Only in our country...

[bigstu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

..could we let these moron protesters abuse our soldiers who have just returned from putting their lives on the line for our country :grr: The two that got arrested were people trying to tell the protesters to 'shut up' as they shouted 'British soldiers die'. There is a time and a place for a protest and spoiling a home coming parade is not the way of doing it :grr: The parade was not for political reasons!

[hibee_boy]

Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays.

Sad state of affairs.

[Sir David Gray]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

..could we let these moron protesters abuse our soldiers who have just returned from putting their lives on the line for our country :grr: The two that got arrested were people trying to tell the protesters to 'shut up' as they shouted 'British soldiers die'. There is a time and a place for a protest and spoiling a home coming parade is not the way of doing it :grr: The parade was not for political reasons!

:agree: Whilst I strongly believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech, there is something not right about this issue.

I think it's wholly inappropriate to make this kind of protest at a welcome home parade. There have been many other opportunities, over the past few years, for people to make their opposition to British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan known.

These people are just lucky they weren't in America, as a protest of that nature against US soldiers, would have seen them lynched.

It's the politicians that they should be aiming their anger at, not the soldiers.

[Pretty Boy]

Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays.

Sad state of affairs.

Can you explain the term true British person?

The protests were shocking, theres a times and place for everything and a way to condcut yourself and this wasn't it.

Good to see a fair few Muslims condemning the protesters on the news.

[hibsdaft]

the Westboro Baptist church (fundamentalist Christians) have been doing this for years in the US - even protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers i think.

Louis Theroux did a documentary on them - nutters.

[Onceinawhile]

the Westboro Baptist church (fundamentalist Christians) have been doing this for years in the US - even protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers i think.

Louis Theroux did a documentary on them - nutters.

Picketed dead soldier's funerals because them dieing proved god hated gays :agree: Couldn't make that stuff up.

As for this situation: it is a tough one. If we are meant to be a country that allows freedom of speech then I don't really see the problem, or do we only allow freedom of speech when it suits our own agenda?

Sure the protesters could have picked a less emotional time but then their point wouldn't have got as much press coverage for their issue.

At the end of the day if I lived in a country that had attacked my homeland and killed thousands of people (quite possibly including family members or friends) for no just cause; I'd probably be slightly annoyed about it as well.

Agree with Falkirk's last point, the politicians are to blame not the soldiers:agree:

[Sir David Gray]

the Westboro Baptist church (fundamentalist Christians) have been doing this for years in the US - even protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers i think.

Louis Theroux did a documentary on them - nutters.

:agree: They are sick.


Picketed dead soldier's funerals because them dieing proved god hated gays :agree: Couldn't make that stuff up.

As for this situation: it is a tough one. If we are meant to be a country that allows freedom of speech then I don't really see the problem, or do we only allow freedom of speech when it suits our own agenda?

Sure the protesters could have picked a less emotional time but then their point wouldn't have got as much press coverage for their issue.

At the end of the day if I lived in a country that had attacked my homeland and killed thousands of people (quite possibly including family members or friends) for no just cause; I'd probably be slightly annoyed about it as well.

Agree with Falkirk's last point, the politicians are to blame not the soldiers:agree:

Has there been any mention on the protesters being Afghan or Iraqi?

There is a mindset amongst many Muslims that ties them to their Muslim 'brothers and sisters' across the whole world, regardless of nationality. They see any attack on a Muslim country as an attack on Islam and an attack on them.

I may be wrong as I don't know the nationality of these people (they may well be Iraqi or Afghan) but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they're not from either of those countries.

If Iraq invaded Argentina, it would be a bit like a Christian in Iraq, who has British ancestry, protesting at the armed forces of Iraq invading Argentina, for no other reason than because Argentina is a predominantly Christian country.

I would be very surprised if that (or something similar) ever happened.

If the protestors were from Iraq or Afghanistan then your point is completely valid as I can understand why they might be angry at their homeland being invaded.

[scott7_0(Prague)]

Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays.

Sad state of affairs.


One of the reasons I would not consider coming back to live in the UK!

[Betty Boop]

Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays. Sad state of affairs.
What is your definition of a true British man/woman? :confused:

[degenerated]

What is your definition of a true British man/woman? :confused:

tall, blond and blue eyed............oh wait a minute that was someone elses definition of a true citizen of their country. :stirrer:

[Betty Boop]

tall, blond and blue eyed............oh wait a minute that was someone elses definition of a true citizen of their country. :stirrer:
:agree:

[BravestHibs]

[quote=hibee_boy;1971216]Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays.

That's what the BNP say. I think that if you asked immigrants or even second, third and fourth generation immigrants they would probably disagree with you before pointing you towards a plethora of stats that would highlight the fact that they have to suffer higher infant mortality, lower wages and lower life expectancy than "the true British man/woman".

Obtuse to say the least.

[Danny_Hibee]

What is your definition of a true British man/woman? :confused:


Can you explain the term true British person?



A person who is Scottish, English or Welsh, no? :confused:

[Tomsk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

..could we let these moron protesters abuse our soldiers who have just returned from putting their lives on the line for our country :grr: The two that got arrested were people trying to tell the protesters to 'shut up' as they shouted 'British soldiers die'. There is a time and a place for a protest and spoiling a home coming parade is not the way of doing it :grr: The parade was not for political reasons!

Your use of the term 'only in our country' caught my eye. I am not sure what you meant. Would you rather live in a country where people can't protest openly?

Much as I found those protests abhorent, misguided and inappropriate I still can't help thinking that I would rather live in a state where such things can happen without the protesters being arrested, imprisoned, beaten or 'lynched' or whatever. Is that not at least partly what our services were fighting for?

Open protest by minority groups is a sign of a mature democracy.

[degenerated]

A person who is Scottish, English or Welsh, no? :confused:

does that only include christians though as the nature of this thread is about muslims (most of whom probably fall into your britishness criteria) excercising their right to free speech, whether or not you agree with what they were saying is a different matter.

britain is a mish mash of cultures* and heritage so to use a jingoistic phrase like "true british" implies something that is more in the realms of a BNP manifesto.

* admittedly english culture only extends as far as morris dancing and bullseye :devil: :stirrer:

[stu in nottingham]

Your use of the term 'only in our country' caught my eye. I am not sure what you meant. Would you rather live in a country where people can't protest openly?

Much as I found those protests abhorent, misguided and inappropriate I still can't help thinking that I would rather live in a state where such things can happen without the protesters being arrested, imprisoned, beaten or 'lynched' or whatever. Is that not at least partly what our services were fighting for?

Open protest by minority groups is a sign of a mature democracy.

Pretty much my own thoughts on the matter. I think it speaks of the tolerance we still have in our society. I do think this was not the appropriate occasion for a protest though.

[IWasThere2016]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

..could we let these moron protesters abuse our soldiers who have just returned from putting their lives on the line for our country :grr: The two that got arrested were people trying to tell the protesters to 'shut up' as they shouted 'British soldiers die'. There is a time and a place for a protest and spoiling a home coming parade is not the way of doing it :grr: The parade was not for political reasons!

The actions of those protersting are indefensible IMHO. However, we live in a democracy and they have rights. Also, I was surprised that not one reporter seemed to speak to the men to ask what they thought of the Taleban/Al-Q etc .. Would've added nicely to the headlines for some of the press.

[alex plode]

Absolutely shocking...the way these protesters were set upon by some neds and an old bloke in a trilby.
What happened to the right to peaceful protest in this country ?

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=alex plode;1971793]Absolutely shocking...the way these protesters were set upon by some neds and an old bloke in a trilby.
What happened to the right to peaceful protest in this country ?
Disappearing along with many of our liberties and freedom, as a result of the "War of Terror". :rolleyes:

[alex plode]

[quote=alex plode;1971793].
What happened to the right to peaceful protest in this country ?
Disappearing along with many of our liberties and freedom, as a result of the "War of Terror". :rolleyes:

I think you're on to something :wink:

[ancient hibee]

Of course everyone should be allowed to protest in this country(except if the subjects of the protest are-Muslim,Black,Gay,Transgender,Catholics,Protestants ,and anyone else who are so designated as being beyond protest).Oh and anyone who protests about the protestors-they get a trip to the nick.Good job the placard stating"to hell with the Anglians"didn't say "to hell with gay anglians".

[Tomsk]

Of course everyone should be allowed to protest in this country(except if the subjects of the protest are-Muslim,Black,Gay,Transgender,Catholics,Protestants ,and anyone else who are so designated as being beyond protest).Oh and anyone who protests about the protestors-they get a trip to the nick.Good job the placard stating"to hell with the Anglians"didn't say "to hell with gay anglians".

But there are people who protest openly against these 'subjects'. The BNP. The Orange Order. The James Connolly Society. Just for starters.

Why, there are even organised groups who protest against the freedoms of expression we all enjoy -- some of the extreme Muslim groups for instance.

They are all bams. But they won't go away so long as someone somewhere takes offence, rightly as in yesterday's incident or otherwise. Thatcher used to talk about the oxygen of publicity. These bams live of the oxygen of attention.

[Danny_Hibee]

What happened to the right to peaceful protest in this country ?

Fair enough, they weren't there to cause trouble or hurt anyone but how "peaceful" is any protest where you shout abuse at people, calling them "terrorists" and saying that you hope they die.

Clearly we still have the right to protest as (according to the article) the 2 people who were arrested weren't actually protesters.


does that only include christians though as the nature of this thread ais about muslims (most of whom probably fall into your britishness criteria) excercising their right to free speech, whether or not you agree with what they were saying is different matter.

britain is a mish mash of cultures* and heritage so to use a jingoistic phrase like "true british" implies something that is more in the realms of a BNP manifesto.

* admittedly english culture only extends as far as morris dancing and bullseye :devil: :stirrer:

It wasn't actually me who used the term in the first place and its not something I would probably have said but I was just pointing out that the term of "true british" people was rather self explanitory. Obviously it covers people of all religions (or no religion).

If referring to a person as truely british automatically makes someone assume that the person shares views on a par with BNP rather than just referring to somebody's nationality then it possibly says more about the person making the assumptions.

FWIW I totally disagree with these people's protests. The soldiers they abused have chosen to defend our country (possibly the country of the protesters but, at the very least, the country they have chosen to live in) and have no say in the war. The people they should be protesting against are those who have made the decision to go to war in the first place. In saying that they have the right to protest wherever they like and against whoever they like.

[hibiedude]

Our country is a joke. The true British man/woman is second class citizen nowdays.

Sad state of affairs.

Couldn't agree more

[hibsbollah]

US veterans coming back from Vietnam were abused by anti-war protestors in exactly the same way. I dont see the difference and dont understand the outrage in todays press:confused: (unless all this outrage is because the protestors in this case are Asian, and therefore deemed not really British). Thinking about it, I cant see the same outrage happening if the demonstrators were a load of white middle class students.

[Golden Bear]

The placards these so called "protestors" were carrying were inflammatory and enought to incite a riot.

However I've no doubt if the police had acted in the way they should have, then the frigging civil liberties/human rights brigade would have been expressing "outrage" that the poor wee innocent sowels were not allowed to stage a peaceful protest.

It's pathetic that we've even got to listen to these vermin.

[steakbake]

The placards these so called "protestors" were carrying were inflammatory and enought to incite a riot.

However I've no doubt if the police had acted in the way they should have, then the frigging civil liberties/human rights brigade would have been expressing "outrage" that the poor wee innocent sowels were not allowed to stage a peaceful protest.

It's pathetic that we've even got to listen to these vermin.

There's about 12 of them. There are more police there than protesters.

The UK was involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq. We're starting to hear confirmation of allegations that the UK government was complicit in the torture and extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects. I can see why people are angry, but that anger shouldn't be directed at the soldiers who were sent there on a lie.

If denying peoples' (albeit misguided) right to protest, while moaning about how "ordinary" (read, anglo-saxon/white) British people are so hard done by and turning a blind eye to our own government's involvements in one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in modern times is being true British, I'm glad I count myself out.

[majorhibs]

Fair enough, they weren't there to cause trouble or hurt anyone but how "peaceful" is any protest where you shout abuse at people, calling them "terrorists" and saying that you hope they die.

Clearly we still have the right to protest as (according to the article) the 2 people who were arrested weren't actually protesters.



It wasn't actually me who used the term in the first place and its not something I would probably have said but I was just pointing out that the term of "true british" people was rather self explanitory. Obviously it covers people of all religions (or no religion).

If referring to a person as truely british automatically makes someone assume that the person shares views on a par with BNP rather than just referring to somebody's nationality then it possibly says more about the person making the assumptions.

FWIW I totally disagree with these people's protests. The soldiers they abused have chosen to defend our country (possibly the country of the protesters but, at the very least, the country they have chosen to live in) and have no say in the war. The people they should be protesting against are those who have made the decision to go to war in the first place. In saying that they have the right to protest wherever they like and against whoever they like.

I dont imagine you'll get too much response from all the professional offendees around here with that response, too much sense so they'll lose interest, theres a big squad around here who love to try to prove how clever they are and pat each others back by scrutinising every reply and jumping on any kind of ambiguity to allow them to find what they like to think is some sort of anti everybody racist nationalist "britishness" where nothing of the sort exists.
To turn it around and say it says more about them and their views is probably too close to the mark for them, they like to find faults in others and are not that interested in the possibility that there is people with the opposite view to their line who are not harbouring deep dark evil intentions towards others, even if its mostly in their own minds, imo

[Dashing Bob S]

There's about 12 of them. There are more police there than protesters.

