UK net migration hits record high

[Withdean11]

Strange that we have people that bring up what the British were like from sometimes centuries ago, yet placards from less than 10 years ago seem irrelevant.

Exactly. Then they use phrases such as "if it suits your arguement"

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes, but as we are discussing placards that actually break the law, and not those that offend your own personal sensibilities or beliefs, your entire post is irrelevant.
The reason they are being discussed is, that some posters on NSC are of the belief that the ultra extreme placards are current. They are not, and some people are projecting this myth to promote religious bigotry.

OK, they may not be as current as you wish, and as previous posts may have indicated, but you are of course seizing on a relatively minor point, and then jumping to the conclusion that the intention is to promote religious bigotry. I am not quite sure what you mean by myth - you do not state this accurately. Whether the placards are from this year or whenever, the fact is that these people with a very dangerous agenda quite clearly exist, as you know. And it might just be that the pictures of the placards are others' attempts to warn the gullible of what exists within the muslim community.This is far more the issue than you trying desperately to tie folk down to whatever year to gain some sort of upmanship.

 

[Creaky]

Strange that we have people that bring up what the British were like from sometimes centuries ago, yet placards from less than 10 years ago seem irrelevant.

Personally I think they are closely linked.

Both, whilst pretty much irrelevant are used to generalise whole communities and to justify anti-British or anti-Muslim sentiments.

 

[daveinprague]

OK, they may not be as current as you wish, and as previous posts may have indicated, but you are of course seizing on a relatively minor point, and then jumping to the conclusion that the intention is to promote religious bigotry. I am not quite sure what you mean by myth - you do not state this accurately. Whether the placards are from this year or whenever, the fact is that these people with a very dangerous agenda quite clearly exist, as you know. And it might just be that the pictures of the placards are others' attempts to warn the gullible of what exists within the muslim community.This is far more the issue than you trying desperately to tie folk down to whatever year to gain some sort of upmanship.

Sorry, my point is not about upmanship. It is about people promoting these criminal placards as current, when they are not. Im sorry, but i really dont consider 10 years ago as current.

 

[Soulman]

When they are promoted as 'current', for racial, and religious bigotry purposes, it is not irrelevant, as much as you would like it to be.,

Are you talking about centuries ago or does your racial and religious bigotry apply to the placard wavers as well.

 

[Hastings gull]

The protests were a few hundred people, lets call them horrible hate filled extremists, directly after the Danish cartoons were published. Saying this mob is representative of anything is like saying an EDL organised march is representative of Britain. Both equally revolting in my book.

I think we might certainly agree on the description of the rabble. I accept that I might have missed to what you are referring, but has anyone claimed that these characters on both sides of the divide are representative of anything other than an irresponsible minority. You could certainly say that the waving of highly inflammatory placards is representative of extreme opinion found within the Muslim community, as you can claim about EDL etc.

 

[Hastings gull]

Sorry, my point is not about upmanship. It is about people promoting these criminal placards as current, when they are not. Im sorry, but i really dont consider 10 years ago as current.

OK, so you don't, but it is a minor point, surely. It is the beliefs that go behind the placards as what we should be concentrating on!

 

[daveinprague]

OK, so you don't, but it is a minor point, surely. It is the beliefs that go behind the placards as what we should be concentrating on!

Yes, we all know there are people who do harbour these views, but we all know they are a tiny minority of the muslims in the UK, why are people trying to project a lie that these placards are current, and representing Islam (there have been people saying they want all of Islam out of the UK) if not to promote racial bigotry?

 

[BigGully]

Yes, we all know there are people who do harbour these views, but we all know they are a tiny minority of the muslims in the UK, why are people trying to project a lie that these placards are current, and representing Islam (there have been people saying they want all of Islam out of the UK) if not to promote racial bigotry?

For me it isnt the jihadists, or those on the streets with placades that are the main problem, although I happen to think them as cretins its how you get to that stage in the first place and who are left in their wake still harbouring extremist views without that obvious exposure


So you have a first tier that go to Syria and fight against us.

You then have a second tier that wont go but support ISIS and their ideology.

Then the third tier, that tacitly support their actions and tier by tier it becomes a pyramid of grievance against the west.

