bloody norah... :-(

[thebish]

Can we just not settle this by saying peaceful Muslims who are of no harm to the United Kingdom are welcome but Radical Muslims have no place in our society ?

Rather I would say peaceful decent people who cause no harm to the UK are welcome while violent, unpleasant troublemakers
have no place in a civil society.

even I could agree with that! but then, as others have said, that would be easy! the test of a strong democracy (or - more realistically, one test!) is how we deal with and react to the violent, unpleasant troublemakers...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

LLS, if you are saying that Islam is a religion more likely, in itself, to lead to violence, rather than Muslims are more likely to be violent, then, whilst I disagree, I can at least go with that as a non-cretinous or feline position.

You're in no trouble of defamation (though you don't need to intend to defame) and thankfully, due to recent 'good thing' done by the govt., you're no longer in danger of prosecution for saying stuff that is merely insulting.

So, everyone is a winner.

Whilst you may disagree, that is precisely what I am saying. Or rather, that's what I thought I was saying, but, although I thought I was fairly articulate, I am feeling quite Dan like at the moment.
Oh, and PS William the White, I meant to add thank you for your response.

[Montreal Wanderer]

LLS, if you are saying that Islam is a religion more likely, in itself, to lead to violence, rather than Muslims are more likely to be violent, then, whilst I disagree, I can at least go with that as a non-cretinous or feline position.

You're in no trouble of defamation (though you don't need to intend to defame) and thankfully, due to recent 'good thing' done by the govt., you're no longer in danger of prosecution for saying stuff that is merely insulting.

So, everyone is a winner.

I'll go with everyone a winner. However, I was not talking about Spotty's liability for defamation but rather 'hate speech'. I don't know what 'good thing' the government has done. The Public Order Act (1986) states in Part 3, section 18

(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

I don't know to what extent this may have been amended. I believe the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 added religion to grounds (colour, sex etc) for which one could be charged. Is the change simply that Mr. Bean et al got the word insulting taken out?

[Prufrock]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

[Prufrock]

Also, and this maaaay be an urban myth, but someone said that amendment Monty refers to specifically made it ok to discriminate against gingers! Racists!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Right, it was on the Crime and Courts Bill in the Lords and the government won't challenge this. The courts are still left to decide whether wording is “(criminally) abusive or merely (non-criminally) insulting”. Spotty's defence will be that he is insulting but not abusive. Works for me.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Thanks. I mentioned defamation, but I think 'worried' is a little strong. But as I said previously, I was going to leave this subject alone until the levels of 'abuse' (and that's far too strong but I can't be arsed to search for a synonym) made me reread the posts and re-reading persuaded me to clarify my position. I can say I worried that I was being misunderstand, or rather, worried I hadn't made myself clear - that was my fault. I think my position is now clarified, and I do understand that I am probably alone on here in the views I hold, but at least I think I can once more leave this subject to others to debate. I shall not return to the thread if you'll pardon my absence.

[thebish]

and I do understand that I am probably alone on here in the views I hold,

oh I don't think you are! Hoboh has had "I love Spotty" badges made!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Right, it was on the Crime and Courts Bill in the Lords and the government won't challenge this. The courts are still left to decide whether wording is “(criminally) abusive or merely (non-criminally) insulting”. Spotty's defence will be that he is insulting but not abusive. Works for me.

I lied. I'm back, I had to after reading the above.
Insulting but not abusive... I am going to adopt that as my motto. It will be the scroll underneath the shield that bears a ginger elephant rampant.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

and I do understand that I am probably alone on here in the views I hold,

oh I don't think you are! Hoboh has had "I love Spotty" badges made!

I predict he won't hold that view for long... in fact I'll just nip over to the Predictions thread and post it.

[thebish]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Right, it was on the Crime and Courts Bill in the Lords and the government won't challenge this. The courts are still left to decide whether wording is “(criminally) abusive or merely (non-criminally) insulting”. Spotty's defence will be that he is insulting but not abusive. Works for me.

I lied. I'm back, I had to after reading the above.

you're not here as often as Bobo is not on the politics thread!!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Right, it was on the Crime and Courts Bill in the Lords and the government won't challenge this. The courts are still left to decide whether wording is “(criminally) abusive or merely (non-criminally) insulting”. Spotty's defence will be that he is insulting but not abusive. Works for me.

I lied. I'm back, I had to after reading the above.

you're not here as often as Bobo is not on the politics thread!!

I'm off now...

[thebish]

Aye. DPP a while back changed their guidelines to not prosecute for 'insulting' and it's either just been, or about to be, amended to remove 'insulting'. Can't remember the Act it's tacked onto and I'm on my phone.

Spotty was 'worried' about defamation. He's fine.

Right, it was on the Crime and Courts Bill in the Lords and the government won't challenge this. The courts are still left to decide whether wording is “(criminally) abusive or merely (non-criminally) insulting”. Spotty's defence will be that he is insulting but not abusive. Works for me.

