Incident at Parsons Green Tube station

[hans kraay fan club]

What kind of idiotic, brainless, stupid response is that ? I'll simplify it for you, if you get kicked out the Amex by the stewards I'd like to see all your mates kicked out and banned as well. Fair ? After all, they must have known beforehand what a knob you were.

I think you've got your analogy wrong, to be honest.

I think he means that if he starts some crowd disorder, whilst supporting the Albion away (let's say at Darlington), then the sensible course of action would be to ban every one of his friends and family from football.

And bulldoze the Amex.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Now that I agree with 100%.

However, there was a slight difference, kind of a warning system that allowed the innocent people to take cover.

We also retaliated otherwise we would probably all speak German now.

There was a war, is the fight against these terrorists not a war?

That is being fought on the ground in Syria, and Iraq. ISIS is also being hit financially through economic means.

The 'war' in this country is being done undercover. If you can't see it, then it isn't happening? Believe me, it is.

 

[The Gem]

What kind of idiotic, brainless, stupid response is that ? I'll simplify it for you, if you get kicked out the Amex by the stewards I'd like to see all your mates kicked out and banned as well. Fair ? After all, they must have known beforehand what a knob you were.

Its murder, not getting kicked out of a football stadium.

You seem to be very angry today.

Different views make up the world today, some are right and some are wrong, I don't have to be aggressive towards you because yours is different to mine.

I accept that your view is different to mine.

And why am I an idiot? Because I have a different view to you?

Who is the idiot, the person with a different view, or the person who calls the person with a different view an idiot?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Its murder, not getting kicked out of a football stadium.

You seem to be very angry today.

Different views make up the world today, some are right and some are wrong, I don't have to be aggressive towards you because yours is different to mine.

I accept that your view is different to mine.

And why am I an idiot? Because I have a different view to you?

Who is the idiot, the person with a different view, or the person who calls the person with a different view an idiot?

In this case, it is the 'person with the different view'.

 

[alfredmizen]

Not to mention that piece of filth from saltdean who spent his holidays collecting butterflies in the Tora Bora,seem to remember the Argus having an appeal to get that scumbag out of Guantanamo,didn't a couple of His nephews get vaporised by a US drone somewhere?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yep.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who is the idiot, the person with a different view, or the person who calls the person with a different view an idiot?

You if you truly believe that innocent people should be punished for the crimes of people they know. I guess you'd have been happy to see the mother of Ian Brady imprisoned, deported or hung ?

 

[drew]

I didn't take any idea from anyone, for me, enough is enough.

Regarding the Mosque, my point exactly, the only time you hear them is AFTER the attack, they don't say boo about any of it outside an attack. they are NEVER on the news or in the other media saying these people should be hung etc.They pay us lip service when it suits them.

They should be rising up against the terrorist ALL of the time, not when it makes them look good on TV.

I cant believe for 1 second that each and every one of them isn't know by their own already. EVERY single one come on man.

How often are you at a mosque to see what they are saying? I suspect you are never at a mosque. Where do you get your info from? Probably the news so the reality is you only hear about what is said at a mosque when the news editors decide to publish and/or broadcast it which is normally after an event. The security forces have foiled plots in the past. Where do you think they gather the intelligence from to do that. One of the sources is the muslim community.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Cuts have consequences

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-45a2-Just-1-Person-On-Duty-When-Bomb-Went-Off#.Wb_4Ia2ZNBy

The main consequence is that lefties begin to believe that the Morning Star might represent the truth

 

[carlzeiss]

Further training required for Police officers to explain the need for removing boots before entering a Muslim place of worship .

[yt]Yx_HZuGlQUo[/YT]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Its murder, not getting kicked out of a football stadium.

You seem to be very angry today.

Different views make up the world today, some are right and some are wrong, I don't have to be aggressive towards you because yours is different to mine.

I accept that your view is different to mine.

And why am I an idiot? Because I have a different view to you?

Who is the idiot, the person with a different view, or the person who calls the person with a different view an idiot?

Yet, you want to be aggressive towards the entire family of a murderer?

Whenever there is an incident, the police and security forces do look into the family background, hence why quite a few cousins of the Manchester bomber were arrested, computers seized and evidence gathered. None were charged.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Further training required for Police officers to explain the need for removing boots before entering a Muslim place of worship .

[yt]Yx_HZuGlQUo[/YT]

Ridiculous.

 

[brighton fella]

Don't armed response units only get called upon in emergency situations? Recent terrorist attacks in London show that. If there is a threat they need to respond, whether that is a terrorist threat or some deranged individual like Moat! However, let's look at the actual stats.

