Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[transam]

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

For that argument to be valid one would have to show that all non-integrated cultures are prone to terrorism, but they aren't are they? Just this one. Not only that but Islamist Terrorism is not just a feature of non-integration in the UK but is an international phenomenon so we can throw the cod sociology right back in the bin.

Reminds me of this lot and what they fight for.....Interesting read..

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13809501

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

You know exactly what I mean. Don't be obtuse.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-40062428

Here are some more of "these people" for reference.

 

No, I don't no exactly what you mean. What you posted was "These people will find out that it is a major mistake to underestimate the British. I suspect many hard lessons will be handed out." . Seems many of them were born in-country, or been around for long enough. Hence, they are not unfamiliar with the "British". They do what they do regardless.

[rogeroc]

4 hours ago, stander said:

The British needs to ditch their tradition of having unarmed police. It doesn't serve their citizens well in terms of providing maximum security. 

Not only does it not serve their citizens well, it puts the unarmed officers (who will often feel duty obliged to respond, possibly despite orders to the contrary) at massive risk. This was demonstrated on Saturday night.

 

But add to this that where this event took place is a major transport hub in a City on the highest terror alert it makes even less sense.

 

I simply fail to understand the instant praise for the Police (not as individuals but as a body) in this case. Although London is a big city the most vulnerable central area is very confined and i would have thought should be realatively easy and cost effective to Police effectively with armed officers. 

[transam]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

No, I don't no exactly what you mean. What you posted was "These people will find out that it is a major mistake to underestimate the British. I suspect many hard lessons will be handed out." . Seems many of them were born in-country, or been around for long enough. Hence, they are not unfamiliar with the "British". They do what they do regardless.

Yes, these scrotes know how easy it is to do what they want with no or little consequences....

 

Now for your laugh of the day...Think I was 14, UK, got caught riding a motor scooter under age after l crashed it............Put in front of a judge. Mum was fined and I had to attend a detention centre every other Saturday for 3 months. There, an army Sargent drilled us in a gym, after that had to sit and weave baskets..................Yep, for riding under age....

How stuff has changed.....Now a children's bouncy castle provider at parties for children can canvas for ISIS and make a Channel 4 program to tell UK folk what he is doing in the UK in his private life...

Don't tell 7x7......He will want my bad boy stuff links....

 

 

[rogeroc]

6 hours ago, cmsally said:

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

Would be interesting to hear some of our American friends views on what British culture is. Not something to necessarily shout from the rooftops about.

 

Like SheungWan i think your argument is invalid, in many areas multiculturism works well in the UK.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

When I am responding to a post which contains multiple points, as do yours, I find it easier to follow and reply if I break the quotes into the parts I am responding to. Sorry that you consider this to be mutilation! So i wont do so this time.

 

You seem to be saying that both the propaganda of ISIS and the condemnation of ISIS are bogus. Is that right?

 

I'm sorry that I mixed by self references up; but my point remains; I said the worldwide condemnation of ISIS by Muslim leaders, political and religious, could  have an enormous effect; not that it definitely would. I hope that it does, but, if memory serves, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, I also said that it is difficult if not impossible to quantify. Proving that a person committed a terrorist act has been influenced by ISIS is easy, proving that someone going about their normal, peaceful life having rejected ISIS is virtually impossible.

 

Yes, Muslims worldwide have expressed their outrage at perceived affronts to their religion; and at times that outrage has turned to violence by extremists; Charlie Hebdo for example.

 

But when it has, that violence has been condemned:  Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack.

 

But Muslims have also taken to the streets to condemn ISIS, many times in many countries. Such demonstrations are easy to find for those who care to look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Separating bits of posts and answering them separately are definitely easier for you, but unfortunately it makes the quoting of your replies messy.

 

You seem to be saying that both the propaganda of ISIS and the condemnation of ISIS are bogus. Is that right?

 

No. That's your spin. Either that or you managed to get "lost" again.  " To begin with, your wording is loaded ("propaganda" vs. "condemnation"). Then, it is also twisting the premise - what I was referring to as bogus was a whole lot of statements (many echoed in this topic) labeling, stereotyping and making all sort of general observations, without much merit. So whether such statements are made against Muslims or otherwise, bears little on their validity (or in other words, either can be bogus). It's rather Introduction to Logic 101 stuff. To put it in context - tarring all Muslims is obviously bogus. But so are assertions about terrorists being "unIslamic" or "not representative" - both carry very little concrete meaning.

