George Ferguson (Merged many times)

[The Batman]

Phone is being gimpy regarding responding to you guys about my BBC 7/7 coverage. Just a tad of tongue in cheek regarding. Ultimately I call things how I see them then dig further. It works both for and against things I believe in.

For example, there is only 1 known security video of the plane hitting the Pentagon and only 1 known video from a documentary maker of the plane hitting tower 1.... As if. 

Slightly off topic, but just had to add. 

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, The Batman said:

Phone is being gimpy regarding responding to you guys about my BBC 7/7 coverage. Just a tad of tongue in cheek regarding. Ultimately I call things how I see them then dig further. It works both for and against things I believe in.

For example, there is only 1 known security video of the plane hitting the Pentagon and only 1 known video from a documentary maker of the plane hitting tower 1.... As if. 

Slightly off topic, but just had to add. 

And only 1 video of people on the moon

[Kid in the Riot]

18 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

And only 1 video of people on the moon

And  1 copy of Pamela Anderson's porn video, so presumably that didn't actually happen either!

[Lanterne Rouge]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

And  1 copy of Pamela Anderson's porn video, so presumably that didn't actually happen either!

Well, I`ve watched it dozens of times and I`m fairly confident it did!

[Kid in the Riot]

16 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Which? This: " So as I surmised, punish the many for the acts of the few? As always, your opinion is very much one you're entitled to, but I certainly disagree with it " ?

Not really, my answer addressed your point, why should 'the many' Europeans give way to the needs and demands of the proportionally few Muslims? 

I'll explain more clearly.  'Punish the many for the acts of the few' doesn't come into it.  I mean, let's say there was a spate of murders by Poles (as an example  - and for the record, I like Poles!), no I don't mean let's kick-out all the Polish people. Specifically what I am saying is stop bloody mass immigration from muslim lands because these guys are causing problems. So let's stem the source.  Then let's pull all support for their religion: I don't see it as compatible with our society. You could see this as punishing the many, but I see it as an act of self-defense. As the muslim community grows so do their demands and their assertiveness. I am against it. Either they adapt or they are not compatible.

Yes - we get it. You are willing to turn a blind eye to the misdemeanors / serious crime of people of certain religions or races but not muslims.

[richwwtk]

20 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Which? This: " So as I surmised, punish the many for the acts of the few? As always, your opinion is very much one you're entitled to, but I certainly disagree with it " ?

Not really, my answer addressed your point, why should 'the many' Europeans give way to the needs and demands of the proportionally few Muslims? 

I'll explain more clearly.  'Punish the many for the acts of the few' doesn't come into it.  I mean, let's say there was a spate of murders by Poles (as an example  - and for the record, I like Poles!), no I don't mean let's kick-out all the Polish people. Specifically what I am saying is stop bloody mass immigration from muslim lands because these guys are causing problems. So let's stem the source.  Then let's pull all support for their religion: I don't see it as compatible with our society. You could see this as punishing the many, but I see it as an act of self-defense. As the muslim community grows so do their demands and their assertiveness. I am against it. Either they adapt or they are not compatible.

 

Where exactly are the demands and assertiveness? What I see is a Muslim community in which the vast majority are living their own lives and practising their religion without causing any major issues or problems. There maybe a few that act as you describe, but they are a tiny minority that should be dealt with directly, not dealt with by punishing all Muslims.

In what way are Muslims not compatible with society? They are one facet of the society in this country that encompasses all colours, creeds and faiths. Or are you only talking about pure-bred white English people? Everybody is free in this country to believe in what they want and live according to their beliefs. If they overstep the mark and start to affect other people adversely then the law is there to deal with them.

What exactly are you practising self defence of? Society now or society twenty or even fifty years ago? Society is constantly changing and if you suddenly decide you want to stop at one particular point in time then that seems like a very strange opinion to hold to me.

[Moloch]

6 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Rotherham.

Operation Voicer.

[Kid in the Riot]

8 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Everything you wrote in your second sentence is a misrepresentation of what I wrote.