If analysed you quickly go from a tiny minority of extremists, to a sizeable amount with some empathy towards those more extremists views driven by a religion ideology demanding priority above any other considerations.

Most religions harbour a similar tribalism or have done in the past, to dismiss as a tiny minority is naive.

 

[BadFish]

Whilst you are not directly commenting on what anyone else does, it is indeed hard to interpret your post any other way, as a dig, particularly as you also wrote something to the effect that "wight-wingers" lack compassion. Given that the post has claimed financial hardship, which you also claim to suffer from, and I am not disputing this for one moment, you can now see that that assertion from you was crude, to put it mildly.

I said 'good on you' about someone doing a good thing. If you take that as a dig or see it as crude then I think it says a lot. If you don't like it then that is between you and your interpretation.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

For me it isnt the jihadists, or those on the streets with placades that are the main problem, although I happen to think them as cretins its how you get to that stage in the first place and who are left in their wake still harbouring extremist views without that obvious exposure


So you have a first tier that go to Syria and fight against us.

You then have a second tier that wont go but support ISIS and their ideology.

Then the third tier, that tacitly support their actions and tier by tier it becomes a pyramid of grievance against the west.

If analysed you quickly go from a tiny minority of extremists, to a sizeable amount with some empathy towards those more extremists views driven by a religion ideology demanding priority above any other considerations.

Most religions harbour a similar tribalism or have done in the past, to dismiss as a tiny minority is naive.

Your right, nobody is looking at the bigger picture here. Have a read of this below.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260019/hijrah-europe-robert-spencer

 

[Hastings gull]

I said 'good on you' about someone doing a good thing. If you take that as a dig or see it as crude then I think it says a lot.

No, that is NOT what I said,as you well know - and you say that I do not comprehend matters! You quite rightly lauded EC for taking in a family, or at least saying that he will, and Pastafarian said that he would do the same, were his circumstances such that it would be feasible. Given that this honourable correspondent rightly took you to task for your disgraceful and hypocritical assertion that "right-wingers" whatever that might mean, moan about immigration to cover up their lack of compassion, it made your comment all the more crude in its generalisation about others.

 

[Soulman]

I think we might certainly agree on the description of the rabble. I accept that I might have missed to what you are referring, but has anyone claimed that these characters on both sides of the divide are representative of anything other than an irresponsible minority. You could certainly say that the waving of highly inflammatory placards is representative of extreme opinion found within the Muslim community, as you can claim about EDL etc.

Bearing in mind that the EDL were not formed when this demo and these photos and placards were displayed, still nothing like deflecting.

 

[BadFish]

No, that is NOT what I said,as you well know - and you say that I do not comprehend matters! You quite rightly lauded EC for taking in a family, or at least saying that he will, and Pastafarian said that he would do the same, were his circumstances such that it would be feasible. Given that this honourable correspondent rightly took you to task for your disgraceful and hypocritical assertion that "right-wingers" whatever that might mean, moan about immigration to cover up their lack of compassion, it made your comment all the more crude in its generalisation about others.

Good on Eric

 

[Buzzer]

hahaha Thanks for posting the pictures from 2006 for me. Try and keep up. Maybe even read what people are discussing before you make a prat of yourself.

The police were criticised in July this year for not arresting a man draped in an ISIS flag right outside the Houses of Parliament. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ear-parliament-not-arrested-police-criticised

I reckon that's just as offensive as any placard. There were also a fair few Hezbollah and Hamas flags being carried by the people protesting at Netanyahu's visit to Downing Street the other week. I think one arrest was made but the rest of the people carrying the flags of proscribed organisations were allowed to wander about freely.

Bear in mind this though: Paul Weston – chairman of the ‘LibertyGB’ group and former UKIP parliamentary candidate – was bundled into the back of a police van in April 2014 for quoting a paragraph on Islam from Churchill’s book The River War. He was charged under the Public Order Act 1986, which states that a person may be guilty of a crime if they “display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. I'm no fan of this LibertyGB group but it does rather seem a tad unfair to go heavy-handed on just one side in this messy business.

So...that's 2 months ago and a few weeks ago that flags of proscribed terror organisations have been allowed to fly right outside the very heart of British democracy. Recent enough for you?

 

[Hastings gull]

Personally I think they are closely linked.