 

 

With regard to condemnation of such attacks - you can say what you will, still won't make it any more to the point. Let's try again:

Supposedly, these condemnation are widespread, aired by key figures and this been going on for quite a while. Fair enough. What I objected to are assertions regarding the efficacy of such condemnations. If it is accepted that quantifying their effect is problematic then harping on these condemnations, by themselves, it more of a talking point. I think that, especially in the West, the public pays less attention to such statements and condemnations, due to familiarity with how politicians and leaders operate.

 

And, of course, you may whitewash the responses to perceived religious affronts, and you may highlight condemnations after the Charlie Hebdo attack. That's all very fine. Of course, there would have been no need for such condemnation, if such perceived slights could be addressed in a civilized manner.

 

No need to spam pics. I think most posters can recall some notable examples:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

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

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

 

So with all due respect to Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks (and to be clear - kudos to those who publicly do), the intensity of response to slights which are not violent in nature, are of a greater magnitude.

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Separating bits of posts and answering them separately are definitely easier for you, but unfortunately it makes the quoting of your replies messy.

 

You seem to be saying that both the propaganda of ISIS and the condemnation of ISIS are bogus. Is that right?

 

No. That's your spin. Either that or you managed to get "lost" again.  " To begin with, your wording is loaded ("propaganda" vs. "condemnation"). Then, it is also twisting the premise - what I was referring to as bogus was a whole lot of statements (many echoed in this topic) labeling, stereotyping and making all sort of general observations, without much merit. So whether such statements are made against Muslims or otherwise, bears little on their validity (or in other words, either can be bogus). It's rather Introduction to Logic 101 stuff. To put it in context - tarring all Muslims is obviously bogus. But so are assertions about terrorists being "unIslamic" or "not representative" - both carry very little concrete meaning.

 

 

With regard to condemnation of such attacks - you can say what you will, still won't make it any more to the point. Let's try again:

Supposedly, these condemnation are widespread, aired by key figures and this been going on for quite a while. Fair enough. What I objected to are assertions regarding the efficacy of such condemnations. If it is accepted that quantifying their effect is problematic then harping on these condemnations, by themselves, it more of a talking point. I think that, especially in the West, the public pays less attention to such statements and condemnations, due to familiarity with how politicians and leaders operate.

 

And, of course, you may whitewash the responses to perceived religious affronts, and you may highlight condemnations after the Charlie Hebdo attack. That's all very fine. Of course, there would have been no need for such condemnation, if such perceived slights could be addressed in a civilized manner.

 

No need to spam pics. I think most posters can recall some notable examples:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

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

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

 

So with all due respect to Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks (and to be clear - kudos to those who publicly do), the intensity of response to slights which are not violent in nature, are of a greater magnitude.

 

Not really, as nested quotes do not appear in quotes; as can be seen above.

 

I am surprised that you cannot tell the difference between propaganda and condemnation. You seem to be saying that the massive worldwide condemnation of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists is propaganda, bogus and worthless!

 

It is true that many people in the West, and many ex pats in Thailand, do consider this condemnation to be worthless; if they consider it at all. To take it seriously would damage their oft repeated opinion that ISIS and their ilk are following the instructions of the Koran and that all other Muslims secretly support them!

 

Islamic leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, are themselves condemned by some for not condemning Islamic terrorism. When it is shown that they do, and have been so doing for decades, they are told their condemnation is worthless! Damned if they do and damned if they don't in your eyes, it seems.

 

The same with protests by ordinary Muslim members of the public. Accused by some of supporting terrorism because they don't demonstrate, only to have their demonstrations dismissed as worthless when shown that they do, often and in large numbers!

 

I made no attempt to whitewash anything. Shame on you for attempting to say that I did. I expect such tactics from certain posters, but really thought you were better than that.

 

Yes, most posters can recall your examples; but choose to ignore examples of Muslims protesting their condemnation of the terrorists claiming to represent their religion. Hence the need for pictures.