There were a total of 14,753 police firearms operations in the year ending March 2016; this represents a slight increase of 68 (0.5%) police firearms operations when compared with the previous year.

In the year ending March 2016, 85% of firearms operations involved Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), compared with 84% in the previous year.

There were seven incidents in which police discharged firearms in the year ending March 2016, up from six incidents in the previous year.

There were 5,639 authorized firearms officers (AFOs) on 31 March 2016; a decrease of eight AFOs when compared with the previous year.


Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cs-england-and-wales-april-2015-to-march-2016

So in 14,753 operations (which I assume means more than one armed officer was deployed in each operation) on only 6 occasions was a firearm actually fired. Hardly shows a correlations with your assertion we are surrounded by a lot of trigger happy lunatics. Furthermore, in the preceding 7 years the number of operations had dropped by over 8,000.


I hear what you say about Paris riots but how do you explain the riots we have seen in the UK going back to the 80s when we don't have armed Police? And, how can you be credible if you admit you have already made your mind up about those Paris riots being because of Police provocation when you haven't seen any evidence!

Finally, we are a long way from becoming a police state. We don't test fire missiles over our neighbours territory, we don't shoot down passenger aircraft and last time I checked we have free elections.

To your question in relation to armed response units..again i said we should only take such drastic measures in the event of a absolute emergency, the attack happened several days ago now and yet we still see armed units patrolling our streets. or is that just to get people comfortable with the idea,

Call me ignorant if you like but I don't go too much on stats, never have done, it's easy for anyone to tamper with a set of stats in order to suit ones agenda as was made very clear in the Brexit campaign on both sides of the fence.

Admittedly you bring up a fair point about the 80's riots and one that i would have trouble explaining for the time being at least, i'll give you that one. As for the riots in Paris ,.. again i still stand by what i said regards police provocation. put it this way i would be very surprised if it wasn't.

Not sure you fully understand what a police state is..let me tell you it has nothing to do with grown kids firing missiles backwards and forwards in a school playground, a police state is exactly what it says it is, where armed police have total control over your life.with what you say and what you do, no joke you think i'm exaggerating but where we are heading is you wont be able to have a sh*t in peace without getting some form of consent.for it. we are treading on very dangerous ground if we allow this to happen, remember small steps lead to much bigger steps.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Now that I agree with 100%.

However, there was a slight difference, kind of a warning system that allowed the innocent people to take cover.

We also retaliated otherwise we would probably all speak German now.

There was a war, is the fight against these terrorists not a war?

Wir würden nicht alle deutsch sprechen. Ich glaube, wir würden etwas Deutsch sprechen, but mostly English.

Ja, it is ein Krieg...

 

[The Gem]

Wir würden nicht alle deutsch sprechen. Ich glaube, wir würden etwas Deutsch sprechen, but mostly English.

Ja, it is ein Krieg...

OK, lassen Sie mich umformulieren wir würden wahrscheinlich von Deutschland regiert werden.

Ich würde wahrscheinlich auch englisch sprechen, aber du weißt was ich anspielte.

 

[Acker79]

An article saying "you can't talk about muslims" that didn't give one exampe of anyone actually saying we can't talk about Muslims let alone immigration, race etc.

The first link showed an example of what happens when 'cultural sensitivities' (not talking about Muslims) overides public protection so this was/is a very real issue.

The second link shows she has form writing this rubbish.

The third showed even a former darling of the Islington set can't hide from the truth anymore.

It didn't really need to. The phrase is found in so many conversations about terrorism, muslims, islam, multiculturalism, etc. Every thread on here on one of those topics has someone saying something along those lines. It's a claim that is so ubiquitous anyone reading the article will have their own examples. In fact it was the similar comments in this thread that inspired me to post the article.

The second link was someone attempting to counter her article. I wasn't entirely convinced by it, but so what. It was from 2014, it's been three years, how long after one article on a topic that is fixture of news and opinion pieces is someone supposed to wait before writing another article on a different aspect of that topic?

Your third link, apart from not showing what you claim (you claim he was excommunicated by the guardianista, yet he was invited to promote his show based on that article by the guardian when it aired the following year). And really, if he posted that article in 2016, doesn't the point you're trying to make with your second link suggest he shouldn't be discussing anything now any way, because he has history of writing about it?

 

[Albion my Albion]

OK, lassen Sie mich umformulieren wir würden wahrscheinlich von Deutschland regiert werden.