Both, whilst pretty much irrelevant are used to generalise whole communities and to justify anti-British or anti-Muslim sentiments.

I am pretty certain that I have not see anyone claim that the waving of placards is a way of generalising about whole communities - it is blatantly obvious that this is not the case. The only generalisation is your assertion that others do this.

 

[Hastings gull]

The police were criticised in July this year for not arresting a man draped in an ISIS flag right outside the Houses of Parliament. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ear-parliament-not-arrested-police-criticised

I reckon that's just as offensive as any placard. There were also a fair few Hezbollah and Hamas flags being carried by the people protesting at Netanyahu's visit to Downing Street the other week. I think one arrest was made but the rest of the people carrying the flags of proscribed organisations were allowed to wander about freely.

Bear in mind this though: Paul Weston – chairman of the ‘LibertyGB’ group and former UKIP parliamentary candidate – was bundled into the back of a police van in April 2014 for quoting a paragraph on Islam from Churchill’s book The River War. He was charged under the Public Order Act 1986, which states that a person may be guilty of a crime if they “display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. I'm no fan of this LibertyGB group but it does rather seem a tad unfair to go heavy-handed on just one side in this messy business.

So...that's 2 months ago and a few weeks ago that flags of proscribed terror organisations have been allowed to fly right outside the very heart of British democracy. Recent enough for you?

But whatever happens, we must not be wacist.

 

[sydney]

Bear in mind this though: Paul Weston – chairman of the ‘LibertyGB’ group and former UKIP parliamentary candidate – was bundled into the back of a police van in April 2014 for quoting a paragraph on Islam from Churchill’s book The River War. He was charged under the Public Order Act 1986, which states that a person may be guilty of a crime if they “display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. I'm no fan of this LibertyGB group but it does rather seem a tad unfair to go heavy-handed on just one side in this messy business.

So...that's 2 months ago and a few weeks ago that flags of proscribed terror organisations have been allowed to fly right outside the very heart of British democracy. Recent enough for you?

oh stop....he'll get upset...!! ffs yer wasting yer breath.....get him to have a look at the muslim march , nelson , lancashire......thousands of 'em marching through the streets ....now i'm sorry but if you don't think that yer average 70-80 year old person in that village would find that intimidating or distressing then you may well have a potato for a brain....!

 

[Soulman]

oh stop....he'll get upset...!! ffs yer wasting yer breath.....get him to have a look at the muslim march , nelson , lancashire......thousands of 'em marching through the streets ....now i'm sorry but if you don't think that yer average 70-80 year old person in that village would find that intimidating or distressing then you may well have a potato for a brain....!

There are loads of examples and having links that are just cast off as right wing blogs or papers like the DM, I posted actual footage, even that gets slated and twisted even though it is not the gory stuff of which there is plenty of that as well. We need cultures that integrates and respects this country, most do, an increasing and vocal minority (minority at the moment ) don't.

 

[symyjym]

The 'mistake' you are making with all the examples you give is that they are all examples of calls to increase the 'home' population with the exception of that made by Houari Boumédienne, which in any case was a prediction rather than the advocacy of a strategy. There seems to be a general assumption that second and third generations of immigrants follow the same religion and culture of their parents and grandparents.

The evidence is that the family size of these later generations actually falls to a level more in line with the overall birth rate - as regards religion, whilst children do tend to follow that of their parents and there are examples of some of these children being more 'devout' than their parents the general trend is for them to take a far more liberal attitude.

Any call for Muslims in the West to 'breed' faster in order to gain 'power', even if any notice is taken of the call, is likely to be self defeating as it will only produce more individuals with greater ties to their country of birth rather than that of their parents or grandparents.

I haven't made a mistake. All I have said, in my original comment, is a call to breed.................

..............is what civilisations and religions have done throughout history. Out breeding your enemy is pretty much the standard so it is nothing new.

There is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Whether it works or not, and under what circumstances home or away, is a different debate altogether.

Maybe for nitpicking purposes I could have said " ..........it is what civilisations and religions have pitched throughout history. Out breeding your enemy/competitor is pretty much a standard philosophy historically, has been preached by many, so it is nothing new"

Is what the so called "top Imam" said a revelation? No it's not. That was my point.