Not going to defend yourself then? Think you're defending your country? But not even willing/able to defend yourself....pathetic.

Your views get more and more sinister with each post your make...I suspect if you repeated the stuff you no doubt post on your fanatical forums we'd get to find the real BB.

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, Big Brother said:

Which? This: " So as I surmised, punish the many for the acts of the few? As always, your opinion is very much one you're entitled to, but I certainly disagree with it " ?

Not really, my answer addressed your point, why should 'the many' Europeans give way to the needs and demands of the proportionally few Muslims? 

I'll explain more clearly.  'Punish the many for the acts of the few' doesn't come into it.  I mean, let's say there was a spate of murders by Poles (as an example  - and for the record, I like Poles!), no I don't mean let's kick-out all the Polish people. Specifically what I am saying is stop bloody mass immigration from muslim lands because these guys are causing problems. So let's stem the source.  Then let's pull all support for their religion: I don't see it as compatible with our society. You could see this as punishing the many, but I see it as an act of self-defense. As the muslim community grows so do their demands and their assertiveness. I am against it. Either they adapt or they are not compatible.

 

I kind of felt like you were twisting the obvious meaning of my point to avoid actually answering the question and reiterate your own view, but perhaps I misconstrued. Just so we're clear, I was referring to the idea that an entire subset of people should be punished because of the actions of a small minority. Maybe would could ban all white Europeans from coming to the uk because a staggering number of Catholic priests have abused children? 

Now, about this thorny subject of 'genetics' you brought up before. Have you started a business breeding 'dober-huahuas' and 'cocker-poos'? 

PS sorry to hear about your break in, that's genuinely awful for you and your neighbour

[marshy]

10 hours ago, richwwtk said:

Where exactly are the demands and assertiveness? What I see is a Muslim community in which the vast majority are living their own lives and practising their religion without causing any major issues or problems. There maybe a few that act as you describe, but they are a tiny minority that should be dealt with directly, not dealt with by punishing all Muslims.

In what way are Muslims not compatible with society? They are one facet of the society in this country that encompasses all colours, creeds and faiths. Or are you only talking about pure-bred white English people? Everybody is free in this country to believe in what they want and live according to their beliefs. If they overstep the mark and start to affect other people adversely then the law is there to deal with them.

What exactly are you practising self defence of? Society now or society twenty or even fifty years ago? Society is constantly changing and if you suddenly decide you want to stop at one particular point in time then that seems like a very strange opinion to hold to me.

I would love to agree with everything you have written but I came to a sticking point when you mentioned the concept of law. From what I read there seems to be a significant number of muslims in this country who wish to live under Sharia law. If that is what they want they should move to a country where Sharia is practised, not try to impose their views on the country where they have chosen to settle. In addition, thinking of compatibility it seems to me they have some way to go with regard to equality of the sexes, segregation etc.

[richwwtk]

10 minutes ago, marshy said:

I would love to agree with everything you have written but I came to a sticking point when you mentioned the concept of law. From what I read there seems to be a significant number of muslims in this country who wish to live under Sharia law. If that is what they want they should move to a country where Sharia is practised, not try to impose their views on the country where they have chosen to settle. In addition, thinking of compatibility it seems to me they have some way to go with regard to equality of the sexes, segregation etc.

If they want to live under Sharia law, so long as British law takes precedence and they don't impose it on anybody that doesn't want to, then let them.

Also, this might be a daft question, but are all people with Muslim sounding names really Muslims? Isn't that a bit like assuming anyone with a Christian name is a Christian? Why is it that all of these people that BB links stories about are presumed to be religious?

[TRL]

On 24/10/2015, 18:53:24, richwwtk said:

 

what!!!!!!!!! Sorry mate that is probably the worst thing I have ever read on this forum.  Let them practice sharia law as long as English law takes precedence?  How does that work? By the time our law has taken 3 or 4 months to get the wheels in motion... In the mean time sharia law has metered out its justice.