Ich würde wahrscheinlich auch englisch sprechen, aber du weißt was ich anspielte.

Wer weiß, welche Art von Regierung wir am Ende hatten. Ich denke, wir wären mit einer Regierung gekommen, die dem entspricht, was die Russen und Chinesen heute haben.

 

[The Gem]

Wer weiß, welche Art von Regierung wir am Ende hatten. Ich denke, wir wären mit einer Regierung gekommen, die dem entspricht, was die Russen und Chinesen heute haben.

Very true, although, nothing to what we have.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It didn't really need to. The phrase is found in so many conversations about terrorism, muslims, islam, multiculturalism, etc. Every thread on here on one of those topics has someone saying something along those lines. It's a claim that is so ubiquitous anyone reading the article will have their own examples. In fact it was the similar comments in this thread that inspired me to post the article.

The second link was someone attempting to counter her article. I wasn't entirely convinced by it, but so what. It was from 2014, it's been three years, how long after one article on a topic that is fixture of news and opinion pieces is someone supposed to wait before writing another article on a different aspect of that topic?

Your third link, apart from not showing what you claim (you claim he was excommunicated by the guardianista, yet he was invited to promote his show based on that article by the guardian when it aired the following year). And really, if he posted that article in 2016, doesn't the point you're trying to make with your second link suggest he shouldn't be discussing anything now any way, because he has history of writing about it?

I think it did because such a broad sweeping generalisation reeks of a strawman click bait argument. That phrase was often heard when it was true, not so much any more. It's a shame numerous terrorist attacks and instances of awful abuse had to happen before this changed. The article also managed to link to numerous stories about Muslims .. how many included the ubiquitous 'we can't talk about Muslims' pov? For 'something along those lines' see different point entirely. The Islamophiles/ multiculturalists front has shifted from trying to shut down the topic entirely to attempted control of how we talk about it. What you do often hear now is frustration at some peoples attempts to separate Islam from any link to these issues (nothing to do with Islam line).

Not sure what the year of that article has to do with anything. It showed she has form writing this rubbish.

Are you confusing the Guardian with Guardianista ? (A reader of the Guardian newspaper, regarded as middle-class, excessively liberal and politically correct). No idea what your last point is about.

 

[Acker79]

Not sure what the year of that article has to do with anything. It showed she has form writing this rubbish.

Are you confusing the Guardian with Guardianista ? (A reader of the Guardian newspaper, regarded as middle-class, excessively liberal and politically correct). No idea what your last point is about.

I guess the first point is an agree to disagree thing.

'Having form for writing this' so what? What does her having form (and my point with the year was two articles over the course of three year seems a stretch to call it form) for writing about this topic have to do with anything? Martin Samuel has form for writing about football. It doesn't mean he doesn't have a point, it doesn't de-legitimise anything he says (only counter points do). Mark Kermode has form for writing about movies. Yeah, she wrote something similar before, if you disagree with it, it doesn't matter that she wrote it before. Seems entirely irrelevant to say she has form for writing it.

How can you separate guardian readers from the guardian? If they're not reading the guardian, by your own definition they're not guardianistas. If they are reading the guardian, they're reading Trevor Phillips and haven't by some weird get-together of newspaper readers (do the readers of the daily mail get together to make decisions? readers of the sun? the telegraph?), ex-communicated him.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I guess the first point is an agree to disagree thing.

'Having form for writing this' so what? What does her having form (and my point with the year was two articles over the course of three year seems a stretch to call it form) for writing about this topic have to do with anything? Martin Samuel has form for writing about football. It doesn't mean he doesn't have a point, it doesn't de-legitimise anything he says (only counter points do). Mark Kermode has form for writing about movies. Yeah, she wrote something similar before, if you disagree with it, it doesn't matter that she wrote it before. Seems entirely irrelevant to say she has form for writing it.

How can you separate guardian readers from the guardian? If they're not reading the guardian, by your own definition they're not guardianistas. If they are reading the guardian, they're reading Trevor Phillips and haven't by some weird get-together of newspaper readers (do the readers of the daily mail get together to make decisions? readers of the sun? the telegraph?), ex-communicated him.

Fair enough that's the main point of contention.

If Martin Samuel had form writing rubbish (as perceived by me) on a particular topic I think it's relevant to point it out when he pens a new article continuing in the same way. It's pretty standard practice to find out more about a source to better understand where they are coming from and discover any possible bias/agenda.

Because readers of newspapers don't necessarily agree with everything written in them? It's surely an uncontentious point that Trevor Phillips views have attracted criticism from Guardian readers.