of the position that Labour finds itself in. It's going to take a labour drubbing at the next general election to enable the removal of Corbyn. Only then will the party be able appoint the right leader who can get the backing of the MP's then make inroads into the Tories. The Labour Party isn't dead yet. They're a bit like rovers at the moment. They need to hit rock bottom, then hope that will rid them of the harmful forces and allow them to move forward.

Fair points there Den. Labour has long forgotten who it should be representing and it's got worse now it's changed from the hypocritical North London champagne socialists to the extreme nasty left - although there has been some cross over between the two. Both are unpalatable and unrepresentative of the working class communities in the north. Hopefully both the Rovers and Labour will return. Corbyn and the hard left out ! Venkys out !

[otto man]

Yep, he's foreign, dark skinned, so therefore he must be Muslim and religion is to blame. And of course home-grown Christian whites have never been known to use knives (or guns).

Of course you'd have much preferred he was a white christian American or Australian to fit in with your prejudices wouldn't you? You little xenophobe you!

Like it or not comrade, it ain't Christians or your average w.a.s.p. doing these things., it's your cuddly little moslem buddies. But just you keep playing the racist card, it's so entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself!

[jim mk2]

Dearie me.

[ABBEY]

Yep, he's foreign, dark skinned, so therefore he must be Muslim and religion is to blame. And of course home-grown Christian whites have never been known to use knives (or guns).

CNN just said he was inspired by Isis propaganda , wrong again .

[Dreyski]

In other news, Eric Bristow was today sacked from SKY sports following his twitter comments about the sexual abuse of children in academy football:

(I don't tweet so bear with me)

"Might be a looney but if some football coach was touching me when i was a kid as i got older i would have went back and sorted that poof out"

followed by

"i meant paedo's not poofs"

If you want to get to the heart of the matter, you really need to know what an aging ex-darts player has to say about it. Idiot.

[joey_big_nose]

Its a sound argument in principle but like a lot of these types of arguments, I don't see how it can be applied with any success in the real world.

If the reaction to every Islamic terrorist attack is "well you get them in every religion" then basically nothing is done to affect the trend. Tens of thousands of people are killed in the name of Islam every year, tens of thousands more will be killed every year into the near future. What's the answer for the families of all those victims, apart from don't be Islamophobic?

If the police carried out one stop and search a year in say Tower Hamlets and someone you knew was stabbed, would it sit well with you if the police response was "well violent crime can happen anywhere and we only do one a year in random village in Buckinghamshire so we're not going to discriminate by doing more than one a year here".

Seems to me that if you want to deny a problem has any fundamental causes or pattern, you've zero chance of preventing it from happening again.

You use the principals of liberty and justice which are to apprehend and try people as individuals rather than apprehend and try faiths.

It's a basic fundamentals point adhered to in any modern state. You cannot be guilty of a crime simply for believing in something.

You use an example regarding Muslims and violent crime. I don't think there is any shred of evidence that in the UK Muslims are more likely to commit violent crime than other groups? If so can I see it?

If you are referring to ISIS etc in the middle East the greatest spates of killing of all time have been committed by largely white nominally Christian men - the first world war, the second world war. What conclusions do you draw from that? What sense is there in using the example of a war torn collapsing country or time as an example of the inherent violence of a faith? If that logic is admissible it is very easy to condemn all religions and groups.

What conclusions would you draw from the Serbian purges of Chechens during the Balkan wars when evaluating orthodox Christians? Or the mass murder of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) during the partition of India?

I just don't think it is sensible to be honest, and merely a vehicle to impose prejudice. Ultimately the whole notion of criminal justice and individual rights has evolved to manage the sort of group accusation you propose.

Incidentally once you are allowed to explicit pre-judicially manage people simply for being Muslim what would you propose to be the next step? Mandatory re-education? Social exclusion? It is not a path with many laudable examples in history.

[Al]

Sorry but I don't think you can compare what happens in wars to terrorist killings in countries where there is no war.

[Steve Moss]

Ah, the "cake and eat it" option. The Brexiteers want that too - in the real world it won't work.

Of course it will work. Just do it and stop listening to all the naysayers and moaners.

[Amo]

The whole targeting of Islam as "fundamentally evil" by sections of the press and public is just as stupid as the 19th century targeting of Catholics, or the 1950s targeting of socialists in the US.

Islam is "fundamentally evil". Have you never read the Quran?

So is the Torah, for that matter, but its adherents are far more insidious in nature.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

You use the principals of liberty and justice which are to apprehend and try people as individuals rather than apprehend and try faiths.

It's a basic fundamentals point adhered to in any modern state. You cannot be guilty of a crime simply for believing in something.

You use an example regarding Muslims and violent crime. I don't think there is any shred of evidence that in the UK Muslims are more likely to commit violent crime than other groups? If so can I see it?

If you are referring to ISIS etc in the middle East the greatest spates of killing of all time have been committed by largely white nominally Christian men - the first world war, the second world war. What conclusions do you draw from that? What sense is there in using the example of a war torn collapsing country or time as an example of the inherent violence of a faith? If that logic is admissible it is very easy to condemn all religions and groups.

What conclusions would you draw from the Serbian purges of Chechens during the Balkan wars when evaluating orthodox Christians? Or the mass murder of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) during the partition of India?

I just don't think it is sensible to be honest, and merely a vehicle to impose prejudice. Ultimately the whole notion of criminal justice and individual rights has evolved to manage the sort of group accusation you propose.

Incidentally once you are allowed to explicit pre-judicially manage people simply for being Muslim what would you propose to be the next step? Mandatory re-education? Social exclusion? It is not a path with many laudable examples in history.

I'm not saying being Muslim is a crime, I'm talking about the concept of tackling widespread problems by identifying their patterns.

My example had nothing to do with Muslims, it's simply an example of that concept. Police use violent crime statistics of areas around the country to direct where their resources should be employed in carrying out stop and searches. That's one example of tackling a widespread problem by identifying a pattern within it. Such an approach always involves stereotyping, in that case the stereotype is if you live in Tower Hamlets or Lambeth or Moss Side etc you're more likely to carry a weapon. The same stereotyping is applied to schools put into special measures, not every pupil or teacher in that school warrants such intervention. Not everyone above a certain age needs a free bus pass, not every footballer needs an abuse helpline, not every American gun owner will ever accidentally shoot a family member.

My point is people generalise all the time, governments generalise all the time. You can't treat tens of millions of people on a comprehensive and total individual basis, it's logistically impossible. So trends are identified, generalisations are made, and policy ideas formed. In a positive sense as much (well, probably more) as in a negative sense.

As I said, how many posters in the USA guns thread on here quoted stats about accidental family shootings as a reason to take all guns away? Using a generalisation, backed by evidence, to direct a policy. And yet it's racist to quote stats about the religion of terrorists to formulate policies towards dealing with radical Islam?

[BiggusLaddus]

The Mail supported Mosley and the black shirts in the 1930s. It's a nasty, right wing rag. Its treatment of the Jo Cox story is only to be expected.

So did the Mirror

[jim mk2]

So did the Mirror

The Mirror then (unbelievably) was a sister paper of the Daily Mail and the author of that fascist support was none other than Harold Harmsworth, the first Lord Rothermere, great grandfather of the current tax-dodging billionaire Daily Mail proprietor. Rothermere's appalling right wing stance badly hit the paper's sales.