Sharia law has no place in British society so should not be practiced in these shores. If those who follow sharia wish to follow it then move to a country where it is the law. You cannot have two sets of laws... How long before sharia law is used against a non Muslim?  The day that happens in this country is the day that all havoc will be unleashed on the streets.  I hope I do not see it in my lifetime

[richwwtk]

37 minutes ago, TRL said:

what!!!!!!!!! Sorry mate that is probably the worst thing I have ever read on this forum.  Let them practice sharia law as long as English law takes precedence?  How does that work? By the time our law has taken 3 or 4 months to get the wheels in motion... In the mean time sharia law has metered out its justice.

Sharia law has no place in British society so should not be practiced in these shores. If those who follow sharia wish to follow it then move to a country where it is the law. You cannot have two sets of laws... How long before sharia law is used against a non Muslim?  The day that happens in this country is the day that all havoc will be unleashed on the streets.  I hope I do not see it in my lifetime

How would it be any different to any religion having their own sets of rules and/or laws that their followers have to adhere to? All religions have their own and they all still have to stay within the law of the country, which takes precedence.

[marshy]

1 hour ago, richwwtk said:

If they want to live under Sharia law, so long as British law takes precedence and they don't impose it on anybody that doesn't want to, then let them.

Also, this might be a daft question, but are all people with Muslim sounding names really Muslims? Isn't that a bit like assuming anyone with a Christian name is a Christian? Why is it that all of these people that BB links stories about are presumed to be religious?

One country, one law. Socrates would be turning in his grave.

Your second paragraph is something of a non sequitur, it doesn't seem to relate to anything I wrote.

[richwwtk]

2 minutes ago, marshy said:

One country, one law. Socrates would be turning in his grave.

Your second paragraph is something of a non sequitur, it doesn't seem to relate to anything I wrote.

All religions have laws that their followers adhere to, why is it suddenly a problem when Muslims are involved? As long as anybody abiding by these laws does so voluntarily then why is it an issue?

The second paragraph wasn't aimed at you specifically, more of an open question.

[Kid in the Riot]

11 hours ago, Big Brother said:

I don't feel the need to defend my point of view to a poster with such a belligerent attitude as yours.  The only reason I haven't clicked the ignore button is because I enjoy your posts in the football forum.

Whether you think my views are sinister or not is your problem not mine.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of Europeans who would complain that I was too liberal.  Perhaps you should get out more?

As for 'other forums' - joking aren't you? It's this, twitter (for reading) the occasional reply on the Guardian and then real life!

You seem to spend a lot of time on YouTube as well... It's a shame that you don't feel the need to defend your POV for me, I am perfectly capable of listening and understanding different viewpoints, even ones as extreme as yours (nice try at making out like you are some kind of moderate btw!) so please bear that in mind.

[chipdawg]

12 hours ago, Big Brother said:

What do you mean by 'punished' though?  Not sure we're talking about the same thing.

As for islam just to be clear - I absolutely want the government to stop all support for this religion, stop all mosque building and remove the influence of islam on any public body or in any aspect of the public sphere. 

If talking about refugees leads to my ideas being labelled 'sinister' just imagine where a discussion about genetics could lead!

As for the break-in, cheers. There is an epidemic of burglary in Italy now. It has coincided with a growth in ... ah never mind, you (in general) would think it was just a coincidence.

 

 

 

 

No I don't think we are talking about the same thing and I find that frustrating. But no matter, the nature of free debate in a free society means you can't force anyone to answer a question and you can't force anyone to agree with your point of view. This is absolutely as it should be

I would actually like a situation where no religion receives a penny of support from the government, but I have no problem with people building a place of worship at their own expense as long as it complies with planning laws. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it to be honest

I think if you worry that your views on genetics could be labelled 'sinister' (btw I don't think I've ever said your views on refugees are sinister though) then perhaps you need to reevaluate your views? It is a tangent though, so perhaps we should leave it there

Well if the police aren't looking for them, I don't suppose any concrete determination of the background of said burglars can be confirmed. Correlation is not causality remember, though of course that doesn't mean you're wrong. Whoever is responsible, I hope they get their comupence down the line

As a general aside (not aimed at you at BB), there are loads of posts on both sides of the argument saying "I read somewhere" or "I saw something that said". I really think that if you can't back your claim up with an actual source then you should be labelling it as an opinion or keeping it to yourself. I don't think it's really contributing to the debate and is one of the things that gets people's backs up

 

[richwwtk]

1 hour ago, Big Brother said:

" why is it suddenly a problem when Muslims are involved? "  I am genuinely surprised that anyone who has been alive for the last 5 years would ask such a question. 

