Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Nonsense. He was born and raised in London, so I very much doubt he sees himself as a Pakistani.

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Khan is British. You can find him also in an average pub for a joke and a pint...

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Nonsense. He was born and raised in London, so I very much doubt he sees himself as a Pakistani.

You have obviously never lived among these people

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Nonsense. He was born and raised in London, so I very much doubt he sees himself as a Pakistani.

You have obviously never lived among these people

I have - I lived in his constituency for years.

Doesn't sound like you have, though.

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Khan is British. You can find him also in an average pub for a joke and a pint...

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1462719239.557534.jpg

I know that pub, too.

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

A lot of crab here. One of the best mayors of Rotterdam in the history of Rotterdam is the current mayor, "Ahmed Aboutaleb".

Lets hope that the new mayor of London will follow his footsteps.

did your Ahmed go on about Uncle Toms?

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

no. The relevance is that the 10% number is offered to show muslims are a tiny minority compared to the other 90%. But this is horse pucky. The next biggest block, practicing Christians number about 2% so really these 10% that want sharia and all the trappings of islam will get what they (think they) want. There is no 90% block opposing sharia is my point. This has been a clever trick by the left, but there are no flies on me.

There are more practicing muslims in europe than practicing christians.

Edited May 8, 201610 yr by jaidam

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Khan is British. You can find him also in an average pub for a joke and a pint...

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1462719239.557534.jpg

Khan, in line with his muslim faith, is teetotal. I doubt that was alcohol or he makes a habit of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241649/Labour-s-Mayor-savages-Corbyn-Party-star-Khan-damns-leader-anti-Semitism.html

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

no. The relevance is that the 10% number is offered to show muslims are a tiny minority compared to the other 90%. But this is horse pucky. The next biggest block, practicing Christians number about 2% so really these 10% that want sharia and all the trappings of islam will get what they (think they) want. There is no 90% block opposing sharia is my point. This has been a clever trick by the left, but there are no flies on me.

There are more practicing muslims in europe than practicing christians.

What trick? Why would the left want sharia law anyway?

You seem a little confused.

To use the term and then assume it certainly shows the kind of dexterity only few save politicians are capable of. The quote was made to Iranian TV at a time Khan probably never envisaged having to disavow it. Perhaps there is hope though as he is distancing himself from known radicals, such as Corbyn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3578903/Pariah-Khan-gives-toxic-leader-slip-moderate-plotters-gunpowder-dry-Corbyn-kill.html

It certainly appears that Khan has terror connections. Can't spin it any other way, boys

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/04/sadiq-khan-slammed-for-calling-moderate-muslim-groups-uncle-toms-5857705/

To use the term and then assume it certainly shows the kind of dexterity only few save politicians are capable of. The quote was made to Iranian TV at a time Khan probably never envisaged having to disavow it. Perhaps there is hope though as he is distancing himself from known radicals, such as Corbyn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3578903/Pariah-Khan-gives-toxic-leader-slip-moderate-plotters-gunpowder-dry-Corbyn-kill.html

It certainly appears that Khan has terror connections. Can't spin it any other way, boys

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/04/sadiq-khan-slammed-for-calling-moderate-muslim-groups-uncle-toms-5857705/

That link doesn't suggest so. Did you post the wrong one?

The attitude of most Muslims is embarassing

But on the other hand...the attitude of a lot of TV members is more embarrassing.

To use the term and then assume it certainly shows the kind of dexterity only few save politicians are capable of. The quote was made to Iranian TV at a time Khan probably never envisaged having to disavow it. Perhaps there is hope though as he is distancing himself from known radicals, such as Corbyn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3578903/Pariah-Khan-gives-toxic-leader-slip-moderate-plotters-gunpowder-dry-Corbyn-kill.html

It certainly appears that Khan has terror connections. Can't spin it any other way, boys

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/04/sadiq-khan-slammed-for-calling-moderate-muslim-groups-uncle-toms-5857705/

True...the only way you çan spin it....of course if you DON'T spin it, it appears he doesn't have "terror" connections

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

Except Sadiq's victory was a landslide.over 13% in front this article sums it up.........