The UK was involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq. We're starting to hear confirmation of allegations that the UK government was complicit in the torture and extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects. I can see why people are angry, but that anger shouldn't be directed at the soldiers who were sent there on a lie.

If denying peoples' (albeit misguided) right to protest, while moaning about how "ordinary" (read, anglo-saxon/white) British people are so hard done by and turning a blind eye to our own government's involvements in one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in modern times is being true British, I'm glad I count myself out.

Brilliant post, BS.

[Brando7]

Lots to say on this matter but wont cause i'll end up getting banned

All i'm saying is it was out of order

[Danny_Hibee]

US veterans coming back from Vietnam were abused by anti-war protestors in exactly the same way. I dont see the difference and dont understand the outrage in todays press:confused: (unless all this outrage is because the protestors in this case are Asian, and therefore deemed not really British). Thinking about it, I cant see the same outrage happening if the demonstrators were a load of white middle class students.

If they are asian then its not that they're deemed to not be really british its that they're not british...they're asian. Altho that should have absolutely no effect on peoples opinion of the situation anyway and makes them no more wrong or right in their protest.

I think the outrage is because the people who received the brunt of the abuse are men/women who choose to protect us and defend our country and are not the ones to blame for the war. It also doesn't help that the british press (in equal measure) loves to have their heroes and their villains rather than reporting on the plain facts. This presents them with the perfect opportunity to defend our heroes and to vilify those who disagree (whether they're asians or middle class students doesn't come into it - for the majority of the media in the country anyway)

[Pretty Boy]

A person who is Scottish, English or Welsh, no? :confused:

I'm sure many of said protesters fall into those categories and the poster who used the term average British person doesn't appear to include them as 'average British'.

Wonder why that is?

[alex plode]

The placards these so called "protestors" were carrying were inflammatory and enought to incite a riot.


No they weren't - if that were true the protesters would have been arrested.
Depending on your viewpoint the placards could have been seen as disrespectful; certainly no more disrespectful than some chants heard at football matches.
Statements like "Illegal War in Iraq" - "Crusade against Islam"; "Innocent Muslims held Captive" and "British Government ;Terrorrist Government" are views held by many muslims and non-muslims alike, and whether you agree with them or not, shouldn't start a riot.

[hibsbollah]

If they are asian then its not that they're deemed to not be really british its that they're not british...they're asian. Altho that should have absolutely no effect on peoples opinion of the situation anyway and makes them no more wrong or right in their protest.


But it is possible to be British and Asian, dont you agree?

[/quote](whether they're asians or middle class students doesn't come into it - for the majority of the media in the country anyway) [/quote]

I couldnt disagree more. For the majority of the media the identity of the 'villains' isnt just part of the story, it is the story.

[Danny_Hibee]

I'm sure many of said protesters fall into those categories and the poster who used the term average British person doesn't appear to include them as 'average British'.

Wonder why that is?

They possibly do fall into that category and obviously I can't really comment on what was meant by the poster who used the term originally but I just wanted to clear up the issue for the people who didn't understand the term. :thumbsup:


No they weren't - if that were true the protesters would have been arrested.
Depending on your viewpoint the placards could have been seen as disrespectful; certainly no more disrespectful than some chants heard at football matches.
Statements like "Illegal War in Iraq" - "Crusade against Islam"; "Innocent Muslims held Captive" and "British Government ;Terrorrist Government" are views held by many muslims and non-muslims alike, and whether you agree with them or not, shouldn't start a riot.

And what about "Anglian Soldiers Go To Hell"? Wishing death to anyone is unnacceptable and considering that there may have been family members or friends of the soldiers there and obviously soldiers themselves...you can surely see how placards wishing for them to die could quite easily start a riot.


But it is possible to be British and Asian, dont you agree?


(whether they're asians or middle class students doesn't come into it - for the majority of the media in the country anyway)

I couldnt disagree more. For the majority of the media the identity of the 'villains' isnt just part of the story, it is the story.

Yes, I do agree I suppose so you can basically scrap my last point :greengrin

As for the second part, maybe I'm being too nice to the media but I would like to think that the majority of our country's press isn't racist (altho of course there are certain exceptions)

[Pretty Boy]

But there are people who protest openly against these 'subjects'. The BNP. The Orange Order. The James Connolly Society. Just for starters.

Why, there are even organised groups who protest against the freedoms of expression we all enjoy -- some of the extreme Muslim groups for instance.

They are all bams. But they won't go away so long as someone somewhere takes offence, rightly as in yesterday's incident or otherwise. Thatcher used to talk about the oxygen of publicity. These bams live of the oxygen of attention.


Not having a go at all here mate but can you explain what groups you believe the James Connolly society to protest against? Having been involved with the society for a while it would be interesting to hear what outsiders, as it were, think of us.

For the record and not meaning to hijack the thread the society is an affiliate of Cairde Na hEireann and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, sexuality and religion(Protestantism included). The basic aims are a free United Ireland(through peaceful means), an Ireland based on peace and Equality and an end to sectarianism and racism within society. It also provides charitable support to many groups affected by social injustice in Scotland, mainly from the Irish community but other groups outwith also.

Don't be fooled by the idiots who tag along behind marches in Celtic tops, James Connolly was a a socialist first and foremost and certainly neither a bigot nor sectarian. These idiots are in no way welcome on the marches but unfortunately they can't be stopped.

James Connolly was also a good Hibs supporter.

[Ed De Gramo]

Protesters GTF :agree:

Luton were welcoming home their heroes and a bunch of eejits spoiled what was a good day for the city :agree:

If it had been the other way round, the police would have lifted the protesters :agree:

Britain is so ****** with our failure to act policy :agree:

[Pretty Boy]

They possibly do fall into that category and obviously I can't really comment on what was meant by the poster who used the term originally but I just wanted to clear up the issue for the people who didn't understand the term. :thumbsup:


And what about "Anglian Soldiers Go To Hell"? Wishing death to anyone is unnacceptable and considering that there may have been family members or friends of the soldiers there and obviously soldiers themselves...you can surely see how placards wishing for them to die could quite easily start a riot.



Yes, I do agree I suppose so you can basically scrap my last point :greengrin

As for the second part, maybe I'm being too nice to the media but I would like to think that the majority of our country's press isn't racist (altho of course there are certain exceptions)


Fair enough, wasn't having a dig at you personally but unfortunately there is still a culture at many levels in this country where a 'brown' person could never be considered 'truly British'. And i acknowledge that this may be in part due to the different cultural groups themselves.

[Big Ed]

If people have issues with the protesters, then I would like to hear the issues articulated so that I can have an objective reason to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with people being angry enough to protest whilst British soldiers are marching down the street.
They put their lives on the line to defend our country. No they don't. Only the first part is right.
Ordinary civillians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. That should make people angry.
Even if something deep down inside you offends you about what happened yesterday, you should look deep inside and try your very best to think why that is.
I remember listening to a BNP councillor make a point about how British people in Dagenham could not get a council house because they were being given to Eastern European immigrants. A Labour party guy piped up saying something like "not being interested in the views of racists", but if you were the person unable to get a house, then you would be more inclined to listen to someone who made a lucid point, rather than someone who simply reacted by calling the other guy a name.
Suggesting that a dozen Muslims should not be allowed to criticise a Regiment of the British Army by way of angry protest is nothing short of prejudice.

[Gatecrasher]

i think one of the dead soldiers mother had it spot on when she said protest if you want but protest to the right people.

a soldiers parade for their return home IMO is not the place to protest agasinst a war and im all for freedom of speech, i just feel it was the wrong place at the wrong time and the protesters havent done their protest any good because people are talking about them more than the cause the were protesting.

i wonder if these people would have the freedom of speech they are happy to use if it wasnt for the british army

[majorhibs]

If people have issues with the protesters, then I would like to hear the issues articulated so that I can have an objective reason to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with people being angry enough to protest whilst British soldiers are marching down the street.
They put their lives on the line to defend our country. No they don't. Only the first part is right.
Ordinary civillians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. That should make people angry.
Even if something deep down inside you offends you about what happened yesterday, you should look deep inside and try your very best to think why that is.
I remember listening to a BNP councillor make a point about how British people in Dagenham could not get a council house because they were being given to Eastern European immigrants. A Labour party guy piped up saying something like "not being interested in the views of racists", but if you were the person unable to get a house, then you would be more inclined to listen to someone who made a lucid point, rather than someone who simply reacted by calling the other guy a name.
Suggesting that a dozen Muslims should not be allowed to criticise a Regiment of the British Army by way of angry protest is nothing short of prejudice.

Are you suggesting people join the British forces so they can go to Iran or Afghanistan? Get real!

[Big Ed]

i think one of the dead soldiers mother had it spot on when she said protest if you want but protest to the right people.

a soldiers parade for their return home IMO is not the place to protest agasinst a war and im all for freedom of speech, i just feel it was the wrong place at the wrong time and the protesters havent done their protest any good because people are talking about them more than the cause the were protesting.

i wonder if these people would have the freedom of speech they are happy to use if it wasnt for the british army

It would depend on whether there were any accusations specifically against the regiment or not. FWIW I am not aware that that is the case.
I have to say that I'd be a lot happier if Tony Blair was put on trial for his role in all of this.

[Gatecrasher]

It would depend on whether there were any accusations specifically against the regiment or not. FWIW I am not aware that that is the case.
I have to say that I'd be a lot happier if Tony Blair was put on trial for his role in all of this.


im not aware of any either so in regards to the bit in bold i dont think there should have been, but if something did come to light (which i would hope not) then that would be more understandable.

[steakbake]

Not having a go at all here mate but can you explain what groups you believe the James Connolly society to protest against? Having been involved with the society for a while it would be interesting to hear what outsiders, as it were, think of us.

For the record and not meaning to hijack the thread the society is an affiliate of Cairde Na hEireann and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, sexuality and religion(Protestantism included). The basic aims are a free United Ireland(through peaceful means), an Ireland based on peace and Equality and an end to sectarianism and racism within society. It also provides charitable support to many groups affected by social injustice in Scotland, mainly from the Irish community but other groups outwith also.

Don't be fooled by the idiots who tag along behind marches in Celtic tops, James Connolly was a a socialist first and foremost and certainly neither a bigot nor sectarian. These idiots are in no way welcome on the marches but unfortunately they can't be stopped.

James Connolly was also a good Hibs supporter.

That was the hornets' nest I wanted to poke but deleted earlier on. I think you have phrased it in a far better way than I was going to.

James Connolly Society has been pretty much demonised in our local press and political culture because, I think, of our 'conditioning' (for want of a better word).

Connolly was a Scot, born in our city and a key figure in the socialist, republican and independence movement of a neighbouring country that many of us have some kind of family tie or cultural affinity with.

Had he been instrumental in the independence movement of the United States or somewhere else where the connotations aren't so politically loaded or have diminished through time and events, we'd be lauding him to the rooftops and we'd probably have a street named after him by now.

As for the James Connolly Society, when the James Connolly Trust ended the marches in Edinburgh, here was the announcement:

"Following consultation with our members and supporters the James Connolly Society, the Edinburgh cuman of Cairde na hÉireann has decided to end the James Connolly march after 20 years. We have made this decision in the context of

* The changed situation in Ireland
* Our ongoing commitment to eradicating sectarianism in Scotland
* Our willingness to encourage the process of moving away from conflict and towards reconciliation"

Everyone is entitled to their view, but personally, I think the James Connolly Society is widely misunderstood.

[Danny_Hibee]

If people have issues with the protesters, then I would like to hear the issues articulated so that I can have an objective reason to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with people being angry enough to protest whilst British soldiers are marching down the street.
They put their lives on the line to defend our country. No they don't. Only the first part is right.
Ordinary civillians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. That should make people angry.
Even if something deep down inside you offends you about what happened yesterday, you should look deep inside and try your very best to think why that is.
I remember listening to a BNP councillor make a point about how British people in Dagenham could not get a council house because they were being given to Eastern European immigrants. A Labour party guy piped up saying something like "not being interested in the views of racists", but if you were the person unable to get a house, then you would be more inclined to listen to someone who made a lucid point, rather than someone who simply reacted by calling the other guy a name.
Suggesting that a dozen Muslims should not be allowed to criticise a Regiment of the British Army by way of angry protest is nothing short of prejudice.

They are willing to risk their lives to defend our country and, like the rest of us, they were lead to believe that this war was necessary and was the right thing to do and I'm sure they genuinely believed they were helping to defend their country by going to war. Its not them who should be targetted by the protestors.

As far as I can see, the majority of the people on this thread who are against this protest have not mentioned the protestors race, religion etc. and if they have they have not implied that it has any bearing on their opinion (It only seems like the people who are offended by the anti-protestors who keep mentioning it). Most people are angry that the wrong people have been targetted by this protest. Can't see how it is prejudice at all, most peoples opinions are being based on all the facts that we have available and are not based on anything other than that (race and religion doesnt appear to be being considered by people).

[Big Ed]

Are you suggesting people join the British forces so they can go to Iran or Afghanistan? Get real!

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I dont imagine you'll get too much response from all the professional offendees around here with that response, too much sense so they'll lose interest, theres a big squad around here who love to try to prove how clever they are and pat each others back by scrutinising every reply and jumping on any kind of ambiguity to allow them to find what they like to think is some sort of anti everybody racist nationalist "britishness" where nothing of the sort exists.
To turn it around and say it says more about them and their views is probably too close to the mark for them, they like to find faults in others and are not that interested in the possibility that there is people with the opposite view to their line who are not harbouring deep dark evil intentions towards others, even if its mostly in their own minds, imo

:tee hee:

Who could you be referring to!