Please enlighten me, could you point me to some examples of where the Muslim majority have caused us any major problems as opposed to the acts of a few fanatical nutters?

You are not being stopped from living your life the way you want to, so why do you so desperately want to stop them?

[TRL]

2 hours ago, richwwtk said:

How would it be any different to any religion having their own sets of rules and/or laws that their followers have to adhere to? All religions have their own and they all still have to stay within the law of the country, which takes precedence.

Really? Sharia law is the law of the land in many Muslim countriesit is not just religious law

[richwwtk]

11 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Rotherham. 'Mafia wife syndrome' - i.e. it was enabled by large parts of the community. - Really? The Muslim leaders in that community enabled it?

"You are not being stopped from living your life the way you want to"  Try telling that to school kids who want to eat pork  - My kids eat pork or people who want to drink beer on the streets in some parts of London - That's illegal on plenty of City streets, nothing to do with Muslims, or women who want to wear short skirts as they pass a mosque - Are you just making this shit up now? . Or even young girls who want to take a taxi ride late at night in certain northern cities - The rapist thing has been done to death, there are non-Muslim rapists just as there are Muslim rapists. Or, come to think of it, what if I don't want to eat products that are certified hallal? - Don't buy Halal meat, it's not difficult  What if I want to live in Birmingham but not listen to the islamic call to prayer? - Where's the difference with that and church bells? Oh and don't forget that if I criticise islam in public (or too loudly in private) I could be arrested and if it's very public I could be attacked by members of the religion of peace - where did freedom of speech go? - That law applies to all religions, not just Islam  Practically one terrorist is being arrested per day by Mi5 who might otherwise have committed a crime that could most definitely stop people living, let alone living how they want. - That'll be the nutters that need to be stopped  I could go on ... 

 

If you were calling for a ban to all religion, I could understand it, but it's the way you are singling out one section of the community, demonising them all for the actions of a few and calling for them to be 'sent home' that I find unacceptable.

How do you feel about white people that convert to Islam? Where should they be sent?

[chipdawg]

15 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

agree

Maybe in the past, but now there are too many mosques and it's changing the nature of communities.

 

 

Main culprits: Albanian, Romanians and Gypsies, based on what police have told us, news reports, captured criminals and endless posts on Facebook of "my apartment was robbed last night".  Immigration + Schengen zone has led to a massive increase in crime (correlation of increase in immigrants and movement of people through Italy with crimes committed by these groups).  Btw I have a lot of time and affinity with Romania, so I'm not writing this with any sort of "I told you so" attitude.

 

labelled as opinion - fair enough - but that won't prevent opinions being slagged-off (though that's not a problem).

Backed-up by sources ... stats you mean? I have lost confidence in official stats tbh.

 

 I walk past a mosque most days and have never found a problem. Indeed, the people outside are often very friendly. I won't pretend, however, that I can state that is the experience of every person at every mosque

As for sources, it's not about 'official stats', it's about providing information goal low others to make up their mind. If you or I were to post a source to back up our argument, the other would be well within their rights to criticise the source, but I feel that's a lot more constructive than referencing nothin at all, which doesn't give anyone else that chance of critical appraisal

 

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, Big Brother said:

Rotherham. 'Mafia wife syndrome' - i.e. it was enabled by large parts of the community.

