Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:What about if a white bloke made such a protest. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

This has nothing to do with the colour of a man's skin but the words and ideology he holds. If these hate-spewing bastards were white, red, yellow or green, they would still be bastards and unworthy of the protection or support of this country, ready as they are to identify themselves as it's enemy.

Agreed. They are enemies of the state, pure and simple. I would bet my balls that these idiots are fundraising in their communities for jihadist groups, and providing materials, assistance and intelligence for terrorists. Their skin colour is of no interest to me. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

They are traitors, and traitors must hang. Just my feeling on the matter.

I don't know about providing intelligence, they don't have any!

The groups no longer need people scouting areas for intel all they need is facebook and google earth! Been to a few internet and mobile phone security briefings and it is quite scary how much info someone in their own home can (and do) take from your online and mobile phone presence, even if they're not one of your registered friends.

Croyden coucil puts poppies on lamposts


http://www.croydon.gov.uk/democracy/councilnews/998596

loki old fart wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I think thats pretty funny, i mean, they must have spent a bloody fortune on all those poppies.

GOOD

Mmmm... I do like a bit of jet-black irony with my morning coffee.

Kilkrazy wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yes, banish them. Load them into a cannon and fire them into the Sun.

On a serious note, any person born in the UK cannot be sent to a foreign nation, they are our problem.
...

That includes these protestors.

Its the fact that they say they are not british, if they don't want to be british, immigration works both ways and they can emmigrate to the country they identify themselves with, this is coming from saying 'our' instead of their in relation to iraq and afganistan.

If a small group of white/black/hispanic/sikh/aboriginy/jewish/buddist/east asian/chinese/mongolians etc staged the same protest they would still be hole douchebags, its not because they are muslims, its cos they are douchebags

I didn't go to my old local shop and start shouting at the british-pakistani shop owner telling him to leave the country and neither does he, why? because he was born here, he's a nice guy and he likes living here, he was my neighbour, i bought my fizzy pop from him, we talked about the front covers of the papers and wished each other a good day. If you hate 99% of a population of the country you are in MOVE, its not hard.

I don't think it is possible simply to resign one nationality and take up another one.

I'm sorry haven't you heard about immigration and emmigration, you move to a country, you live there, then apply to be a citizen. if you hate a country as much as these people, its not hard.

I have heard of immigration, actually.

I have been legally briefed on immigration procedures between the UK, USA, Japan, and other countries, as part of my job, which involves recruitment and selection.

You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.

To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.

It doesn't matter how much you hate a country. That will not enhance your ability to become a millionaire or get the qualifications needed to obtain a working visa to a different country.

This is a highly emotive issue. I am sure that all of us strongly oppose the actions of protestors in this kind of situation.

As with the Westboro Baptists, however, they have a constitutional right to express their views as long as it is done within the law.

Isn’t it a core part of democracy that citizens who are dissatisfied with their government’s actions may hold a public protest about it?

I’m not saying I agree with them, their cause, or their way of protest. But, at base, our grandparents and parents actually did fight two great wars so that this kind of prick could choose to spoil an Armistice Day event by making a political protest.

I know that is unpleasant given our own feelings, however it is a sign of the rule of law that we have in this country.

The best thing to do is maintain a dignified silence in ignoring them, and take satisfaction from the fact that it is a tiny number of people involved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 30 extremist people do not constitute a threat to any of our policies. Seriously. The BNP have proven this time and again, haven't they?

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What a bunch of jerkoffs.

Why doesn't another group show up to pelt them them bacon?

I am currently developing bacon grenades for tactical usage.

I'm torn. Although te goal in this instance is admirable, the nonfood related misuse of bacon is a crime against humanity. Mmmm....bacon!!!!

Solution: Douse them in Bacon Grease preferably HOT grease.

-Unclean
-Hot as feth
-no wasted Bacon!

I could agree with kk except for the fact that the law can be played like a fiddle. Its all very well to sit and be silent, but that doesn't achieve anything. If I set up a burn a Koran protest over the road from them, doubtless they would find some way of weaseling around it. Get me arrested for 'inciting religious hatred' or some such nonsense while they legally crack on burning poppies. They know the law and they beat us hands down, which is why we need to get far more aggressive with these fething pigs before people get disillusioned en masse and start joining the frigging EDL or something. Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control. Would the BNP have got a MEP elected if we didn't gave such a lax immigration process in the first place?