There's about 12 of them. There are more police there than protesters.

The UK was involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq. We're starting to hear confirmation of allegations that the UK government was complicit in the torture and extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects. I can see why people are angry, but that anger shouldn't be directed at the soldiers who were sent there on a lie.

If denying peoples' (albeit misguided) right to protest, while moaning about how "ordinary" (read, anglo-saxon/white) British people are so hard done by and turning a blind eye to our own government's involvements in one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in modern times is being true British, I'm glad I count myself out.

:agree:

I'd add that if you're more concerned and het-up at this than c. 1 million dead Iraqis (since the start of the war) then your priorities are more than a little skewed.

[Big Ed]

They are willing to risk their lives to defend our country and, like the rest of us, they were lead to believe that this war was necessary and was the right thing to do and I'm sure they genuinely believed they were helping to defend their country by going to war. Its not them who should be targetted by the protestors.

As far as I can see, the majority of the people on this thread who are against this protest have not mentioned the protestors race, religion etc. and if they have they have not implied that it has any bearing on their opinion (It only seems like the people who are offended by the anti-protestors who keep mentioning it). Most people are angry that the wrong people have been targetted by this protest. Can't see how it is prejudice at all, most peoples opinions are being based on all the facts that we have available and are not based on anything other than that (race and religion doesnt appear to be being considered by people).

The war in Iraq was never necessary. When Blair tried to rally support for the US led invasion, not one other country sent any more than a handful of troops. This after the UN weapons inspectors has found nothing.
Afghanistan is another country that our forces should never have set foot in. Simply sending soldiers to back the mad man Bush's revenge mission was something that (almost) every other country in the world did not feel the urge to do.
That should tell you something.
I checked the beginning of the thread again and I still think that there is a theme of "why are British soldiers getting abuse from foreigners".

[bigstu]

If people have issues with the protesters, then I would like to hear the issues articulated so that I can have an objective reason to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with people being angry enough to protest whilst British soldiers are marching down the street.
They put their lives on the line to defend our country. No they don't. Only the first part is right.
Ordinary civillians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. That should make people angry.
Even if something deep down inside you offends you about what happened yesterday, you should look deep inside and try your very best to think why that is.
I remember listening to a BNP councillor make a point about how British people in Dagenham could not get a council house because they were being given to Eastern European immigrants. A Labour party guy piped up saying something like "not being interested in the views of racists", but if you were the person unable to get a house, then you would be more inclined to listen to someone who made a lucid point, rather than someone who simply reacted by calling the other guy a name.
Suggesting that a dozen Muslims should not be allowed to criticise a Regiment of the British Army by way of angry protest is nothing short of prejudice.

Absolute rubbish! Yes you should be allowed to protest but there is a time and place for it!
Let me give you a different scenario, imagine you were getting married and you happened to work for the police and some people who disagreed about the police arresting people for taking cannabis turned up at your wedding and chanted 'die Ed die' and generally made the atmosphere unpleasant, would you find that appropriate? And would you say 'it's nothing short of prejudice to tell those people to go away'??



I checked the beginning of the thread again and I still think that there is a theme of "why are British soldiers getting abuse from foreigners".

It's nothing to do with the people being "foreigners", you may find a lot of them were actually english.

[_hucks_]

Not having a go at all here mate but can you explain what groups you believe the James Connolly society to protest against? Having been involved with the society for a while it would be interesting to hear what outsiders, as it were, think of us.

For the record and not meaning to hijack the thread the society is an affiliate of Cairde Na hEireann and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, sexuality and religion(Protestantism included). The basic aims are a free United Ireland(through peaceful means), an Ireland based on peace and Equality and an end to sectarianism and racism within society. It also provides charitable support to many groups affected by social injustice in Scotland, mainly from the Irish community but other groups outwith also.

Don't be fooled by the idiots who tag along behind marches in Celtic tops, James Connolly was a a socialist first and foremost and certainly neither a bigot nor sectarian. These idiots are in no way welcome on the marches but unfortunately they can't be stopped.

James Connolly was also a good Hibs supporter.

Was actually wanting to make a similar point, and I'm glad someone has already got in there. James Connolly was far more than an Irish Republican - he in fact recognised that a united Ireland could only come about through a working class basis, and rejected all idea's of individual terrorism. He'd shudder to look at the state of the republican movement today.

[Big Ed]

Absolute rubbish! Yes you should be allowed to protest but there is a time and place for it!
Let me give you a different scenario, imagine you were getting married and you happened to work for the police and some people who disagreed about the police arresting people for taking cannabis turned up at your wedding and chanted 'die Ed die' and generally made the atmosphere unpleasant, would you find that appropriate? And would you say 'it's nothing short of prejudice to tell those people to go away'??



It's nothing to do with the people being "foreigners", you may find a lot of them were actually english.

Your analogy bears no relevence. The protesters are angry because the soldiers are retruning from a place where people are dying. Part of the reason that they are dying is that the British army are in these countries.

[hibiedude]

Easy answer to this problem is Kick out the illegal emigrants who have over stayed there welcome,and the ones who are British stop there benefits so they can't travel anywhere to demonstrate. If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.

And GMTV should stop giving them telly time to spout there p*sh

[LiverpoolHibs]

Easy answer to this problem is Kick out the illegal emigrants who have over stayed there welcome,and the ones who are British stop there benefits so they can't travel anywhere to demonstrate. If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.

And GMTV should stop giving them telly time to spout there p*sh

Surely we should be loking to bring 'illegal emigrants' back? :wink::greengrin

How do you know they're unemployed and/or on benefits?

[hibiedude]

Surely we should be loking to bring 'illegal emigrants' back? :wink::greengrin

How do you know they're unemployed and/or on benefits?

Because the ****s have big cars :greengrin and spend all day demonstrating and complaining that Britain is a sh*tehole, well it wasn't before they arrived :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Because the ****s have big cars :greengrin and spend all day demonstrating and complaining that Britain is a sh*tehole, well it wasn't before they arrived :greengrin

Oh dear...

[Darth Hibbie]

Your analogy bears no relevence. The protesters are angry because the soldiers are retruning from a place where people are dying. Part of the reason that they are dying is that the British army are in these countries.

Was that not happening before the British army went? Sorry I forgot Sadam was such a kind and loving person :bitchy: Treated the people of iraq well so he did.

Yes we went to Iraq for the wrong reasons but what did that have to do with the soldiers on the ground? I have no doubt that they done the best they could and did not deserve to come back to protests.

People do have the right to peaceful protest but to me telling people to go to hell is not peaceful.

[degenerated]

Easy answer to this problem is Kick out the illegal emigrants who have over stayed there welcome,and the ones who are British stop there benefits so they can't travel anywhere to demonstrate. If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.

And GMTV should stop giving them telly time to spout there p*sh

come on own up has Nick Griffin hacked into your hibs.net account.

that is up there as one of the most ignorant and stupid things i have ever read on here.

edit: then i read this :bitchy:



Because the ****s have big cars :greengrin and spend all day demonstrating and complaining that Britain is a sh*tehole, well it wasn't before they arrived :greengrin

[hibiedude]

come on own up has Nick Griffin hacked into your hibs.net account.

that is up there as one of the most ignorant and stupid things i have ever read on here.

edit: then i read this :bitchy:

It was actually a joke response nothing else so before the mob start that part that wasn't a joke was' Easy answer to this problem is Kick out the illegal emigrants who have over stayed there welcome,and the ones who are British stop there benefits so they can't travel anywhere to demonstrate. If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.

I wouldn't use the words ignorant or stupid to descried my reply but more judge response should have been given and the Nick Griffin quote was funny.

[Sergio sledge]

People do have the right to peaceful protest but to me telling people to go to hell is not peaceful.

Sums it up for me. :agree:

If they had turned up with placards protesting the war against Iraq and that was all, then that would have been fine, but turning up with placards saying "Anglian soldiers go to hell" is asking for trouble, and not the correct way to protest. The police should have asked them to get rid of that particular placard IMHO.

[Sergio sledge]

If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.

Where has it been confirmed that these people were unemployed and on benefits? :confused:

It is pretty easy to take a day off work (holiday) to go and protest, in fact I have done it before.....

Some worrying opinions being displayed in this thread, from both sides of the coin IMHO.

[Woody1985]

The war in Iraq was never necessary. When Blair tried to rally support for the US led invasion, not one other country sent any more than a handful of troops. This after the UN weapons inspectors has found nothing.
Afghanistan is another country that our forces should never have set foot in. Simply sending soldiers to back the mad man Bush's revenge mission was something that (almost) every other country in the world did not feel the urge to do.
That should tell you something.
I checked the beginning of the thread again and I still think that there is a theme of "why are British soldiers getting abuse from foreigners".

For completely separate reason to the war / terrorism etc. If we stop any more of the smack that is destroying communities in Scotland getting here, I for one, am delighted.

I suppose by doing that you hamper terrorists funding.

[Darth Hibbie]

For completely separate reason to the war / terrorism etc. If we stop any more of the smack that is destroying communities in Scotland getting here, I for one, am delighted.

I suppose by doing that you hamper terrorists funding.

:agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

If people have issues with the protesters, then I would like to hear the issues articulated so that I can have an objective reason to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with people being angry enough to protest whilst British soldiers are marching down the street.
They put their lives on the line to defend our country. No they don't. Only the first part is right.
Ordinary civillians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. That should make people angry.
Even if something deep down inside you offends you about what happened yesterday, you should look deep inside and try your very best to think why that is.
I remember listening to a BNP councillor make a point about how British people in Dagenham could not get a council house because they were being given to Eastern European immigrants. A Labour party guy piped up saying something like "not being interested in the views of racists", but if you were the person unable to get a house, then you would be more inclined to listen to someone who made a lucid point, rather than someone who simply reacted by calling the other guy a name.
Suggesting that a dozen Muslims should not be allowed to criticise a Regiment of the British Army by way of angry protest is nothing short of prejudice.

Utter pish. I couldn't care less what race/religion the protesters were. It's irrelevant. The protest was totally out of order. These soldiers have risked life and limb to protect us, and the Afghan and Iraqi people. We all know that the war in Iraq was based on false pretence, but the buck for that stops with the Government. These soldiers were carrying out instructions which they were led to believe would be for the protection of our country.

Some thanks they get.

[alex plode]

.These soldiers have risked life and limb to protect us, and the Afghan and Iraqi people. .
.

Do you really believe that ?

[Darth Hibbie]

Do you really believe that ?

Yes. Do you not? Or was it not real bullets and bombs they were facing. Of course none of our soldiers have died :dunno:

[alex plode]

Yes. Do you not? Or was it not real bullets and bombs they were facing. Of course none of our soldiers have died :dunno:

You said the troops were protecting us, the Iraqis and Afghans.
When were we ever in any danger from Iraqis or Afghans ?

[LiverpoolHibs]

You said the troops were protecting us, the Iraqis and Afghans.
When were we ever in any danger from Iraqis or Afghans ?

And I'd say the death over a million of the people who you are supposedly there to protect is a tad clumsy...

[Darth Hibbie]

You said the troops were protecting us, the Iraqis and Afghans.
When were we ever in any danger from Iraqis or Afghans ?


Actually I did not. Iraqis, Afgans no. Talliban prob yes.

[Darth Hibbie]

And I'd say the death over a million of the people who you are supposedly there to protect is a tad clumsy...


Did the British Army kill them all, or were the majority killed by suicide bombers? You cant blame the army for the mistakes of our government.

[BravestHibs]

Did the British Army kill them all, or were the majority killed by suicide bombers? You cant blame the army for the mistakes of our government.

Do you seriously think that suicide bombers killed a greater proportion of civilians than the coalition forces?

[BravestHibs]

Actually I did not. Iraqis, Afgans no. Talliban prob yes.

Sorry I've just scrolled upwards on this discussion.

My question to you is twofold. How exactly are the taliban a direct danger to us over here in blighty and secondly how developed would you say your understanding of this conflict is?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Actually I did not. Iraqis, Afgans no. Talliban prob yes.

When have the Taliban ever conducted an operation outside of Afghganistan and Northern Pakistan?

[Darth Hibbie]

When have the Taliban ever conducted an operation outside of Afghganistan and Northern Pakistan?


Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films?

[steakbake]

Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films?

The IRA used to source weaponry through Libya.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films?

I don't think the Taliban and the IRA would get on particularly well.

There's some evidence of a relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda (such as it is).

[Darth Hibbie]

Do you seriously think that suicide bombers killed a greater proportion of civilians than the coalition forces?

Was only defending the troops in the British Army. Nothing more nothing less.



Sorry I've just scrolled upwards on this discussion.

My question to you is twofold. How exactly are the taliban a direct danger to us over here in blighty and secondly how developed would you say your understanding of this conflict is?

First part see above. As for the second part I would ask how developed does it need to be before I can have an opinion?

[BravestHibs]

Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films?


This is what the UK government said in order to justify the invasion. No one will ever know for sure whether they were before the invasion, but since? Probably.

Also the use of Al-Qaeda is misleading. It would signify a group that are tight knit very organised when in actual fact they are merely a very loose affiliation of people with a common goal. It would be like describing the Hibs support as a solid unit which just one look on this site is all you'll need for confirmation that it isn't the case. Al-Qaeda encompasses all jihadist groups as well as those lunatics from Glasgow who drove that car into the terminal building. Well organised they weren't. It's pretty much a name which was plucked from many potential culprits and that has stuck and is now used so that people don't get confused.