"You are not being stopped from living your life the way you want to"  Try telling that to school kids who want to eat pork or people who want to drink beer on the streets in some parts of London, or women who want to wear short skirts as they pass a mosque. Or even young girls who want to take a taxi ride late at night in certain northern cities. Or, come to think of it, what if I don't want to eat products that are certified hallal?  What if I want to live in Birmingham but not listen to the islamic call to prayer? Oh and don't forget that if I criticise islam in public (or too loudly in private) I could be arrested and if it's very public I could be attacked by members of the religion of peace - where did freedom of speech go?  Practically one terrorist is being arrested per day by Mi5 who might otherwise have committed a crime that could most definitely stop people living, let alone living how they want.  I could go on ... 

 

This is precisely what I'm talking about RE: sources BB. Could you provide references or even indications of where these things occurred? School kids being banned from eating pork because of Muslims or beer being banned from streets because of Muslims? Can you demonstrate that woman in short skirts get abuse for walking past mosques (I've often seen it happen when they walk past building sites though) or that 'certain' northern cities have more problematic taxi services for woman. I'm not suggesting that any of your points aren't true, but back them up and feed debate

As for the Birmingham mosque thing, I think you may have been taken in by a rise in a website called BFNN about a 'mega mosque' with speakers that will broadcast a call to prayer that will be heard 5 miles away. It was a satirical article- the actual mosque in Dudley to which it refers doesn't have permission to broadcast amplified sound outside the building http://www.thatsfake.com/birmingham-mosque-sounding-call-of-prayer-5-times-a-day/. Of course, that's not to say it isn't without controversy

[Red-Robbo]

I have a genuine question for you @Big Brother

Do you actually have any Muslims as friends? In the West I mean, I know you said you got on alright with them when you lived in the Middle East.

I do. Just one - let's face it I live in one of the whitest parts of the UK!  She's liberal, totally Anglicised, non-religious and a kind and useful member if society. She works in orthodontics in a hospital.

Where do you stand on such people? Is she part of the Muslim hordes we have to be protected from? Do we have a means of identifying "nice" Muslims from "nasty" Muslims? 

You see it seems to me, her parents simply went and lived and worked in another country in the same way as you have.(Sorry to hear about the burglary btw. Gypsies have lived in Europe for at least 1000 years though).

As you know. I share some of your concerns about mass immigration. It's a funny subject because you get hostility from the left.  some of whom seem to regard it as some sort of atonement for empire,  and the right - who seek cheap workers.

But however you tackle the issue, it seems to me that people like my friend's parents are people you'd want to let in. Who make the country better for those around them. A fair proportion of such persons will be Muslim.

Where I get a bit uncomfortable with some of your posts - and the videos of the angry late-middle aged man in a jumper - is the lumping together of a disparate group of people, of differing beliefs,  as "them".

That and the support for the petty flag-waving of ultra nationalists. Nationalism has never brought us anything but wars. It is, as a great man observed, the last refuge of the scoundrel - and it's used very successfully across the world to pull the wool over the eyes of  the exploited populace. 

[chipdawg]

12 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

I haven't seen bfnn. As for the other - this is the problem, all the support for what I have written is in the public domain and there's not time in the day to collect the supporting sources, not at the moment anyway,.

Well I'm on my lunch break so...

Pork sausages were banned by Islington Council on cost grounds. One of those costs was down to monitoring individual children's dietary and religious need

There is no record I can see of beer being banned on London streets due to religious  concerns. Anjem Choudary led a protest about alcohol on Brick Lane, was shouted down. Many alcohol prohibition areas exist in London, all for ASB reasons

There are undoubtedly articles indicating woman in short skirts getting abused by people near mosques, but there are many, many more about them being raped in bars and debate on the roll the shortness of said skirt played in that (spoiler: it plays none)

If you google 'woman attacked in taxi northern' you have to go to page 2 to find a proper report that isn't the taxi driver being attacked by a drunken female! The first male taxi driver convicted was Coatbridge in Scotland and called Thomas Keenan. Again, I don't doubt that Muslim immigrant taxi drivers have attacked women in the north of England, but evidence of a significant trend seems to be missing

[BCFC Jimmer]

3 hours ago, chipdawg said:

Well I'm on my lunch break so...