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sadiq-khans-victory-a-triumph-for-a-tolerant-open-and-diverse-world-city-a7018381.html

Edited May 8, 201610 yr by cumgranosalum

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Khan is British. You can find him also in an average pub for a joke and a pint...

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1462719239.557534.jpg

Khan, in line with his muslim faith, is teetotal. I doubt that was alcohol or he makes a habit of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241649/Labour-s-Mayor-savages-Corbyn-Party-star-Khan-damns-leader-anti-Semitism.html

I don't know much about Khan, however I think he'll make a better leader of the Labour Party than Corbyn. Let's just hope he compares favorable with the Muslim mayor of Rorterdam.

To use the term and then assume it certainly shows the kind of dexterity only few save politicians are capable of. The quote was made to Iranian TV at a time Khan probably never envisaged having to disavow it. Perhaps there is hope though as he is distancing himself from known radicals, such as Corbyn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3578903/Pariah-Khan-gives-toxic-leader-slip-moderate-plotters-gunpowder-dry-Corbyn-kill.html

It certainly appears that Khan has terror connections. Can't spin it any other way, boys

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/04/sadiq-khan-slammed-for-calling-moderate-muslim-groups-uncle-toms-5857705/

That link doesn't suggest so. Did you post the wrong one?

It did, and to be fair to Khan he has now apologised saying that it was the completely wrong word to use.

What has this got to do with Thailand ?????

London as I say before has long been distanced from the rest of the UK.

It's spot the Brit there and has been for a long time.

won't make a jot of diffrence if Darth Vader was mayor there

Winston Churchill & Baroness Lady Thatcher are rolling over in their graves.

Winston Churchill & Baroness Lady Thatcher are rolling over in their graves.

let's hope the witch is burning in hers

This is the beginning of the end,,,first they move into the country,,,then in time they Will take over a Shire,,, then they will go for the Whole Country,,,,Trump is Right Stop them before it's to late,,Now it's To Late ,,,London is going down the Shitter,,,Soon the rest of the UK will Follow.

Your prejudicial comments sound the same as many TV posters write about Thailand. So you cannot blame Thai people if they regard so called ExPats in the same manner. Is there any country that you believe has a future or are all going down the pan.

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

Except Sadiq's victory was a landslide.over 13% in front this article sums it up.........

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sadiq-khans-victory-a-triumph-for-a-tolerant-open-and-diverse-world-city-a7018381.html

Yes, but that takes away from the narrative that is an islamic takeover.

Always find it strange that the keyboard warriors are also the most hysterical of ninnies.

What has this got to do with Thailand ?????

London as I say before has long been distanced from the rest of the UK.

It's spot the Brit there and has been for a long time.

won't make a jot of diffrence if Darth Vader was mayor there

Not much. That's why it's in the world news forum I guess.

Plenty of Brits in London. Were you only counting the white ones?

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

Except Sadiq's victory was a landslide.over 13% in front this article sums it up.........

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sadiq-khans-victory-a-triumph-for-a-tolerant-open-and-diverse-world-city-a7018381.html

Yes, but that takes away from the narrative that is an islamic takeover.

Always find it strange that the keyboard warriors are also the most hysterical of ninnies.

Always find it hysterical that when the left fail to put forward a valid point,they resort to name calling.

Cameron is correct when he says this Muslim Mayor gives oxygen to extremists.

Bad move, London voters...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/britains-ruling-party-defends-linking-muslim-london-mayor-130212187.html

In the U.K. there are two types of Pakistanis.....

those that have money, which most Brits approve of.....

and those that don't which are called Pakis and disliked.

This is especially true of the Tory party.

Khan is a Muslim, then a Pakistani and lastly British, that's the way he and many others see themselves, unfortunately.

Khan is British. You can find him also in an average pub for a joke and a pint...

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1462719239.557534.jpg

Khan, in line with his muslim faith, is teetotal. I doubt that was alcohol or he makes a habit of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241649/Labour-s-Mayor-savages-Corbyn-Party-star-Khan-damns-leader-anti-Semitism.html

I don't know much about Khan, however I think he'll make a better leader of the Labour Party than Corbyn. Let's just hope he compares favorable with the Muslim mayor of Rorterdam.