I would be interested to hear about which books you've been reading to however.

[Darth Hibbie]

The IRA used to source weaponry through Libya.


I don't think the Taliban and the IRA would get on particularly well.

There's some evidence of a relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda (such as it is).


Its a bit older and is not properly sourced

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=581.0.37.0

Did not mean to bring the discussion so off topic. I do not disagree with your general opinions however do not think the guys in the Army should be taking the blame for the wrongs of our government. Thats all.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is what the UK government said in order to justify the invasion. No one will ever know for sure whether they were before the invasion, but since? Probably.

Also the use of Al-Qaeda is misleading. It would signify a group that are tight knit very organised when in actual fact they are merely a very loose affiliation of people with a common goal. It would be like describing the Hibs support as a solid unit which just one look on this site is all you'll need for confirmation that it isn't the case. Al-Qaeda encompasses all jihadist groups as well as those lunatics from Glasgow who drove that car into the terminal building. Well organised they weren't. It's pretty much a name which was plucked from many potential culprits and that has stuck and is now used so that people don't get confused.

I would be interested to hear about which books you've been reading to however.

Absolutely. :agree:

[BravestHibs]

[quote=maiden666;1972917}

First part see above. As for the second part I would ask how developed does it need to be before I can have an opinion?[/quote]

For you, not very apparently.

[Killiehibbie]

This is what the UK government said in order to justify the invasion. No one will ever know for sure whether they were before the invasion, but since? Probably.

Also the use of Al-Qaeda is misleading. It would signify a group that are tight knit very organised when in actual fact they are merely a very loose affiliation of people with a common goal. It would be like describing the Hibs support as a solid unit which just one look on this site is all you'll need for confirmation that it isn't the case. Al-Qaeda encompasses all jihadist groups as well as those lunatics from Glasgow who drove that car into the terminal building. Well organised they weren't. It's pretty much a name which was plucked from many potential culprits and that has stuck and is now used so that people don't get confused.

I would be interested to hear about which books you've been reading to however.

So would you rather this loosely affiliated bunch of jihadists were free to train, organise and plot attacks on your doorstep?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Its a bit older and is not properly sourced

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=581.0.37.0

Did not mean to bring the discussion so off topic. I do not disagree with your general opinions however do not think the guys in the Army should be taking the blame for the wrongs of our government. Thats all.

The fact that they've referred to the IRA as embodying 'militant Catholicism' (just as al-Qaeda embody militant Islamism) in the opening sentence makes me not take that article very seriously.

[steakbake]

Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films?

Another irony is that the US used to train the Taliban and Jihadist fighters in Afghanistan.

AlQaida fighters are presumably so well trained because they had the benefit of learning from the Americans.

[BravestHibs]

So would you rather this loosely affiliated bunch of jihadists were free to train, organise and plot attacks on your doorstep?

What are you banging on about?

[LiverpoolHibs]

So would you rather this loosely affiliated bunch of jihadists were free to train, organise and plot attacks on your doorstep?

Invading Afghanistan has stopped the training of militant Islamists?

[Darth Hibbie]

For you, not very apparently.


Care to pass on your wealth of wisdom to the rest of us or are you just happy to try and slate somebody else opinion.

[Darth Hibbie]

Another irony is that the US used to train the Taliban and Jihadist fighters in Afghanistan.

AlQaida fighters are presumably so well trained because they had the benefit of learning from the Americans.

:agree:

[BravestHibs]

Care to pass on your wealth of wisdom to the rest of us or are you just happy to try and slate somebody else opinion.


Touchy.

Wouldn't you rather swallow your pride and in so doing gain a better understanding of this conflict that has dominated the news for the past however many years?

[Killiehibbie]

Invading Afghanistan has stopped the training of militant Islamists?

No but i'd rather the war was fought over there than in my street.

[Darth Hibbie]

Touchy.

Wouldn't you rather swallow your pride and in so doing gain a better understanding of this conflict that has dominated the news for the past however many years?

Touchy not at all. If you are going to tell me my opinion is S***e at least tell my it is what my correct opinion should be?

[hibsbollah]

No but i'd rather the war was fought over there than in my street.

Yeah, I heard the Taliban are planning to start covert operations in deepest Kilmarnock:faf:

[BravestHibs]

Touchy not at all. If you are going to tell me my opinion is S***e at least tell my it is what my correct opinion should be?

I don't think your opinion is sh*te I just think that you have absolutely no knowledge on which to base it.

As for who you turn to in order to form your opinions, I think you should stick to the red tops.

[Mon Dieu4]

Yeah, I heard the Taliban are planning to start covert operations in deepest Kilmarnock:faf:

Dont laugh, I hear their latest Party Conference is going to be in Whitley Bay :bitchy:

[Darth Hibbie]

I don't think your opinion is sh*te I just think that you have absolutely no knowledge on which to base it.

As for who you turn to in order to form your opinions, I think you should stick to the red tops.


Ok :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

No but i'd rather the war was fought over there than in my street.

Are they the only options?!


Yeah, I heard the Taliban are planning to start covert operations in deepest Kilmarnock:faf:

:tee hee:


Dont laugh, I hear their latest Party Conference is going to be in Whitley Bay :bitchy:

I'll need to get my Auntie on the first plane out of there.

Inter-thread referencing is so cool.

[hibsbollah]

Dont laugh, I hear their latest Party Conference is going to be in Whitley Bay :bitchy:

They'd love it here, they could have a chip n gravy stottie, a go on the waltzers and a round of crazy golf afterwards:faf:

[BravestHibs]

Are they the only options?!



:tee hee:



I'll need to get my Auntie on the first plane out of there.

Inter-thread referencing is so cool.

Hahahhaha!

(Don't believe in smileys)

[LiverpoolHibs]

They'd love it here, they could have a chip n gravy stottie, a go on the waltzers and a round of crazy golf afterwards:faf:

I've heard Mullah Omar is particularly excited about the prospect of a trip to St. Mary's Lighthouse.

[Mon Dieu4]

They'd love it here, they could have a chip n gravy stottie, a go on the waltzers and a round of crazy golf afterwards:faf:

They should do that, it would be good PR to show that they are not so bad after all :faf:

[hibsbollah]

They should do that, it would be good PR to show that they are not so bad after all :faf:

I bet sharia law would sort out the litter, binge drinking and graffiti which has so blighted our seaside communities:grr:

[Killiehibbie]

[quote=LiverpoolHibs;1972985]Are they the only options?!



/quote]
Is this the same jihadists whose sole aim is to wipe out non believers? If we are talking about the same ones I would rather the fight was in Afghanistan or more to the point in Pakistan but they wont go in there than the cosy streets of downtown Killie.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=LiverpoolHibs;1972985]Are they the only options?!



/quote]
Is this the same jihadists whose sole aim is to wipe out non believers? If we are talking about the same ones I would rather the fight was in Afghanistan or more to the point in Pakistan but they wont go in there than the cosy streets of downtown Killie.

Why do you think they're coming to Killie?

Afghanistan had no reason to target anything British before the invasion so what has actually happened is that this war has actually made it LESS safe for you and yours in Kilmarnock. Can't you see this?

[Killiehibbie]

[quote=Killiehibbie;1973012]

Why do you think they're coming to Killie?

Afghanistan had no reason to target anything British before the invasion so what has actually happened is that this war has actually made it LESS safe for you and yours in Kilmarnock. Can't you see this?

I don't think they are specifically coming to where I live but they will attack this country given the chance. How many attacks have been targeted or planned at the UK? How many tons of Opium is produced and certainly ends up on a street near you in Afghanistan with the profits funding the jihadists?

[Tomsk]

Hahahhaha!

(Don't believe in smileys)

You don't believe in smileys?

Listen mate, I've seen them. They exist. They're real alright. Little yellow faces, smiling, laughing, winking. You name it. They are all over the place ...

and they're coming to get you!

[BravestHibs]

[quote=BravestHibs;1973020]

How many tons of Opium is produced and certainly ends up on a street near you in Afghanistan with the profits funding the jihadists?

Since the war many areas of Afghanistan have been handed back from our control back to the warlords who are able to keep control of the disperate rebels that were causing much of fighting. When control was handed back the warlords set about harvesting the opium on a scale that has never been seen. The efficiency with which they harvest has been frightening.

Afghanistan has always been an opium producing country, all the way back to the middle ages and if you look at the stats you will see that production has INCREASED in the latter stages of this conflict to levels never before seen. This is because the warlords now have something to spend their ill gotten gains on. Weapons to fight us with.

Does no one on this board watch the odd Despatches/Hidden World or anything in the same veign?

[hibiedude]

Where has it been confirmed that these people were unemployed and on benefits? :confused:

It is pretty easy to take a day off work (holiday) to go and protest, in fact I have done it before.....

Some worrying opinions being displayed in this thread, from both sides of the coin IMHO.

Was watching a panorama programme about Muslims in Brittan and you would be surprised by the amount of state handouts that are given in this country all we seem to hear these days is from the minority of the trouble makers who are hell bent on turning this country into the country they have fled. Please don’t tell me that everyone who took part in the protests against our brave me got the day off work, give me some credit for god sake. :wink:

[BravestHibs]

Was watching a panorama programme about Muslims in Brittan and you would be surprised by the amount of state handouts that are given in this country all we seem to hear these days is from the minority of the trouble makers who are hell bent on turning this country into the country they have fled. Please don’t tell me that everyone who took part in the protests against our brave me got the day off work, give me some credit for god sake. :wink:

I'd be interested to see how quickly you got a job if you'd fled to Pakistan to escape political persecution over here.

My guess would be not very.

[Killiehibbie]

I'd be interested to see how quickly you got a job if you'd fled to Pakistan to escape political persecution over here.

My guess would be not very.

Would you get picked up by a Taxi at a police station and taken to a B&B all paid for by the taxpayer in Pakistan? I got such a hire a few weeks ago in Cumnock.

[The_Todd]

Easy answer to this problem is Kick out the illegal emigrants who have over stayed there welcome,and the ones who are British stop there benefits so they can't travel anywhere to demonstrate. If they can find time to demonstrate they can find time to look for work.




Can I take a wild stab in the dark and ask if you were reading the Daily Mail's "cartoon" when you wrote that?

Horrid, horrid newspaper.

[Betty Boop]

Do they not provide weapons, funding and ttraining camps to al-queda and previously to the IRA and prob other terrorist organisations or have I been reading to many (fiction) books and watching to many films? The biggest source of funding for the IRA came from the good old USA. :wink:

[degenerated]

[quote=BravestHibs;1973020]

I don't think they are specifically coming to where I live but they will attack this country given the chance. How many attacks have been targeted or planned at the UK? How many tons of Opium is produced and certainly ends up on a street near you in Afghanistan with the profits funding the jihadists?

the Taleban put a fair dent in opium production due to their opposition to it. Since the invasion the production of opium is now back at pre-Taleban levels. So i dont think you can level the blame for the heroin in kilmarnock at the feet of the Taleban.

[BravestHibs]

Would you get picked up by a Taxi at a police station and taken to a B&B all paid for by the taxpayer in Pakistan? I got such a hire a few weeks ago in Cumnock.

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question?
And by the tone it also sounds like you resented it.

Our country is one of the safest and richest in the world. This is partly to do with our colonial past whereby we didn't behave very well, this is however one of the reasons we are doing so well now. You'll have heard the saying "with great power comes great responsibility" well this our responsibility as one of the most powerful nations in the world. We have to take people in, whose lives and basic human rights are in danger. If you were used to a certain standard of living and then all of a sudden, for whatever reason the UK came into the control of someone who hated white taxi drivers and issued a decree whereby they were to be erradicated. You would leave too. And wouldn't it be just a little bit better if, when you finally arrived with all the possessions you could carry in a bag that you got a lift to your horrendous flat in Cumnock? It's hardly an outrage is it?

[Killiehibbie]

[quote=Killiehibbie;1973043]

the Taleban put a fair dent in opium production due to their opposition to it. Since the invasion the production of opium is now back at pre-Taleban levels. So i dont think you can level the blame for the heroin in kilmarnock at the feet of the Taleban.

Who was blaming the taleban? It is the loosely affiliated jihadists sometimes known as al-queda I was talking about.

[hibiedude]

Can I take a wild stab in the dark and ask if you were reading the Daily Mail's "cartoon" when you wrote that?

Horrid, horrid newspaper.

the only bit you got right is highlighted

500,000 illegal emigrants are in the UK today, please tell since you seem to have all the cleaver answers, how do we deal with the ones that are hell bent on causing death and destruction. What about the Cleric Leaders who preach hate, what’s your answer to that problem? or do you only do jokes :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

the only bit you got right is highlighted

500,000 illegal emigrants are in the UK today, please tell since you seem to have all the cleaver answers, how do we deal with the ones that are hell bent on causing death and destruction. What about the Cleric Leaders who preach hate, what’s your answer to that problem? or do you only do jokes :rolleyes:
Should that not be immigrants?

[The_Todd]

the only bit you got right is highlighted

500,000 illegal emigrants are in the UK today, please tell since you seem to have all the cleaver answers, how do we deal with the ones that are hell bent on causing death and destruction. What about the Cleric Leaders who preach hate, what’s your answer to that problem? or do you only do jokes :rolleyes:


Oh jeez-oh. On the other thread, I'm accused of being too serious and not being able to joke. On this one I'm accused of not being serious and joking all the time.

I can't win, can I?