 

You, Morch, are an intelligent person very capable of clicking on a link and reading what it says. Others participating in this thread have previously shown that they lack the ability to do even that simple task!

[transam]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not really, as nested quotes do not appear in quotes; as can be seen above.

 

I am surprised that you cannot tell the difference between propaganda and condemnation. You seem to be saying that the massive worldwide condemnation of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists is propaganda, bogus and worthless!

 

It is true that many people in the West, and many ex pats in Thailand, do consider this condemnation to be worthless; if they consider it at all. To take it seriously would damage their oft repeated opinion that ISIS and their ilk are following the instructions of the Koran and that all other Muslims secretly support them!

 

Islamic leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, are themselves condemned by some for not condemning Islamic terrorism. When it is shown that they do, and have been so doing for decades, they are told their condemnation is worthless! Damned if they do and damned if they don't in your eyes, it seems.

 

The same with protests by ordinary Muslim members of the public. Accused by some of supporting terrorism because they don't demonstrate, only to have their demonstrations dismissed as worthless when shown that they do, often and in large numbers!

 

I made no attempt to whitewash anything. Shame on you for attempting to say that I did. I expect such tactics from certain posters, but really thought you were better than that.

 

Yes, most posters can recall your examples; but choose to ignore examples of Muslims protesting their condemnation of the terrorists claiming to represent their religion. Hence the need for pictures.

 

You, Morch, are an intelligent person very capable of clicking on a link and reading what it says. Others participating in this thread have previously shown that they lack the ability to do even that simple task!

So why in the UK don't good guy Muslims confront the bad guy Muslims waving ISIS flags on UK streets......?...YOU keep telling folk here the good guys out-way the bad guys a zillion to one, so why isn't it happening in your opinion on the streets...

I don't want to hear from you about good guy talk, l want to hear about no street action.....?

[vogie]

33 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not really, as nested quotes do not appear in quotes; as can be seen above.

 

I am surprised that you cannot tell the difference between propaganda and condemnation. You seem to be saying that the massive worldwide condemnation of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists is propaganda, bogus and worthless!

 

It is true that many people in the West, and many ex pats in Thailand, do consider this condemnation to be worthless; if they consider it at all. To take it seriously would damage their oft repeated opinion that ISIS and their ilk are following the instructions of the Koran and that all other Muslims secretly support them!

 

Islamic leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, are themselves condemned by some for not condemning Islamic terrorism. When it is shown that they do, and have been so doing for decades, they are told their condemnation is worthless! Damned if they do and damned if they don't in your eyes, it seems.

 

The same with protests by ordinary Muslim members of the public. Accused by some of supporting terrorism because they don't demonstrate, only to have their demonstrations dismissed as worthless when shown that they do, often and in large numbers!

 

I made no attempt to whitewash anything. Shame on you for attempting to say that I did. I expect such tactics from certain posters, but really thought you were better than that.

 

Yes, most posters can recall your examples; but choose to ignore examples of Muslims protesting their condemnation of the terrorists claiming to represent their religion. Hence the need for pictures.

 

You, Morch, are an intelligent person very capable of clicking on a link and reading what it says. Others participating in this thread have previously shown that they lack the ability to do even that simple task!

Does anyone else think that is a load of waffle?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Does anyone else think that is a load of waffle?

another profound analysis.

[vogie]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

another profound analysis.

Are you speaking for yourself now, or your mentor?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, vogie said:

Are you speaking for yourself now, or your mentor?

Is this another case of me being accused of working for Vladimir Putin?

[7by7]

7 hours ago, transam said:

Your tiny fraction of 1.8 billion adds up to thousands, that's why many countries from the west and even Russia are trying to eliminate them wherever they stand with a gun in their hand. These killers are ALL Muslims and following the writings in the Qoran as THEY see it..

 

I have never said they represent the vast majority of Muslims, don't twist stuff, that is something you are good at..

 

Next question...

 

So are you now withdrawing remarks such as the following?

On ‎05‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, transam said:

But nobody knows what that 1.6 billion actual private thoughts are...

 

Do you now accept that the Islamic terrorists, and those who support them, do not represent the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world?

 

Do you now accept the countless condemnations of the terrorists as unIslamic made over the years by Muslim leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, as well as that by ordinary Muslims online and on the streets?