I lied. I'm back, I had to after reading the above.

you're not here as often as Bobo is not on the politics thread!!

I'm off now...

yeah right!!

[William the White]

abhor: v. detest; hate. concise Oxford Dictionary. Though I'm obviously prepared to accept what I think is LLS's assertion that he thought 'abhor' had a milder connotation.

I don't see any problem in accepting LLS's assertion that he was distinguishing between Islam and Muslims and in a overheated debating mode misstated when he said that stuff about believers.

I think Islam has many aspects to it. The militant version is repellent, in my view. But it does not represent all Muslims. My own experience of living in Sudan was the faith was held lightly by many Muslims - I was fortunate enough to make friends with very bad Muslims wherever I went, and we got some serious drinking done.

Islamic art and architecture is tremendous, and much mor to my taste than much Christian art and architecture - I'd have the Alhambra and the Mezquita at Cordoba over York minster any day (and that's my favourite large cathedral in the UK).

I welcome the fact that I think I have now made my position plain. I am an admirer of Islamic architecture and to a certain extent Islamic history. Islamic art on the other hand I find to be meh. I probably never will meet you eye to eye on Islam itself: you are an obvious admirer, in fact I'd half guessed from your posts that you yourself were Muslim.
So my next question, posed in the spirit of genuine inquiry is - do you think there is a global jihadist movement, or do you think it is just disparate political action under a false label?
And as I'm back on my phone and all the awkwardness that implies I shall answe Monty in that I have no idea how thin or thick the ice is but I believe in free speech and debate and if ny country wants to try to prosecute me for that, so be it.

Not in the sense that it is globally organised, with globally recognised leaders, no, i don't think so.

Are there jihadist groups dotted around the globe that share a common political view of a world wide Caliphate? Definitely, but mostly dreamers. I think there are more groups that would aspire to taking up arms/guerrilla war/terror in most countries with a significant muslim population. There just aren't that many. But, as the IRA used to say about British security - you have to get lucky all the time, we only have to get lucky once... They got lucky once - the tube bombings. They haven't since, but probably will again.

Are they a threat to the fabric of our society? Only if we let them. Are they numerous - not really, but that doesn't make them insignificant. last figures i saw the police MI5 estimated 4000 activists or sympathisers in the UK. If we want their numbers to increase, one good tactic would be to throw petrol bombs at a mosque while a service is in progress. Idiots!!!

Another would be to crack down on 'human rights', as hoboh advocates. Nothing helped the Provisional IRA recruit more than the imposition of internment.

Be more confident. most of the jihadist leaders are known. There has been only one home grown successful attack in this country (it looks like the murder in Woolwich was not a conspiracy but a nasty piece of freelance activity). Work towards greater integration of muslims into our society. The more people have a stake the more committed they are to their world.

[a1]

I don't know why folk start or participate in threads like these. They always turn decent posters into either trolls or bumbling borderline racists.

SOTWA used to lock threads like these as soon as they were started. He knew his stuff did that fella.

sounds stalin-esque or summat.

[Harry Genshaw]

Are they a threat to the fabric of our society? Only if we let them. Are they numerous - not really, but that doesn't make them insignificant. last figures i saw the police MI5 estimated 4000 activists or sympathisers in the UK. If we want their numbers to increase, one good tactic would be to throw petrol bombs at a mosque while a service is in progress. Idiots!!!

Another would be to crack down on 'human rights', as hoboh advocates. Nothing helped the Provisional IRA recruit more than the imposition of internment.

Be more confident. most of the jihadist leaders are known. There has been only one home grown successful attack in this country (it looks like the murder in Woolwich was not a conspiracy but a nasty piece of freelance activity). Work towards greater integration of muslims into our society. The more people have a stake the more committed they are to their world.

Agree with this, but at the possible expense of being viewed as some sort of appeaser by Boris Johnson, isn't there some responsibility on us as a nation and how we do business?

Spotty listed a few pages back, various outrages committed by folk in the name of Islam and it occurred to me that in the same period, us, and our allies, have been committing drone attacks, locking folk up without trial & bombing the odd wedding celebration. It upsets me, that this kind of carry on is done by my Govt. I imagine it might upset me more, if I was a disaffected Muslim, already facing prejudice in my own country, and then saw such behaviour be labelled as heroic

[thebish]

it's off topic - but I think interesting how things are labelled...

for instance, a mosque is petrol bombed... why is that not labelled as a terrorist attack?

[a1]

coz the bins were set on fire.

it might be a hate crime, if you push the def.

but in the end only the bins were set on fire.

[William the White]

coz the bins were set on fire.

it might be a hate crime, if you push the def.

but in the end only the bins were set on fire.

So, is your explanation for this that the perpetrators had a violent hostility to Muslim bins? Or they were incompetent/pissed/feckin-lucky-they-missed aspiring terrorists? Or just a couple of ex-soldiers havin a laff and they should be cut a bit a slack?

[CrazyHorse]

He hasn't offered any explanation, other than it might be hate crime.
So quit the trolling William.