My point is this: just because they're muslim and dark skinned does that make them "illegal immigrants"? Does it mean they're all on benefits?

Is there no chance whatsoever that they're here legally? Were born here? Have jobs?

:rolleyes:

[BravestHibs]

the only bit you got right is highlighted

500,000 illegal immigrants are in the UK today, please tell since you seem to have all the cleaver answers, how do we deal with the ones that are hell bent on causing death and destruction. What about the Cleric Leaders who preach hate? What’s your answer to that problem? Or do you only do jokes? :rolleyes:

Ship them all out. The 0.001% who are a problem as well as the 99.999% who aren't. Easy.

What do you suggest?

[hibiedude]

Should that not be immigrants?

Why not there is 500,000 of them, sorry Betty for the spelling mistake :greengrin

[hibiedude]

Ship them all out. The 0.001% who are a problem as well as the 99.999% who aren't. Easy.

What do you suggest?

And you get your figures from where? :confused:

[hibiedude]

Oh jeez-oh. On the other thread, I'm accused of being too serious and not being able to joke. On this one I'm accused of not being serious and joking all the time.

I can't win, can I?

My point is this: just because they're muslim and dark skinned does that make them "illegal immigrants"? Does it mean they're all on benefits?

Is there no chance whatsoever that they're here legally? Were born here? Have jobs?

:rolleyes:

And where Did I say they where ALL illegal, you seem to suggest that none of our dark skinned visitors, (your words not mine) are illegal I say your wrong but that's just my opinion

The problems in Northern Ireland this week were thousands of people demonstrated on the streets to show there anger and there support for the peace agreement that has been in place in Northern Ireland in recent years. Now do you think we will have thousands of Muslims on the street supporting our brave soldiers and show the rest off us that they don’t back there cleric Muslims leaders in preaching hate.

[The_Todd]

And where Did I say they where ALL illegal, you seem to suggest that none of our dark skinned visitors, (your words not mine) are illegal I say your wrong but that's just my opinion

Ok. Back to the start: this is a thread about the protestors at the return of the soldiers. Your "solution" to these protests (quite why we need a solution to something which is perfectly legal anyway) was to "kick out the illegal emigrants [sic] who are intent on causing death and destruction".

So maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

The jist I got of your point was "protestor = muslim = foreign = illegal immigrant = terrorist".

If I'm wrong, maybe you could clear up what you meant?

[hibiedude]

Ok. Back to the start: this is a thread about the protestors at the return of the soldiers. Your "solution" to these protests (quite why we need a solution to something which is perfectly legal anyway) was to "kick out the illegal emigrants [sic] who are intent on causing death and destruction".

So maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

The jist I got of your point was "protestor = muslim = foreign = illegal immigrant = terrorist".

If I'm wrong, maybe you could clear up what you meant?

Read my last reply :confused:

[The_Todd]

Read my last reply :confused:

I have. My response is still valid. I know there are illegal immigrants in the country, I don't deny it. I never once said that all immigrants were here legally. What I'm refusing to accept though, is every one of those protestors is an illegal immigrant and they're all on benefits like some seem to think, including the "hilarious" Daily Mail cartoonist.

What you seem to be implying though is that if we clear out a load of illegal immigrants, there would be no more protests. Therefore I assume you think all people protesting against the "war on terror" are illegal immigrants intent to blowing us to smithereens. Your own words from your first post on this thread.

Again, if this is wrong please correct me.

[bigstu]

Your analogy bears no relevence. The protesters are angry because the soldiers are retruning from a place where people are dying. Part of the reason that they are dying is that the British army are in these countries.

I think you are the one bring prejudice here, you believe people should be allowed to hold an angry protest but only if what they are protesting about is people "dying"

I stand by what i said in the first place, those people should not have been allowed to protest in that manner and under those circumstances.

[hibiedude]

I have. My response is still valid. I know there are illegal immigrants in the country, I don't deny it. I never once said that all immigrants were here legally. What I'm refusing to accept though, is every one of those protestors is an illegal immigrant and they're all on benefits like some seem to think, including the "hilarious" Daily Mail cartoonist.

What you seem to be implying though is that if we clear out a load of illegal immigrants, there would be no more protests. Therefore I assume you think all people protesting against the "war on terror" are illegal immigrants intent to blowing us to smithereens. Your own words from your first post on this thread.

Again, if this is wrong please correct me.

The last attacks on UK soil have come from Muslin extremist now the point of the protesters was what' to accuse our soldiers of Murder, raping children, child killers, now if our own brave men can't come back to the UK and parade on there own streets there is something wrong. The protesters should have been moved well out of the way because we all know that strapping a bomb to themselves is the way of the extremist to make there point. Now what's to stop them form doing just that the next time Soldiers parade through the streets on there return from Iraq or Afghanistan.

[--------]

The last attacks on UK soil have come from Muslin extremist now the point of the protesters was what' to accuse our soldiers of Murder, raping children, child killers, now if our own brave men can't come back to the UK and parade on there own streets there is something wrong. The protesters should have been moved well out of the way because we all know that strapping a bomb to themselves is the way of the extremist to make there point. Now what's to stop them form doing just that the next time Soldiers parade through the streets on there return from Iraq or Afghanistan.


No one was stopping the Army from parading in public.

However, I would uphold the right of anyone to stage a peaceful protest in opposition to what many of us believe to have been an illegal war conducted in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions (to which we are signatories) and in breach of international law (to which our armed services are subject).

What I would suggest, however, is that if the slogans on some of the the placards in this case went beyond the bounds of peaceful protest, the police shouild have insisted on their removal before allowing the protest to go ahead.

[steakbake]

The last attacks on UK soil have come from Muslin extremist now the point of the protesters was what' to accuse our soldiers of Murder, raping children, child killers, now if our own brave men can't come back to the UK and parade on there own streets there is something wrong. The protesters should have been moved well out of the way because we all know that strapping a bomb to themselves is the way of the extremist to make there point. Now what's to stop them form doing just that the next time Soldiers parade through the streets on there return from Iraq or Afghanistan.

You can't really argue against the fact that some extremists blow themselves up. But that is all hypothetical. What if, what if...

However, what should stop similar protests is the local council and police force ensuring that they aren't on the parade route or are allowed to make their protest in the safest possible way away from it.

We see it year in year out with the Orange Marches. People are allowed to make their protest, but it is generally organised and contained in such a way to maintain public safety and decency.

Good Ol' British Common Sense.

I don't support the protesters' view of things, but surely the mark of our civilization is to allow people to voice dissent.

PS - I'm not a huge fan of military parades either, to be honest. There's something of the "Junta" about all that.

[Ed De Gramo]

You can't really argue against the fact that some extremists blow themselves up. But that is all hypothetical. What if, what if...

However, what should stop similar protests is the local council and police force ensuring that they aren't on the parade route or are allowed to make their protest in the safest possible way away from it.

We see it year in year out with the Orange Marches. People are allowed to make their protest, but it is generally organised and contained in such a way to maintain public safety and decency.

Good Ol' British Common Sense.

I don't support the protesters' view of things, but surely the mark of our civilization is to allow people to voice dissent.

Perhaps....but if the boot was on the other foot and members of the muslim community were having a parade of some description...you could bet your last pound that the first sign of a protest would result in arrests...guaranteed...it's almost as if we have to tiptoe around Britain nowadays in case it causes an offense :grr:

Also, sad to read those hate preachers praising the protesters....Choudry & Co....GTF...take yer p!shy ramblings and ram them straight up yer erse :agree:

[wpj]

In my (very humble) opinion.....
don't agree with the war(s) but.....
support the troops that are fighting it as long as they are fighting it &.....
support the right to protest against it, perhaps though there is a more appropriate time and place to demonstrate?
totally hate the red top (inc mail & express who do not have a red top) indignation and jingoistist posturing. It's not a clear cut right or wrong situation and i know Muslims, Hindus, Christians and non believers (and all other beliefs not mentioned) who are as divided on opinion as all the Hi-Bees (and the jambo :wink:) who have contributed to this thread

increase the peace!!!

[hibsdaft]

Also, sad to read those hate preachers praising the protesters....Choudry & Co....GTF...take yer p!shy ramblings and ram them straight up yer erse :agree:

they were ex-members of Choudrys al-Mujaridoun group. nothing less than fascists in my opinion.

the intention of this was clear: to do the most incendiary thing you can imagine, just keeping within the rules of law, and stir as much **** up as possible.

by the looks of this thread and the media storm, their operation was a success. not surprising really, the MOD set up an open goal for them with this parade and all in the interests of a cheap morale booster and recruitment drive (well we wouldn't want to pay people a decent salary for risking their lives would we?)

they might be **** but they did nothing illegal, tough **** i am afraid.

the rule of law means the police had to allow their protest. thats free speach for you, and you either believe in it or you don't.

the best thing would have been for everyone to ignore them, instead it was hook line and sinker once again.

fwiw i took a wee look at a muslim forum and the debate is pretty similar to this one here. one guy who realised who it was who did this said he wished the police had not intervened and the tossers had got their kickin :greengrin

[greggo77]

spot on livi hibee:top marks

[Big Ed]

I think you are the one bring prejudice here, you believe people should be allowed to hold an angry protest but only if what they are protesting about is people "dying"

I stand by what i said in the first place, those people should not have been allowed to protest in that manner and under those circumstances.

I think you misunderstand me. I felt that your analogy about the wedding and the police and the drugs was understating what the gravity of the protest was about.
I feel I have said my bit on this matter and I wont comment anymore other than to say this: I have seen more footage of the protest and I can see that it was a more bilious affair than I had first thought. I would also say that I may have been a bit hasty in my opinions of some (though not all) of the posters who have the opposite view to me.
That said, whilst the manner of their protest may not have been appropriate, their right to protest is an unchallengable fundemental right. The opposite is unthinkable.

[Sir David Gray]

My previous statements were made without really knowing the content that was on the placards. Having now seen what was on them, I am now of the opinion that their protest went well beyond the right to free speech. Their message was inciteful and hateful and they should all have been arrested.

The nature of their protest could have led to a riot taking place and they should not have been allowed to brandish those placards about.

As for these people being illegal immigrants and on the dole.

I wish they were, as the truth of the matter is much more alarming.

It would appear that one of the men who took part in the protest actually works at Luton Airport (although he has now been suspended). It's probably not the greatest occupation he could have.

[hibiedude]

You can't really argue against the fact that some extremists blow themselves up. But that is all hypothetical. What if, what if...

However, what should stop similar protests is the local council and police force ensuring that they aren't on the parade route or are allowed to make their protest in the safest possible way away from it.

We see it year in year out with the Orange Marches. People are allowed to make their protest, but it is generally organised and contained in such a way to maintain public safety and decency.

Good Ol' British Common Sense.

I don't support the protesters' view of things, but surely the mark of our civilization is to allow people to voice dissent.

PS - I'm not a huge fan of military parades either, to be honest. There's something of the "Junta" about all that.

You cant say What if, what if... and leave it there, because lets say what if Glasgow Airport didn't take the security measures that are now in place and another attack took place this summer. Extremists use bombs and recruit young Muslims to strap bombs to themselves, we have suicide bombers living in the UK today and who are plaining there next attack as I write this reply. The Extremists take there first steps at protesting and move on from there to become a serious threat to our country and watching the demonstrators the other day should make us fear for the future. As I said it won't be long before an extremists walks out in the middle of military parade and blows himself up and kills many soldiers and civilians. We all have the right to protest but some should have there rights removed in my opinion. Or do wait till the Muslim extremists march down the streets complain it's there right to blow themselves up and kill as many as they like.

I agree with the bit highlighted but I won't go out off my way and hold the placards that were on display the other day.

[aliman82]

[/b]

You cant say What if, what if... and leave it there, because lets say what if Glasgow Airport didn't take the security measures that are now in place and another attack took place this summer. Extremists use bombs and recruit young Muslims to strap bombs to themselves, we have suicide bombers living in the UK today and who are plaining there next attack as I write this reply. The Extremists take there first steps at protesting and move on from there to become a serious threat to our country and watching the demonstrators the other day should make us fear for the future. As I said it won't be long before an extremists walks out in the middle of military parade and blows himself up and kills many soldiers and civilians. We all have the right to protest but some should have there rights removed in my opinion. Or do wait till the Muslim extremists march down the streets complain it's there right to blow themselves up and kill as many as they like.

I agree with the bit highlighted but I won't go out off my way and hold the placards that were on display the other day.

Sorry if I'm misconstruing what you're trying to say. But are you honestly suggesting that certain people, dependant on ethnicity or religious persuasion, should have their right to free speech and/or peaceful protest suspended?
As distasteful as this whole affair has been, that's a scary world view to take and not at all in keeping with what I'd imagine is a lot of peoples idea of "Britishness".

[ancient hibee]

Sorry if I'm misconstruing what you're trying to say. But are you honestly suggesting that certain people, dependant on ethnicity or religious persuasion, should have their right to free speech and/or peaceful protest suspended?
As distasteful as this whole affair has been, that's a scary world view to take and not at all in keeping with what I'd imagine is a lot of peoples idea of "Britishness".


Do you mean like the two Evangelical Christians arrested and charged in South Wales for distributing their leaflets?

[aliman82]

Do you mean like the two Evangelical Christians arrested and charged in South Wales for distributing their leaflets?

Wasn't aware of that, so can't properly comment without knowing more (and i'm too lazy to look it up at the mo :greengrin).

However, I assume it was because something within their leaflets was deemed to be "incitement"? In which case I believe it falls under the same catagory as the placards stating "Anglian Soldiers Go To Hell", which I believe they should have had removed.