I think not.

mattyrm wrote:Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control.

Not aimed at me, I hope?

Well, I've always been one to consider that religion should not be above the law. If someone wears a "God hates gays" t-shirt and argues that their religion allows it, I say prosecute them anyway. The law is there for a reason, and that's to stop that kind of behaviour. Unfortunately, they are rather adept at wriggling the system, so yes, perhaps it's time we gave some serious thought as to how to counter it.

mattyrm wrote:I could agree with kk except for the fact that the law can be played like a fiddle.

It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.

mattyrm wrote:Its all very well to sit and be silent, but that doesn't achieve anything. If I set up a burn a Koran protest over the road from them, doubtless they would find some way of weaseling around it. Get me arrested for 'inciting religious hatred' or some such nonsense while they legally crack on burning poppies.

You will indeed be arrested for inciting religious hatred. Poppies are not a religion. Campaign for Parliament either to remove the "religious hatred" law, so we can be like the USA, or else to create a law protecting other symbols.

mattyrm wrote:They know the law and they beat us hands down, which is why we need to get far more aggressive with these fething pigs before people get disillusioned en masse and start joining the frigging EDL or something. Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control. Would the BNP have got a MEP elected if we didn't gave such a lax immigration process in the first place?

I think not.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have a strong law against immigration of non-white people. That is exactly what the BNP want.

Exactly, your argument falls down in the first sentence because the law OS just written down by some guys and is inevitably filled with loopholes, easily exploited loopholes when Anjem is a bloody lawyer.

The simple answer is simply to ask yourself objectively, is something morally right or wrong? If they can burn poppies but I would get jailed for doing the same to a Koran then it is flat out wrong, and no amount of leftwing wordplay will alter it.

For the record, I support their right to burn poppies. If you recall a past thread, I supported their right to march through cotton basset as well. But I want the SAME treatment. If they can be purposely crass, cruel and offensive then I demand the right to do the same and call their illiterate paedophile prophet a savage, bare in mind all of that is factual and historically accurate, why can't I say it?

This is ridiculously unfair double standards and it winds people up to the point that they can be spurred to violence because of it, and sticking our fingers in our ears is a very very dangerous thing to do.

And I'm curious, What makes something a religion? If me and ten friends want to worship poppies and our temple is my house, is that alright?

Burn the Koran- things explode

Burn Poppies- people get semi-mad but within the bounds of the law.


OT- when I first read your post, Mattyrm I thought you said "burn puppies". lol silly Yank that I am...

Oh and excuse spelling etc.. I'm on my phone going to the airport.

mattyrm wrote:
The simple answer is simply to ask yourself objectively, is something morally right or wrong? If they can burn poppies but I would get jailed for doing the same to a Koran then it is flat out wrong, and no amount of leftwing wordplay will alter it.

For the record, I support their right to burn poppies. If you recall a past thread, I supported their right to march through cotton basset as well. But I want the SAME treatment. If they can be purposely crass, cruel and offensive then I demand the right to do the same and call their illiterate paedophile prophet a savage, bare in mind all of that is factual and historically accurate, why can't I say it?

This is the problem. Right there. You are demanding retribution and upping the ante at the same time. Burning poppies is one thing as it is a symbol of support but trashing somones religious beliefs is totally different.

The only way is to ignore the random pillock and concentrate on the majority. Some don't even believe it, they just do it knowing that to fart in the right place gives you worldwide attention in this day and age of instant streaming to almost everyone on the planet. So, the only logical notion is to ignore them because in that way they don't get as much exposure as they want. Debate it for days or weeks on end keeps it going and keep the moronic few in the limelight.

So why does religion get superior treatment? How is it legal to be rude and offensive and callous and crass about causes and organisations but not legal with regards to religious causes or organisations?

Easy answer. It isn't fair and the law needs changing.

The law protects both sides. Just because we have nothing to strike them back with so therefore argue that we need to adjust the law so we can take some advantage is arguably the whole point of why we have laws.

The hard answer is to keep going until we are at the point where we are changing laws just so we can have a little bit more revenge each time, which is what you're proposing.