He's doesn't have to compare to any Muslims....he's elected as mayor...he will be compared to other Mayors.

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

Except Sadiq's victory was a landslide.over 13% in front this article sums it up.........

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sadiq-khans-victory-a-triumph-for-a-tolerant-open-and-diverse-world-city-a7018381.html

Yes, but that takes away from the narrative that is an islamic takeover.

Always find it strange that the keyboard warriors are also the most hysterical of ninnies.

Always find it hysterical that when the left fail to put forward a valid point,they resort to name calling.

the narrative is that he is a labour mayor - the hysterics are from those who seem obsessed with his religion...the narrative is the Londoners (even many Tories) don't give a flying about his religion or ethnic background, they just want a decent mayor.

Edited May 9, 201610 yr by cumgranosalum

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

no. The relevance is that the 10% number is offered to show muslims are a tiny minority compared to the other 90%. But this is horse pucky. The next biggest block, practicing Christians number about 2% so really these 10% that want sharia and all the trappings of islam will get what they (think they) want. There is no 90% block opposing sharia is my point. This has been a clever trick by the left, but there are no flies on me.

There are more practicing muslims in europe than practicing christians.

Your figures seem a bit off if referencing London;

"According to the 2011 Census, the largest religious groupings are Christians (48.4 per cent), followed by those of no religion(20.7 per cent), no response (8.5 per cent), Muslims (12.4 per cent), Hindus (5.0 per cent),Jews (1.8 per cent), Sikhs (1.5 per cent), Buddhists (1.0 per cent) and other (0.6 per cent)."

but there seems little denying there has been a strong shift, even before taking into account the huge influx of refugees from Muslim countries in the last year or two;

"In 2001, the numbers were respectively Christians (58.2 per cent), followed by those of no religion (15.8 per cent), no response (8.7 per cent), Muslims (8.5 per cent), Hindus (4.1 per cent), Jews (2.1 per cent), Sikhs (1.5 per cent), Buddhists (0.8 per cent) and other (0.5 per cent)."

Better keep an eye on those sneaky atheists too mind you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_London

That's true. 10 to 15 percent is significant. For example, that's about the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. and their votes are quite influential. In this election, they probably made the difference in the democratic party picking Clinton over Sanders.

And the relevance of this fasinating statistic to the elections of Londons mayor given the black americans referred to are not British citzens or one presumes residents of London which is in England ?

The relevance is that 10% can swing most elections, which are won or lost by less than 10%.

no. The relevance is that the 10% number is offered to show muslims are a tiny minority compared to the other 90%. But this is horse pucky. The next biggest block, practicing Christians number about 2% so really these 10% that want sharia and all the trappings of islam will get what they (think they) want. There is no 90% block opposing sharia is my point. This has been a clever trick by the left, but there are no flies on me.

There are more practicing muslims in europe than practicing christians.

Your figures seem a bit off if referencing London;

"According to the 2011 Census, the largest religious groupings are Christians (48.4 per cent), followed by those of no religion(20.7 per cent), no response (8.5 per cent), Muslims (12.4 per cent), Hindus (5.0 per cent),Jews (1.8 per cent), Sikhs (1.5 per cent), Buddhists (1.0 per cent) and other (0.6 per cent)."

but there seems little denying there has been a strong shift, even before taking into account the huge influx of refugees from Muslim countries in the last year or two;

"In 2001, the numbers were respectively Christians (58.2 per cent), followed by those of no religion (15.8 per cent), no response (8.7 per cent), Muslims (8.5 per cent), Hindus (4.1 per cent), Jews (2.1 per cent), Sikhs (1.5 per cent), Buddhists (0.8 per cent) and other (0.5 per cent)."

Better keep an eye on those sneaky atheists too mind you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_London

50% of Londoners Christians,does that refer to those Christened,or to those who attend church or those who do not attend church while trying to practise Christianity as they understand it. Compare then with the numbers of Muslims who believe in and adhere to the Muslim religion.