 

 

[7by7]

Quote

 

34 minutes ago, transam said:

So why in the UK don't good guy Muslims confront the bad guy Muslims waving ISIS flags on UK streets......?...YOU keep telling folk here the good guys out-way the bad guys a zillion to one, so why isn't it happening in your opinion on the streets...

I don't want to hear from you about good guy talk, l want to hear about no street action.....?

 

Action like this, you mean?

Muslim doctor and sister help convict Isil supporters after confronting them

 

Watch the moment ordinary Muslims shut down ‘jihadis’ trying to spread radical message outside mosques

 

Edit:

The video in that last one is from the Channel 4 documentary The Jihadis Next Door.

 

Earlier in this thread you lambasted me for not watching it; seems you haven't watched it either!

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, cmsally said:

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

I think that argument was lost years ago.

Every year I was in London I went down to the Thames to see the big parade, I think in November. To see the parade, there was no "British" culture, only the culture of the Carribean, and Africa. One year they even had Brazilians.

Of course that was when Ken was the mayor and I think he did not like British culture.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, rogeroc said:

Would be interesting to hear some of our American friends views on what British culture is. Not something to necessarily shout from the rooftops about.

 

Like SheungWan i think your argument is invalid, in many areas multiculturism works well in the UK.

Not according to Cameron

In February 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will no longer be state policy

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

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

No, I don't no exactly what you mean. What you posted was "These people will find out that it is a major mistake to underestimate the British. I suspect many hard lessons will be handed out." . Seems many of them were born in-country, or been around for long enough. Hence, they are not unfamiliar with the "British". They do what they do regardless.

Obtuse and pedantic. You fully understand that I am talking about Muslims in the UK. They are NOT integrated and are not "British". They may have a British passport like my Thai daughter but that does not make her "British". So just stop it. You are arguing for arguments sake. 

[transam]

46 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

So are you now withdrawing remarks such as the following?

 

Do you now accept that the Islamic terrorists, and those who support them, do not represent the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world?

 

Do you now accept the countless condemnations of the terrorists as unIslamic made over the years by Muslim leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, as well as that by ordinary Muslims online and on the streets?

 

 

555555, so 7x7 knows what individuals are thinking.........55555....Gawd....

 

You are twisting stuff AGAIN.....I have NEVER said all Muslims are supporters of terrorists, YOU keep telling me l do...........I think you have lost the plot keeping on making your own assumptions about folk......Me being a racist for one (and others)...

 

So why ain't your ordinary Muslim folk on the streets confronting these Jihads...Not interested in the odd one or two, on mass.....Why, you seem to know all about their stuff, why....?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Not really, as nested quotes do not appear in quotes; as can be seen above.

 

I am surprised that you cannot tell the difference between propaganda and condemnation. You seem to be saying that the massive worldwide condemnation of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists is propaganda, bogus and worthless!

 

It is true that many people in the West, and many ex pats in Thailand, do consider this condemnation to be worthless; if they consider it at all. To take it seriously would damage their oft repeated opinion that ISIS and their ilk are following the instructions of the Koran and that all other Muslims secretly support them!

 

Islamic leaders and spokespeople, religious and political, are themselves condemned by some for not condemning Islamic terrorism. When it is shown that they do, and have been so doing for decades, they are told their condemnation is worthless! Damned if they do and damned if they don't in your eyes, it seems.

 

The same with protests by ordinary Muslim members of the public. Accused by some of supporting terrorism because they don't demonstrate, only to have their demonstrations dismissed as worthless when shown that they do, often and in large numbers!

 

I made no attempt to whitewash anything. Shame on you for attempting to say that I did. I expect such tactics from certain posters, but really thought you were better than that.

 

Yes, most posters can recall your examples; but choose to ignore examples of Muslims protesting their condemnation of the terrorists claiming to represent their religion. Hence the need for pictures.

 

You, Morch, are an intelligent person very capable of clicking on a link and reading what it says. Others participating in this thread have previously shown that they lack the ability to do even that simple task!

 

The nested bits do not appear, only your response, hence out of context. All good if one wishes to muddy the water,  of course.