The only answer really is to ignore them.

One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.

The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.

Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.

Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.

Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.

To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.

You forget how easy it is to get into a country like pakistan or yeman, especially if you are muslim, they also have no way of finding people in these countries (you don'yt see osama bin laden getting deported from iraq/pakistan by there immigration police), if you want to live in those countries you need a couple of grand (making you better off than 99% of the population and a passport to travel over the boarder).

immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard

Kilkrazy wrote:It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.

this is not true at all, if you are poor you get longer sentences, if you are male you get longer sentences, if you confess you get shorter sentences


paris hilton type gets found with heroin = a couple of weeks
a random 21 year old male from a council estate gets years

the rule of law is not equal

Much as it would please my heart to see it (but then I am an embittered old soul), I can't in good conscience agree that burning a Koran is a measured and reasonable response, however irritating these people are. What I would say is that if these people are immigrants to this country, then surely the process of immigration can allow us to reverse their entry into this country and send them home, no?

It seems to me we are sometimes a bit too fair and a bit too welcoming for our own good. I don't think you would see this in some other countries (France for example).

BluntmanDC wrote:

immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard

the rule of law is not equal

I am just wondering how you know this?

Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.

It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.

I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.

To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.

You forget how easy it is to get into a country like pakistan or yeman, especially if you are muslim, they also have no way of finding people in these countries (you don'yt see osama bin laden getting deported from iraq/pakistan by there immigration police), if you want to live in those countries you need a couple of grand (making you better off than 99% of the population and a passport to travel over the boarder).

immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard

Kilkrazy wrote:It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.

this is not true at all, if you are poor you get longer sentences, if you are male you get longer sentences, if you confess you get shorter sentences


paris hilton type gets found with heroin = a couple of weeks
a random 21 year old male from a council estate gets years

the rule of law is not equal

To which country are you going to illegally emigrate?

The reason that Pakistan et al don't have the same immigration controls that we do here in the UK is quite simply because they don't need to. They don't provide social security and asylum benefits in the same way that we do so their only real duty is border control. If you are granted access to the country there is no real onus on making you leave.

Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.

The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.

Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.

Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.

Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.

By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?

Alb, preach on brother!

Albatross wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.

The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.

Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.

Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.

Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.

By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?

Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.

Elmodiddly wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard

the rule of law is not equal

I am just wondering how you know this?

Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.

It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.

I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.

i never said it was an easy place to find a job, i was saying its easy to get into and stay, as proved by UK muslims going to terrorist training camps in the middle east.

as to the law, it is not a belief, it is a fact.

if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time

George Michael served 4 weeks in prison, after multiple offences and commiting a dangerous crime that could have endangered the public, its safe to say you've given a pretty good example of an unequal legal system.

Killkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.

The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.

Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.

Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.

Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.

By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?

Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.

No where in his return did he say it was a good idea, he was saying that these small groups, demand respect from others by being douchebags, by being violent, by being verbally aggresive and under the anti-racism laws they get what they want.

BluntmanDC wrote:
if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time.

Well, for theory 1 I would simply say, where's the proof? The same would go for no 2.
Theory 3 I would state that it goes without saying and is quite obvious why the man who pleads guilty gets less time.
Theory 4 is as per 3 really; it is so obvious that if one can't see the reasons behind them then no wonder you think examples 1 and 2 actually exist and there is probably nothing that anyone can say which would convince you otherwise.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard

the rule of law is not equal

I am just wondering how you know this?

Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.

It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.

I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.

i never said it was an easy place to find a job, i was saying its easy to get into and stay, as proved by UK muslims going to terrorist training camps in the middle east.

as to the law, it is not a belief, it is a fact.

if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time

George Michael served 4 weeks in prison, after multiple offences and commiting a dangerous crime that could have endangered the public, its safe to say you've given a pretty good example of an unequal legal system.

Killkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.

The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.

Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.

Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.

Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.

By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?

Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.

No where in his return did he say it was a good idea, he was saying that these small groups, demand respect from others by being douchebags, by being violent, by being verbally aggresive and under the anti-racism laws they get what they want.

It would be better to leave Albatross to respond to the point, so that you might have the time to answer the question I put to you.