[The_Todd]

Wasn't aware of that, so can't properly comment without knowing more (and i'm too lazy to look it up at the mo :greengrin).

However, I assume it was because something within their leaflets was deemed to be "incitement"? In which case I believe it falls under the same catagory as the placards stating "Anglian Soldiers Go To Hell", which I believe they should have had removed.


They were handing out leaflets at Cardiff's Mari Gras event entitled "Same-sex love - same-sex sex: What does the Bible say?"

The content of the leaflets were: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination' and homosexuals are given to 'vile affections'.

Not commenting on the rights and wrongs, just bringing the last poster up to speed.

[--------]

My previous statements were made without really knowing the content that was on the placards. Having now seen what was on them, I am now of the opinion that their protest went well beyond the right to free speech. Their message was inciteful and hateful and they should all have been arrested.

The nature of their protest could have led to a riot taking place and they should not have been allowed to brandish those placards about.

As for these people being illegal immigrants and on the dole.

I wish they were, as the truth of the matter is much more alarming.

It would appear that one of the men who took part in the protest actually works at Luton Airport (although he has now been suspended). It's probably not the greatest occupation he could have.



That was my thought. From Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom, although not a statutory offence but a common law offence, "breach of the peace" is widely used.

In the United Kingdom, constables (not just police) are also permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows police constables to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when a constable holds a reasonable belief that should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur.

Breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent or potentially violent offenders from a scene rapidly; the only punishment that can be inflicted by a court for this offence is to bind over the offender to keep the peace. There are some minor differences between English Law and Scots Law in relation to breach of the peace."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law)
I would have thought that the passage underlined sets out exactly the situation at the demonstration. Give them a choice - lose the placards or be charged with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Detain them until the march was over, then bind them over to keep the peace.

All that said, I'm well aware that police have used exactly these powers in the past to stop human rights protests organised by (among other bodies) Amnesty International. Our present government and police authorities would be ever so pleased to have an excuse to further curtail the right of protest in this country.

[aliman82]

They were handing out leaflets at Cardiff's Mari Gras event entitled "Same-sex love - same-sex sex: What does the Bible say?"

The content of the leaflets were: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination' and homosexuals are given to 'vile affections'.

Not commenting on the rights and wrongs, just bringing the last poster up to speed.


Cheers.

Looking at the story on the BBC news, as much as I find the Christian Vioce's views almost entirely repugnant, as long as no-one is being harmed and there was no danger to the public by staging their protest, I would support their right to do so.

[bigstu]

I think you misunderstand me. I felt that your analogy about the wedding and the police and the drugs was understating what the gravity of the protest was about.
I feel I have said my bit on this matter and I wont comment anymore other than to say this: I have seen more footage of the protest and I can see that it was a more bilious affair than I had first thought. I would also say that I may have been a bit hasty in my opinions of some (though not all) of the posters who have the opposite view to me.
That said, whilst the manner of their protest may not have been appropriate, their right to protest is an unchallengable fundemental right. The opposite is unthinkable.

Fair play Big Ed. At least this thread and a couple of other threads recently on this board have brought about some lively discussions and interesting debates :agree:

[hibsbollah]

That was my thought. From Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom, although not a statutory offence but a common law offence, "breach of the peace" is widely used.

In the United Kingdom, constables (not just police) are also permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows police constables to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when a constable holds a reasonable belief that should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur.

Breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent or potentially violent offenders from a scene rapidly; the only punishment that can be inflicted by a court for this offence is to bind over the offender to keep the peace. There are some minor differences between English Law and Scots Law in relation to breach of the peace."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law)
I would have thought that the passage underlined sets out exactly the situation at the demonstration. Give them a choice - lose the placards or be charged with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Detain them until the march was over, then bind them over to keep the peace.

All that said, I'm well aware that police have used exactly these powers in the past to stop human rights protests organised by (among other bodies) Amnesty International. Our present government and police authorities would be ever so pleased to have an excuse to further curtail the right of protest in this country.

Absolutely:agree: This definition of 'likely to lead to a breach of the peace' was also used against miners in the 1984-85 strike, and can be used to break up just about any gathering you could imagine, on the whim of any policeman in charge, without any crime having been committed.

[--------]

Absolutely:agree: This definition of 'likely to lead to a breach of the peace' was also used against miners in the 1984-85 strike, and can be used to break up just about any gathering you could imagine, on the whim of any policeman in charge, without any crime having been committed.


Yup. I do feel that in view of the sentiments expressed on some of those placards, the police would have been justified in using that law to enforce either the removal of the placards or the abandonment of the protest. But doing so would probably have led to charges of racism being levelled at them.

[hibiedude]

Sorry if I'm misconstruing what you're trying to say. But are you honestly suggesting that certain people, dependant on ethnicity or religious persuasion, should have their right to free speech and/or peaceful protest suspended?
As distasteful as this whole affair has been, that's a scary world view to take and not at all in keeping with what I'd imagine is a lot of peoples idea of "Britishness".

People who teach or preach religious hatred should have there right to protest suspended, you mention the word peaceful I didn't see anyone protesting peacefully when the soldiers returned, I saw a hate mob with disgusting worded placards.

[Sir David Gray]

People who teach or preach religious hatred should have there right to protest suspended, you mention the word peaceful I didn't see anyone protesting peacefully when the soldiers returned, I saw a hate mob with disgusting worded placards.

:agree: If that was an example of a peaceful demonstration, I would hate to see what a violent protest would look like.

[ancient hibee]

What we should remember is that all extremist acts are designed to provoke a reaction so that more people will be encouraged to become extreme in their views.What we as a society should demand is that all protests should be policed in the same manner.

[alex plode]

:agree: If that was an example of a peaceful demonstration, I would hate to see what a violent protest would look like.

Watch some selected you tube videos of the event, you'll see a violent protest...against the peaceful anti-war protestors.
I'm sure you'll agree it's disgusting.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Watch some selected you tube videos of the event, you'll see a violent protest...against the peaceful anti-war protestors.
I'm sure you'll agree it's disgusting.

I hate to agree with Jambo, but I haven't seen footage such as this on the news recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM&feature=related

It seems the placards and chants people most people are objecting to are the 'Go To Hell' ones. I can't help thinking that's pretty tame, really. It's hardly 'Victory to the NLF' banners or 'Ho, Ho, Ho, Chi Minh, The NLF is going to win' chants that were common at U.S. and U.K. anti-Vietnam protests.

I agree that protests would be better aimed at government rather than soldiers, but Blair, Brown, Reid et. al. have done a rather good job of ensuring that they are very well insulated against this.

[degenerated]

worrying times indeed if those are the "true british people" we heard about earlier. to me, it looked more like an audience from the jeremy kyle show.


I hate to agree with Jambo, but I haven't seen footage such as this on the news recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM&feature=related

It seems the placards and chants people most people are objecting to are the 'Go To Hell' ones. I can't help thinking that's pretty tame, really. It's hardly 'Victory to the NLF' banners or 'Ho, Ho, Ho, Chi Minh, The NLF is going to win' chants that were common at U.S. and U.K. anti-Vietnam protests.

I agree that protests would be better aimed at government rather than soldiers, but Blair, Brown, Reid et. al. have done a rather good job of ensuring that they are very well insulated against this.

[The_Todd]

Of course, those 12 pesky Muslims cowering behind the Police there were being so violent that it probably intimidated that nice friendly harmless mob surrounding them into acting like a bunch of Huns.

The Daily Mail says so.

[Betty Boop]

worrying times indeed if those are the "true british people" we heard about earlier. to me, it looked more like an audience from the jeremy kyle show. First time I have seen that footage :bitchy: the way this was being reported in the media , I thought there was a huge demonstration against the parade. Thought I was watching a BNP rally there. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

If I read "BNP" in this thread again I think I'll cry.

It seems to be the default reaction of some people. The minute some Islamist bams get active...mention the BNP or the nazis and their cause is somehow offset against a greater evil.

It's just lazy.

And for what it's worth these protesters were inciting a riot....a criminal offence. Stating otherwise is just ludicrous when you engage common sense.

They might only have been 12 in number but it's the mentallity that counts.

[hibiedude]

If I read "BNP" in this thread again I think I'll cry.

It seems to be the default reaction of some people. The minute some Islamist bams get active...mention the BNP or the nazis and their cause is somehow offset against a greater evil.

It's just lazy.

And for what it's worth these protesters were inciting a riot....a criminal offence. Stating otherwise is just ludicrous when you engage common sense.

They might only have been 12 in number but it's the mentallity that counts.

Good point, Peter

And remember there was only 2 in the car at Glasgow Airport

[Betty Boop]

Good point, Peter

And remember there was only 2 in the car at Glasgow Airport Are you seriously trying to say demonstrators go on to become terrorists?

[hibiedude]

Are you seriously trying to say demonstrators go on to become terrorists?

In this country we had the 7 July 2005 London bombings Carried out by British Muslims read about the people who carried out this attack and then you'll see how daft your response is Betty and after your finished if you have time, read about the doctors who drove there car into the Glasgow Airport and where they went on holiday and how they spent there time at protests just like the one in Luton. so yes I am seriously telling you that some people who go to demonstrations do become terrorists. What about people who go to demonstrations against cruelty to animals then target the people who do the tests, they have there houses and cars attacked with bombs or does that NOT happen. Quite a few people are doing serious time in prison because there were charged under the terrorism act

[Woody1985]

In this country we had the 7 July 2005 London bombings Carried out by British Muslims read about the people who carried out this attack and then you'll see how daft your response is Betty and after your finished if you have time, read about the doctors who drove there car into the Glasgow Airport and where they went on holiday and how they spent there time at protests just like the one in Luton. so yes I am seriously telling you that some people who go to demonstrations do become terrorists. What about people who go to demonstrations against cruelty to animals then target the people who do the tests, they have there houses and cars attacked with bombs or does that NOT happen. Quite a few people are doing serious time in prison because there were charged under the terrorism act

:agree:

[Betty Boop]

In this country we had the 7 July 2005 London bombings Carried out by British Muslims read about the people who carried out this attack and then you'll see how daft your response is Betty and after your finished if you have time, read about the doctors who drove there car into the Glasgow Airport and where they went on holiday and how they spent there time at protests just like the one in Luton. so yes I am seriously telling you that some people who go to demonstrations do become terrorists. What about people who go to demonstrations against cruelty to animals then target the people who do the tests, they have there houses and cars attacked with bombs or does that NOT happen. Quite a few people are doing serious time in prison because there were charged under the terrorism act The 7/7 bombings were carried out as a response to Britain's participation in the illegal war in Iraq. ( the bombers words not mine) I hardly think they became terrorists because they took part in a demonstration along with a million others.

[hibiedude]

The 7/7 bombings were carried out as a response to Britain's participation in the illegal war in Iraq. ( the bombers words not mine) I hardly think they became terrorists because they took part in a demonstration along with a million others.

I never asked for the history lesson Betty, you clearly never checked the people who carried out the attacks, and how they got started which was my point.
your question was; Are you seriously trying to say demonstrators go on to become terrorists?

[Betty Boop]

I never asked for the history lesson Betty, you clearly never checked the people who carried out the attacks, and how they got started which was my point.
your question was; Are you seriously trying to say demonstrators go on to become terrorists? Yes I have checked them out http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/77-ripple-effect-waking-up-british-slaves/

[hibiedude]

Where has it been confirmed that these people were unemployed and on benefits? :confused:

It is pretty easy to take a day off work (holiday) to go and protest, in fact I have done it before.....

Some worrying opinions being displayed in this thread, from both sides of the coin IMHO.

Page 39 of todays news of the world tell us that the muslim preacher who led the mob against home coming British soldiers is raking in thousands in benefits. The leader' foul-mouthed mullah Ishtaig Alamgir branded the enemy within for his loathsome rants against Britain claims to be working as a teacher. But it has been discovered that the lying 29 years old crazed cleric realy claim is £220 a fortnight in unemployment handouts jointly with is wife Musert Basir. he also gets 167 a week full housing benefits to keep him in his comfortable £200,000 three bedroom home as he orchestrate his campaigns against the country that feeds him, so it has been confirmed that he is nothing more that thiefs of the state. so there was no need for him to take a day of work because he didn't have one. :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes I have checked them out http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/77-ripple-effect-waking-up-british-slaves/

Riz, is that you?! :wink:

[degenerated]

Page 39 of todays news of the world tell us that the muslim preacher who led the mob against home coming British soldiers is raking in thousands in benefits. The leader' foul-mouthed mullah Ishtaig Alamgir branded the enemy within for his loathsome rants against Britain claims to be working as a teacher. But it has been discovered that the lying 29 years old crazed cleric realy claim is £220 a fortnight in unemployment handouts jointly with is wife Musert Basir. he also gets 167 a week full housing benefits to keep him in his comfortable £200,000 three bedroom home as he orchestrate his campaigns against the country that feeds him, so it has been confirmed that he is nothing more that thiefs of the state. so there was no need for him to take a day of work because he didn't have one. :greengrin




:hilarious

[degenerated]

Are you seriously trying to say demonstrators go on to become terrorists?

everyone be careful, i could go off at any moment as i spent a lot of time in the late 80's early 90's on anti nazi/anti fascist and reclaim the streets demos and prior to the illegal occupation of iraq i was on a few anti war demos.

in fact i'd probably be better just turning myself in now, anyone know where i can get a cheap flight to guantanamo - it'll save the burden on the tax payer if i pay it myself.