 

And I'm not really surprised that you'll try to twist my words once more, that's how you roll. I'd advice you you to read my posts again, instead of trying to infuse something into them which isn't there - but that would be an exercise in futility. Having moved the goal posts to "propaganda vs. condemnation", you expect me to address your faux argument as it it was something I subscribed to? Go  fish. An even toss of a three-sided coin whether you really don't get it, being intentionally obtuse or just trolling.

 

Saying that there are bogus statements from various parties is something most people could easily grasp. When people say all Muslims are whatever, that's bogus. When ISIS says they are the true voice of Islam, bogus as  well. And when you and others say they are "unIslamic" or "do not represent", that's bogus too. Denying any or all of these statements does not automatically endorse the others. 

 

As for "worthless", doubt I use this term. More like you are trying to paint my positions as absolute or extreme, whereas they are rarely so. My view concerning condemnation was that while it should not be skipped over, it is hardly the main dish. Condemnations would not solve anything on their own, and in fact, they do not. Add to this, the issues of quantification and you've got yourself a one stop talking point. And lest we forget, condemnations come after attacks, after atrocities - until the next time.

 

Condemnation is a required component. It makes a public statement about one's supposed position. But unless clearly shown otherwise, that's about as far as it goes. Leaders, or speakers who are able to motivate, change hearts and minds by their words are a rarity. Most of those making statements are run of the mill politicians. Even if they are religious personas. Choosing to believe that they command the masses is, as they say in these parts, up to you.

 

I said "whitewash" and that's exactly what I meant. Still at it. Unable to address that when protests are against anything but Islamic (sorry, Islamist, whatever) terrorism - someone's bound to get hurt. Sure, they'd be condemnation of violence afterwards. Somehow doesn't make me feel all that warm and fuzzy. Guess it works for you.

 

Most of your worn out tirade is irrelevant to my posts. I do not deny Muslim leaders condemn acts of terrorism. I do not hold the view that all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism. I rarely get into the inane "theological" debate son this forum. Most of all I'm not "other posters" and bear no responsibility to what they post. So instead of going on tirades over an dreamed up version of an arguments I did not make, how's about actually addressing points raised, rather than giving the whole litany on each and every post?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

another profound analysis.

 

A "profound" analysis for a "profound" post.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Obtuse and pedantic. You fully understand that I am talking about Muslims in the UK. They are NOT integrated and are not "British". They may have a British passport like my Thai daughter but that does not make her "British". So just stop it. You are arguing for arguments sake. 

 

You still don't get it.

They do not have to be integrated in order to be familiar with the culture around them or the people. There wasn't any claim that they are "British" in the way you seem to term it. The point was merely, that they actually know what they are up against. Doesn't seem like it makes an impression.

[Grouse]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You still don't get it.

They do not have to be integrated in order to be familiar with the culture around them or the people. There wasn't any claim that they are "British" in the way you seem to term it. The point was merely, that they actually know what they are up against. Doesn't seem like it makes an impression.

If you want to live in our country you need to respect our customs and social mores. Do what you want in your own bedroom; I don't want to know. But, when I walk down the street, I want to be in Great Britain, warts and all. So just fit in before there is tsunami size backlash.

 

As for "up against" Muslims are up against an open door. Free air ticket out.

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Grouse said:

If you want to live in our country you need to respect our customs and social mores. Do what you want in your own bedroom; I don't want to know. But, when I walk down the street, I want to be in Great Britain, warts and all. So just fit in before there is tsunami size backlash.

 

As for "up against" Muslims are up against an open door. Free air ticket out.

Well, contrary to the "ought", the reality is that some of them do not comply with your (and many others) wishes. Another reality is that there in no "tsunami size backlash", and I somehow doubt it would materialize in the way some posters imagine.

 

And no, an angry poster declaring changes in immigration and citizenship policies does not make much of an impression. Certainly not on the likes of such terrorists.

 

Chest-thumping aside - there is a certain limit to what can be done, and a more likely lower limit of what actually will be done. So mass deportations of Muslims from the UK, pogroms, or severe curbing of civil rights based on ethnicity/religion - all these will probably stay in the confines of forum rants. Things that can be put in place are stricter immigration procedures, enhanced law enforcement and security measures. These might impinge on civil rights (even when it comes to the "British"), but up to a point. In effect, UK being a Western democracy, there will be many obstacles to implementing such policies.