Pork sausages were banned by Islington Council on cost grounds. One of those costs was down to monitoring individual children's dietary and religious need

There is no record I can see of beer being banned on London streets due to religious  concerns. Anjem Choudary led a protest about alcohol on Brick Lane, was shouted down. Many alcohol prohibition areas exist in London, all for ASB reasons

There are undoubtedly articles indicating woman in short skirts getting abused by people near mosques, but there are many, many more about them being raped in bars and debate on the roll the shortness of said skirt played in that (spoiler: it plays none)

If you google 'woman attacked in taxi northern' you have to go to page 2 to find a proper report that isn't the taxi driver being attacked by a drunken female! The first male taxi driver convicted was Coatbridge in Scotland and called Thomas Keenan. Again, I don't doubt that Muslim immigrant taxi drivers have attacked women in the north of England, but evidence of a significant trend seems to be missing

Big Brother never mentions examples of western countries imposing their values on strict muslim settlements.

I was in Dubai a few weeks a go and I was surprised at how westernized it was considering how religious it is.  I was shocked to see European women walking around shops barely clothed - something that is very offensive to many Muslim people.

Just one example of how this whole debate isn't as simple and one sided as Big Brother makes out.  I noticed he doesn't like Kids posts and accused him of being aggressive - very bizarre - Kid has just asked for the numbers to back up his views which he consistently avoids.

I am pretty sure Big Brother has hit the ignore button on me, which is probably for the best because I still can't empathise with his views whatsoever. Despite what he claims his comments are often bigoted and offensive.  He has also developed a good ability for ignoring the hard questions and not backing up his claims - all in all not worth the attention IMO.

 

 

[richwwtk]

4 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Rotherham. 'Mafia wife syndrome' - i.e. it was enabled by large parts of the community. - Really? The Muslim leaders in that community enabled it?

 

Yep along with the police, politicians and social services.

 

Of course, silly me, I should have realised that the Muslim community leaders, the police, the politicians and social services all got together and worked out a plan that allowed the abuse to go on unreported. There was me thinking it was actually mistakes made by a few people, partly out of fear of reprisals, that allowed it to go on as long as it did.

It could even be argued that scare mongering and demonisation of Muslims by people such as yourself is what contributed to that 'fear factor' and made people who should know better treat the offenders in this case in a different manner to other members of society.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

5 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Rotherham. 'Mafia wife syndrome' - i.e. it was enabled by large parts of the community. - Really? The Muslim leaders in that community enabled it?

 

Yep along with the police, politicians and social services.

 

Because that's never happened before in this country

But anyway using terrible incidents like this for political point-scoring really is abhorrent.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Because that's never happened before in this country

But anyway using terrible incidents like this for political point-scoring really is abhorrent.

Excuse me KITR, what is abhorrent is the blind eye and complicity of the very people who could and should have prevented this but for whatever reason decided not to, politicians, police and social workers involved should be prosecuted, a very British tradition is to investigate any crime fully without fear or favour, a tradition that is dying out to liberal PC values and that is what is abhorrent.

[Moloch]

10 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Berlin yesterday

https://youtu.be/PZwpE37YdqI

 

I know I crap on about reliable, unbiased sources...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/21/rt-sanctioned-over-series-of-misleading-articles-by-media-watchdog

Russia Today (as it was previously known) has repeatedly been accused of misleading reporting and anti-western bias. It has been found guilty of repeated breaches of the UK broadcasting standards.

 

 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Excuse me KITR, what is abhorrent is the blind eye and complicity of the very people who could and should have prevented this but for whatever reason decided not to, politicians, police and social workers involved should be prosecuted, a very British tradition is to investigate any crime fully without fear or favour, a tradition that is dying out to liberal PC values and that is what is abhorrent.

Without doubt. ANY crime committed by ANYONE. Not picking out individual crimes or incidents just because they were committed by a race of people you don't happen to like.