[LiverpoolHibs]

everyone be careful, i could go off at any moment as i spent a lot of time in the late 80's early 90's on anti nazi/anti fascist and reclaim the streets demos and prior to the illegal occupation of iraq i was on a few anti war demos.

in fact i'd probably be better just turning myself in now, anyone know where i can get a cheap flight to guantanamo - it'll save the burden on the tax payer if i pay it myself.

:agree:

I'd better do the same. Does anyone know where I can get hold of a Do-It-Yourself Waterboarding kit?

[Betty Boop]

Riz, is that you?! :wink: :faf:

[Woody1985]

:agree:

I'd better do the same. Does anyone know where I can get hold of a Do-It-Yourself Waterboarding kit?


everyone be careful, i could go off at any moment as i spent a lot of time in the late 80's early 90's on anti nazi/anti fascist and reclaim the streets demos and prior to the illegal occupation of iraq i was on a few anti war demos.

in fact i'd probably be better just turning myself in now, anyone know where i can get a cheap flight to guantanamo - it'll save the burden on the tax payer if i pay it myself.


Why is it that you people defend everyone against everything?

Just because things are in the NoTW or wherever doesn't mean it can't be accurate. Or are you telling me there are no muslim immigrants claiming benefits in this country who also happen to preach hate?

[hibsbollah]

Leaving the muslim bit aside, at what point did it become a matter of shame to claim benefits? :confused:

[degenerated]

Why is it that you people defend everyone against everything?

Just because things are in the NoTW or wherever doesn't mean it can't be accurate. Or are you telling me there are no muslim immigrants claiming benefits in this country who also happen to preach hate?

why is it "you people" are so keen to believe whatever you read in a rag like the news of the world.

I am sure there probably are, but i bet there's a hell of a lot more "true british people" claiming benefit money and preaching hatred for anything that doesnt represent their idea of british culture. I dont hear you complainign about that though!

[hibsdaft]

don't understand why this ones still rumbling on, deary me.

the 12 protesters have been outed as **** stirrers, their perfectly legal demo was moved on by the police when things started to turn ugly.

they've been roundly criticised by all and sundy including a prospective muslim MP who called them nutters on newsnight, shahid malik mp called them sickening and amir khan who gave out a load of free tickets to the Luton soldiers for last nights fight.

shouldn't the way this incident was dealt with actually make us all quite positive about things (like in NI where the **** stirring antics of a minority over there has resulted in everyone else coming together in the interests of sanity)?

finally worth pointing out again that this was a national mobilisation for these wacko's, they handed out 20,000 leaflets to Luton muslims, and they managed to get only 12 people to turn up.

[Woody1985]

why is it "you people" are so keen to believe whatever you read in a rag like the news of the world.

I am sure there probably are, but i bet there's a hell of a lot more "true british people" claiming benefit money and preaching hatred for anything that doesnt represent their idea of british culture. I dont hear you complainign about that though!

I don't believe whatever I read in a newspaper.

In this instance I'm inclined to think that this has a certain degree of accuracy given that the person didn't speak to them when asked. There are no records of him acting a teacher like he claims.

I specifically didn't mention the facts that it was said he organised the protest at Luton because I also know that papers are likely to beef up their stories and relate them to other events.

I for one, don't like anyone coming to our country and scrounging off the benefit system whether they are Muslim, Polish etc etc. Especially when I go to work everyday and have done since I was 17. ESPECIALLY when the racists *******s go about preaching hate and how I am an infidel. If you want to defend that type of **** then fine. I hope you become a victim of terrorism and see what your thoughts are then. I'm sure it won't be 'oh, poor little souls'.

[Woody1985]

don't understand why this ones still rumbling on, deary me.

the 12 protesters have been outed as **** stirrers, their perfectly legal demo was moved on by the police when things started to turn ugly.

they've been roundly criticised by all and sundy including a prospective muslim MP who called them nutters on newsnight, shahid malik mp called them sickening and amir khan who gave out a load of free tickets to the Luton soldiers for last nights fight.

shouldn't the way this incident was dealt with actually make us all quite positive about things (like in NI where the **** stirring antics of a minority over there has resulted in everyone else coming together in the interests of sanity)?

finally worth pointing out again that this was a national mobilisation for these wacko's, they handed out 20,000 leaflets to Luton muslims, and they managed to get only 12 people to turn up.

Some very good points there which goes to show that not all Muslims are into Islamism and extreme protesting.

So would it be fair to say that the chances of these 12 people becoming extremists is more or less likely than any other Muslims?

[degenerated]

I don't believe whatever I read in a newspaper.

In this instance I'm inclined to think that this has a certain degree of accuracy given that the person didn't speak to them when asked. There are no records of him acting a teacher like he claims.

I specifically didn't mention the facts that it was said he organised the protest at Luton because I also know that papers are likely to beef up their stories and relate them to other events.

I for one, don't like anyone coming to our country and scrounging off the benefit system whether they are Muslim, Polish etc etc. Especially when I go to work everyday and have done since I was 17. ESPECIALLY when the racists *******s go about preaching hate and how I am an infidel. If you want to defend that type of **** then fine. I hope you become a victim of terrorism and see what your thoughts are then. I'm sure it won't be 'oh, poor little souls'.

you are a prize dick, it has to be said and typical of the morons that the news of the world is aimed at.

[Woody1985]

you are a prize dick, it has to be said and typical of the morons that the news of the world is aimed at.

Thanks. :greengrin

So me saying I hope you become a victim is worse than it actually happening. :faf:

Have a word with yourself pal.

[degenerated]

Thanks. :greengrin

So me saying I hope you become a victim is worse than it actually happening. :faf:

Have a word with yourself pal.

can i just, for the avoidance of doubt, point out i'm not your pal and thankful i am for that!

for you to hope that someone is the victim of terrorism because they dont agree with your philsophy that only certain people, to be judged on the views expressed by the NOTW, are allowed the right protest shows you up for what you are.

if anyone needs to have a word it's you.

[hibiedude]

Why is it some people like to chose what information and what papers they take as correct. :greengrin

it seems that only a chesen few have that right on this topic :bitchy:

so the outcome is demonstrators never go on to become terrorists :bitchy:

only morons read the news of the world :faf:

and there was only 12 protesters so it's ok and it look more like an audience from the jeremy kyle show' some people watch the best TV shows if that there take on things. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I don't believe whatever I read in a newspaper.

In this instance I'm inclined to think that this has a certain degree of accuracy given that the person didn't speak to them when asked. There are no records of him acting a teacher like he claims.

I specifically didn't mention the facts that it was said he organised the protest at Luton because I also know that papers are likely to beef up their stories and relate them to other events.

I for one, don't like anyone coming to our country and scrounging off the benefit system whether they are Muslim, Polish etc etc. Especially when I go to work everyday and have done since I was 17. ESPECIALLY when the racists *******s go about preaching hate and how I am an infidel. If you want to defend that type of **** then fine. I hope you become a victim of terrorism and see what your thoughts are then. I'm sure it won't be 'oh, poor little souls'.

I generally agree with a lot of what you've said on this issue but to hope that someone becomes a victim of terrorism just because they disagree with you is out of order.

[Woody1985]

I generally agree with a lot of what you've said on this issue but to hope that someone becomes a victim of terrorism just because they disagree with you is out of order.


Maybe so but I'm sick of all the pandering to these racist, divisive *****.

If I go out on the street now with placards saying death to Muslim soldiers, death to the people killing our troops etc etc I'd be hung, drawn and quartered in no time at all.

[Killiehibbie]

Leaving the muslim bit aside, at what point did it become a matter of shame to claim benefits? :confused:

People should be ashamed to make a lifelong career out of milking the benefit system. They are supposed to help people in times of need not become a way of life to people who have no intention of ever working legit.

[hibsbollah]

People should be ashamed to make a lifelong career out of milking the benefit system. They are supposed to help people in times of need not become a way of life to people who have no intention of ever working legit.

Is claiming welfare benefits OK if you are disabled or made redundant? How long does it take before someone 'in need' becomes a 'milker', whatever that is? 6 months? a year? longer?

[Woody1985]

Is claiming welfare benefits OK if you are disabled or made redundant? How long does it take before someone 'in need' becomes a 'milker', whatever that is? 6 months? a year? longer?

I think you're taking what he's saying out of context.

My immediate thoughts were that he was referring to able bodied people who can work but choose not to and claim benefits instead.

The truth is there is no incentive to work. My best mate is on the dole and when he works he will only work 15 hours per week. If he works anymore they take his benefits away. He doesn't do jobs that would be worth working an extra 15/20/25 hours a week.

My ex girlfriend also was able to claim something for childcare for her kid but if she worked more than 15 hours then the nursery allowance diminished meaning that she would be working more hours to end up with less money.

[hibsbollah]

I think you're taking what he's saying out of context.

My immediate thoughts were that he was referring to able bodied people who can work but choose not to and claim benefits instead.

The truth is there is no incentive to work. My best mate is on the dole and when he works he will only work 15 hours per week. If he works anymore they take his benefits away. He doesn't do jobs that would be worth working an extra 15/20/25 hours a week.

My ex girlfriend also was able to claim something for childcare for her kid but if she worked more than 15 hours then the nursery allowance diminished meaning that she would be working more hours to end up with less money.

I'm not taking anything he's saying out of context, i'm asking him a direct question:confused:

According to the NOTW article, this man is claiming housing and unemployment benefits, and is also described as 'loathsome', 'foulmouthed' and 'lying'. Although the article makes some reference to him 'claiming to be a doctor', there is nothing suggesting the DSS have found out he is falsely claiming anything, or done anything legally wrong. I'm just interested as to why he is being accused of being these things. Is it because he's a benefit fraud? (unsubstantiated), are they trying to abuse anyone who is on benefits? (probably-but the recession will see unemployment hitting 3million soon, can they really continue to do this?), or is it because they are saying as a muslim, he should agree with our foreign policy if he wants to claim our state benefits? (probably).

What do you think?

[Woody1985]

I'm not taking anything he's saying out of context, i'm asking him a direct question:confused:

According to the NOTW article, this man is claiming housing and unemployment benefits, and is also described as 'loathsome', 'foulmouthed' and 'lying'. Although the article makes some reference to him 'claiming to be a doctor', there is nothing suggesting the DSS have found out he is falsely claiming anything, or done anything legally wrong. I'm just interested as to why he is being accused of being these things. Is it because he's a benefit fraud? (unsubstantiated), are they trying to abuse anyone who is on benefits? (probably-but the recession will see unemployment hitting 3million soon, can they really continue to do this?), or is it because they are saying as a muslim, he should agree with our foreign policy if he wants to claim our state benefits? (probably).

What do you think?





Is claiming welfare benefits OK if you are disabled or made redundant? How long does it take before someone 'in need' becomes a 'milker', whatever that is? 6 months? a year? longer?


:wtf:

You made specific reference to claiming benefits with no mention of the NOTW story. That's what I was talking about!

Anyhoo, referring to your points above.

Yes, because no one is claiming benefits without the DSS knowing. :faf:

I don't agree with all of our foreign policy and am not Muslim. :confused: What's your point here?

I honestly couldn't give a flying **** what he thinks of the countries foreign policy. If he's promoting extremism in our country then he can GTF and take you with him.

[hibsbollah]

:wtf:

You made specific reference to claiming benefits with no mention of the NOTW story. That's what I was talking about!

Anyhoo, referring to your points above.

Yes, because no one is claiming benefits without the DSS knowing. :faf:

I don't agree with all of our foreign policy and am not Muslim. :confused: What's your point here?

I honestly couldn't give a flying **** what he thinks of the countries foreign policy. If he's promoting extremism in our country then he can GTF and take you with him.

When did i say 'no-one is claiming benefits without the DSS knowing'? I am saying that if the NOTW had evidence that he is claiming benefits then they would have printed it, to make their 'story' better.

I dont even know what your last two sentences are all about, except you want me to 'leave the country'. Do you want me to become a victim of terrorism as well? I think you've lost the plot a bit:faf:

[Woody1985]

When did i say 'no-one is claiming benefits without the DSS knowing'? I am saying that if the NOTW had evidence that he is claiming benefits then they would have printed it, to make their 'story' better.

I dont even know what your last two sentences are all about, except you want me to 'leave the country'. Do you want me to become a victim of terrorism as well? I think you've lost the plot a bit:faf:

You were implying that the story holds no credability because the DSS don't know.

I was also engaging in a debate about the benefits system and posed some answers to the questions you raised and then you started babbling pish.

You said that I think that he shouldn't be able to claim benefits because he doesn't agree with the countries foreign policy. I was pointing out the fact that I couldn't care less about what he thinks on our foreign policy. He can do that by influencing them at the polls, not by inciting hatred in our country.

You still didn't answer the below:

I don't agree with all of our foreign policy and am not Muslim. :confused: What's your point here?

[hibsbollah]

You were implying that the story holds no credability because the DSS don't know.

I was also engaging in a debate about the benefits system and posed some answers to the questions you raised and then you started babbling pish.

You said that I think that he shouldn't be able to claim benefits because he doesn't agree with the countries foreign policy. I was pointing out the fact that I couldn't care less about what he thinks on our foreign policy. He can do that by influencing them at the polls, not by inciting hatred in our country.

You still didn't answer the below:

I don't agree with all of our foreign policy and am not Muslim. :confused: What's your point here?

I am saying the story holds no credibility at all because there is no evidence that he is claiming benefits while working. Are you following?