 

I think it will end up with some nominal budgets increased, some easing of legalities/procedures as far as police and security forces go. On the immigration front, even a policy will be made, it would be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare to put in place. So probably the most salient features will remain speeches and enhanced police presence on the streets.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

Well, contrary to the "ought", the reality is that some of them do not comply with your (and many others) wishes. Another reality is that there in no "tsunami size backlash", and I somehow doubt it would materialize in the way some posters imagine.

 

And no, an angry poster declaring changes in immigration and citizenship policies does not make much of an impression. Certainly not on the likes of such terrorists.

 

Chest-thumping aside - there is a certain limit to what can be done, and a more likely lower limit of what actually will be done. So mass deportations of Muslims from the UK, pogroms, or severe curbing of civil rights based on ethnicity/religion - all these will probably stay in the confines of forum rants. Things that can be put in place are stricter immigration procedures, enhanced law enforcement and security measures. These might impinge on civil rights (even when it comes to the "British"), but up to a point. In effect, UK being a Western democracy, there will be many obstacles to implementing such policies.

 

I think it will end up with some nominal budgets increased, some easing of legalities/procedures as far as police and security forces go. On the immigration front, even a policy will be made, it would be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare to put in place. So probably the most salient features will remain speeches and enhanced police presence on the streets.

I doubt you are British

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I doubt you are British

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

Well, contrary to the "ought", the reality is that some of them do not comply with your (and many others) wishes. Another reality is that there in no "tsunami size backlash", and I somehow doubt it would materialize in the way some posters imagine.

 

And no, an angry poster declaring changes in immigration and citizenship policies does not make much of an impression. Certainly not on the likes of such terrorists.

 

Chest-thumping aside - there is a certain limit to what can be done, and a more likely lower limit of what actually will be done. So mass deportations of Muslims from the UK, pogroms, or severe curbing of civil rights based on ethnicity/religion - all these will probably stay in the confines of forum rants. Things that can be put in place are stricter immigration procedures, enhanced law enforcement and security measures. These might impinge on civil rights (even when it comes to the "British"), but up to a point. In effect, UK being a Western democracy, there will be many obstacles to implementing such policies.

 

I think it will end up with some nominal budgets increased, some easing of legalities/procedures as far as police and security forces go. On the immigration front, even a policy will be made, it would be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare to put in place. So probably the most salient features will remain speeches and enhanced police presence on the streets.

enhanced police presence on the streets.

 

Pity May got rid of all those cops then! Perhaps they are all just sitting around waiting for the call, but I doubt it.

Also a pity the cops stopped walking the beat too. They knew what was going on in their "manor".

Perhaps we are all deserving of what happened because we let it happen by not holding the politicians to account.

[Grouse]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

Laugh if you like

 

But we British have had ENOUGH.

 

There will be a backlash and it will not be pleasant.

 

We extended friendship and it has been spat on by Muslims.

 

Watch what happens....

[brewsterbudgen]

Obtuse and pedantic. You fully understand that I am talking about Muslims in the UK. They are NOT integrated and are not "British". They may have a British passport like my Thai daughter but that does not make her "British". So just stop it. You are arguing for arguments sake. 

If your daughter has a British passport, she's British. All cultures evolve. Multi-culturalism is as British as our old Empire was.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Laugh if you like

 

But we British have had ENOUGH.

 

There will be a backlash and it will not be pleasant.

 

We extended friendship and it has been spat on by Muslims.

 

Watch what happens....

You mean like all the heroic Britons in that pub who bravely fled and left that lone Millwall fan to do battle?

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

enhanced police presence on the streets.

 

Pity May got rid of all those cops then! Perhaps they are all just sitting around waiting for the call, but I doubt it.

Also a pity the cops stopped walking the beat too. They knew what was going on in their "manor".

Perhaps we are all deserving of what happened because we let it happen by not holding the politicians to account.

Yes clearly policing has been undermined by May

 

BUT I believe citizens will need to take more of the burden. Remember neighbourhood watch? We need more of that with a Muslim curfew. Between sundown and sun up, we don't want these people on the street.

 

Back to the London butchers ( so much for Halal slaughter BTW) the video shows we should demolish their gym. I would also demolish their "mosque".