As to your question about my final point; I was putting forward some suggestions as to why the NOTW ran the story. One suggestion was the NOTW were suggesting that 'he should agree with our foreign policy if he wants to claim our state benefits' and then I suggested in brackets (probably).

I hope you don't think i'm still 'spouting pish', I think i've been quite clear. Since you've suggested I 'leave the country' and hoped another poster becomes a victim of terrorism, I think its pretty clear you are the only 'extremist' on this thread:greengrin

[Woody1985]

I am saying the story holds no credibility at all because there is no evidence that he is claiming benefits while working. Are you following?

As to your question about my final point; I was putting forward some suggestions as to why the NOTW ran the story. One suggestion was the NOTW were suggesting that 'he should agree with our foreign policy if he wants to claim our state benefits' and then I suggested in brackets (probably).

I hope you don't think i'm still 'spouting pish', I think i've been quite clear. Since you've suggested I 'leave the country' and hoped another poster becomes a victim of terrorism, I think its pretty clear you are the only 'extremist' on this thread:greengrin

:faf:

You:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=1975975#post1975975)
Leaving the muslim bit aside, at what point did it become a matter of shame to claim benefits? :confused:


Killiehibs:

People should be ashamed to make a lifelong career out of milking the benefit system. They are supposed to help people in times of need not become a way of life to people who have no intention of ever working legit.

This is a different debate and has nothing to do with the story. You are specifically asking why people should be ashamed to claim benefits. Are you following?

How are the NOTW claiming that he should agree with our foreign policy because he is Muslim? I don't see it. I'm sure there's a lot more non Muslim people in this country who disagree with our FP.

They've ran a story that says this guy is claiming benefits and that he is a a Muslim hate preacher.

The outrage comes into play when this guy is claiming our tax money whilst preaching that we should be killed as we're infidels.

If you think that the NOTW have some kind of agenda against a particular part of society then I suggest that you write to them or I'm sure there is a regulator for newpapers. Hell, even take it to the police.

[hibsbollah]

:faf:

You:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=1975975#post1975975)
Leaving the muslim bit aside, at what point did it become a matter of shame to claim benefits? :confused:


Killiehibs:


This is a different debate and has nothing to do with the story. You are specifically asking why people should be ashamed to claim benefits. Are you following?

How are the NOTW claiming that he should agree with our foreign policy because he is Muslim? I don't see it. I'm sure there's a lot more non Muslim people in this country who disagree with our FP.

They've ran a story that says this guy is claiming benefits and that he is a a Muslim hate preacher.

The outrage comes into play when this guy is claiming our tax money whilst preaching that we should be killed as we're infidels.

If you think that the NOTW have some kind of agenda against a particular part of society then I suggest that you write to them or I'm sure there is a regulator for newpapers. Hell, even take it to the police.

Yes, I was asking what is there to be ashamed of in claiming benefits. So what? it hasnt got anything to do with islam or 'extremism' or anything, but its still linked to the article.

You then say "The outrage comes into play when this guy is claiming our tax money whilst preaching that we should be killed as we're infidels" Exactly. Thats the question I raised:top marksYou've seen my point finally, although I think you probably did so by accident.

[Woody1985]

Yes, I was asking what is there to be ashamed of in claiming benefits. So what? it hasnt got anything to do with islam or 'extremism' or anything, but its still linked to the article.

You then say "The outrage comes into play when this guy is claiming our tax money whilst preaching that we should be killed as we're infidels" Exactly. Thats the question I raised:top marksYou've seen my point finally, although I think you probably did so by accident.

I never said it did. That's why I raised some general issues regarding the benefit system without the mention of Islamism / extremism. You said you were asking Killiehibs direct questions about the benefit system... Are you following? Regardless of whether they are referred to in the article, you were asking specific questions about the benefit system. Do you think if I say it enough times that it will sink in?

And here was me thinking that your point was that the NOTW were victimising this man because he's a Muslim and doesn't agree with the countries foreign policy and therefore shouldn't be allowed to claim benefits.

Jesus, where's LiverpoolHibs when you need him for a debate? :greengrin At least we can agree on what we're acutally debating.

[hibsbollah]

I never said it did. That's why I raised some general issues regarding the benefit system without the mention of Islamism / extremism. You said you were asking Killiehibs direct questions about the benefit system... Are you following? Regardless of whether they are referred to in the article, you were asking specific questions about the benefit system. Do you think if I say it enough times that it will sink in?

And here was me thinking that your point was that the NOTW were victimising this man because he's a Muslim and doesn't agree with the countries foreign policy and therefore shouldn't be allowed to claim benefits.

Jesus, where's LiverpoolHibs when you need him for a debate? :greengrin At least we can agree on what we're acutally debating.

I am totally lost as to what you are talking about:faf: Ah well, since you are clearly confused what i'm talking about and vice versa, I think i'll call it a night.

[Sir David Gray]

I am saying the story holds no credibility at all because there is no evidence that he is claiming benefits while working. Are you following?

As to your question about my final point; I was putting forward some suggestions as to why the NOTW ran the story. One suggestion was the NOTW were suggesting that 'he should agree with our foreign policy if he wants to claim our state benefits' and then I suggested in brackets (probably).

I hope you don't think i'm still 'spouting pish', I think i've been quite clear. Since you've suggested I 'leave the country' and hoped another poster becomes a victim of terrorism, I think its pretty clear you are the only 'extremist' on this thread:greengrin

:boo hoo: I thought I had exclusive rights to that title after my contribution to the Israel thread. I want to be the only extremist on Hibs.net.

:fuming:

[Betty Boop]

:boo hoo: I thought I had exclusive rights to that title after my contribution to the Israel thread. I want to be the only extremist on Hibs.net.
:fuming: :faf:

[Killiehibbie]

Is claiming welfare benefits OK if you are disabled or made redundant? How long does it take before someone 'in need' becomes a 'milker', whatever that is? 6 months? a year? longer?

Sorry I was at work and missed your question. There are certain people in this country who have no intention of ever doing an honest days work and will claim all sorts of benefits. These people will often have jobs paying cash in hand or just don't want to work. Nobody should deny genuinely unemployed or unable to work people the benefits they get. A lot of it is down to the system which rewards the chancers.

[BravestHibs]

Maybe so but I'm sick of all the pandering to these racist, divisive *****.

If I go out on the street now with placards saying death to Muslim soldiers, death to the people killing our troops etc etc I'd be hung, drawn and quartered in no time at all.

The fact that you read the NOTW does not in itself mean that you are stupid. It's the fact that you don't appear to read anything else in order to get a balanced perspective.

I don't know if you are fully aware but certain papers take a very definite stance on certain subjects, the NOTW/Sun make no secret of the xenophobic and extremely right wing stance. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, I'm merely stating facts. When a story like this comes up it isn't that they are outright lying but that they are ommitting large portions of the story to fit their own agenda. It makes you look like a fool if you get right behind a story like that without checking out other versions of events from non partisan sources such as the Independent or the BBC. The NOTW is lazy journalism written for people that have already made up their narrow, little minds.

[Woody1985]

The fact that you read the NOTW does not in itself mean that you are stupid. It's the fact that you don't appear to read anything else in order to get a balanced perspective.

I don't know if you are fully aware but certain papers take a very definite stance on certain subjects, the NOTW/Sun make no secret of the xenophobic and extremely right wing stance. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, I'm merely stating facts. When a story like this comes up it isn't that they are outright lying but that they are ommitting large portions of the story to fit their own agenda. It makes you look like a fool if you get right behind a story like that without checking out other versions of events from non partisan sources such as the Independent or the BBC. The NOTW is lazy journalism written for people that have already made up their narrow, little minds.

:faf:

So I've not read anything else?

Well here's a few different sources I've read on this subject and the Luton one:

Sunday Times
NOTW
Sunday Mail
BBC News reports
Sky News reports
Viewed independant videos posted here.

I've also read and discussed with a few people on here.

Is that enough to get a balanced view for you or I am I still a fool because I don't like pandering to sick twisted racists?

[BravestHibs]

Pandering to sick twisted racists? Who's been doing that?

You're idea of getting a balanced view includes reading reports from four sources owned by the same person. Sky News/The Sun/NOTW/The Times all owned by Rupert Murdoch. What makes you think that they would give a balanced view? Fair play for taking in the BBC's version of events as well though. As for the Sunday Mail well, they are famous the world over as bastion of fair and unbiased journalism right enough.

So no actually I don't think you have a fair and unbiased view.

Pandering to sick twisted racists! Hhahahahahahahahahah! You should write the headlines for the fair and unbiased newspapers you read.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why aren't the soldiers at least partly responsible? They have a duty to disobey orders that they believe to be illegal, therefore they too share some of the responsibility.

[The_Todd]

:faf:

So I've not read anything else?

Well here's a few different sources I've read on this subject and the Luton one:

Sunday Times
NOTW
Sunday Mail
BBC News reports
Sky News reports
Viewed independant videos posted here.

I've also read and discussed with a few people on here.

Is that enough to get a balanced view for you or I am I still a fool because I don't like pandering to sick twisted racists?

With exception of the BBC and Sunday Mail (unless you mean Mail on Sunday), you've quoted right-wing sources as your "balanced view".

BBC News is the only source I truly trust TBH.

[hibsbollah]

Why aren't the soldiers at least partly responsible? They have a duty to disobey orders that they believe to be illegal, therefore they too share some of the responsibility.

Soldiers are untouchable, Fergus. The only 'political correctness' really at work in the British media and in British civil society is that The Queen, Our Brave Troops and possibly, Cheryl Cole, are exempt from any form of direct criticism. If you break this golden rule, expect the worst:wink:

[Mon Dieu4]

Soldiers are untouchable, Fergus. The only 'political correctness' really at work in the British media and in British civil society is that The Queen, Our Brave Troops and possibly, Cheryl Cole, are exempt from any form of direct criticism. If you break this golden rule, expect the worst:wink:

Leave Cheryl out of this :grr:

[hibsbollah]

Leave Cheryl out of this :grr:

Manky Geordie strumpet:grr:
see, just wait, i'm in trouble now:paranoid:

[(((Fergus)))]

Soldiers are untouchable, Fergus. The only 'political correctness' really at work in the British media and in British civil society is that The Queen, Our Brave Troops and possibly, Cheryl Cole, are exempt from any form of direct criticism. If you break this golden rule, expect the worst:wink:

It's surprising how much lip-service is paid* to the troops in this country, only for them to be sent to world's hell-holes without proper equipment and told to GTF if they get themselves injured, physically or mentally.

The army itself seems hamstrung by its own traditions where they are desperate to uphold their reputation for bravery, professionalism, etc., etc., regardless of their role, be it "ridding the world of nazism" or massacring protesters in Amritsar, Croke Park or Glen Coe.



* EDIT: It's not surprising really, talk is cheaper than actual money.

[Betty Boop]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22210.htm

[Woody1985]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22210.htm

I understand your point BB.

However, there are two things that get me.

1. It was the wrong place and the wrong time.
2. If the Muslim people of Luton felt so strongly on the issue why were there only 12 people. I think someone mentioned earlier that 20,000 leaflets were distributed to Muslims.

On a separate note, why where the 20,000 leaflets only distributed to Muslims if Muslims feel part of the community? Surely they could drum up interest from non Muslims regarding the illegal war in IRAQ.

Have their been any protests where Muslims and non Muslims have demonstrated together? Genuine question as I don't recall seeing any reported.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I understand your point BB.

However, there are two things that get me.

1. It was the wrong place and the wrong time.
2. If the Muslim people of Luton felt so strongly on the issue why were there only 12 people. I think someone mentioned earlier that 20,000 leaflets were distributed to Muslims.

On a separate note, why where the 20,000 leaflets only distributed to Muslims if Muslims feel part of the community? Surely they could drum up interest from non Muslims regarding the illegal war in IRAQ.

Have their been any protests where Muslims and non Muslims have demonstrated together? Genuine question as I don't recall seeing any reported.

Erm, yeah. Just about every anti-war protest since 2002.

[Betty Boop]

I understand your point BB.

However, there are two things that get me.

1. It was the wrong place and the wrong time.
2. If the Muslim people of Luton felt so strongly on the issue why were there only 12 people. I think someone mentioned earlier that 20,000 leaflets were distributed to Muslims.

On a separate note, why where the 20,000 leaflets only distributed to Muslims if Muslims feel part of the community? Surely they could drum up interest from non Muslims regarding the illegal war in IRAQ.

Have their been any protests where Muslims and non Muslims have demonstrated together? Genuine question as I don't recall seeing any reported. I don't know about Homecoming Parades, but I have been on many marches with Muslims, demonstrations against the war in Iraq, the Israeli bombardment of Gaza,etc. I don't know of any Homecoming Parades up here?

[hibsdaft]

On a separate note, why where the 20,000 leaflets only distributed to Muslims if Muslims feel part of the community? Surely they could drum up interest from non Muslims regarding the illegal war in IRAQ.

Have their been any protests where Muslims and non Muslims have demonstrated together? Genuine question as I don't recall seeing any reported.

hi, it was me that mentioned the 20,000 - i said 20,000 muslims but this was actually my own presumption, it may have been 20,000 people generally.

reason i made that presumption is that these people are not ordinary muslims they are an extremist grouping (i've mentioned this several times on this thread already) and thats why every prominent muslim has come out and slated them in the last week including shaid malik MP, amir khan and the wifey on question time last week who called them nutters.

also yes every mainstream anti-war demonstration in the past 6 years have been attended by both muslims and non-muslims. i went to some of them too.