An insult to decency

[Dedworth]

Nicely summed up by Richard Littlejohn in todays Mail on Sunday

We should let these vile jihadists burn in Hell

There is nothing more despicable than ¬defiling the memory of our dead servicemen and women.
Why should we have to tolerate those Islamic hatemongers who disrupted yesterday’s two minutes’ silence, setting fire to a giant poppy and brandishing placards reading: ‘British soldiers burn in Hell.’
If that isn’t ¬incitement, I don’t know what is. They looked like the same crowd demonstrating outside the Old Bailey last week when that Muslim madwoman was convicted of stabbing MP Stephen Timms.
Yet although 50 people took part in this atrocity, there were only three arrests - and judging by the pictures it was the ¬counter-demonstrators from the so-called English Defence League who had their ¬collars felt.
If these Muslim rabble-rousers hate this country so much, why don’t they leave and set up shop in an Islamic theocracy?
We could give them every encouragement by stopping their benefits, as a basis for negotiation.
They should all have been banged up and, if they weren’t born here (as, sadly, I suspect most them were) they should have their citizenship revoked and be put on the first plane out.
At the moment these vile jihadists are ¬spitting in our faces and laughing at our cowardice, while abusing the freedoms countless British soldiers have died to defend.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz15GtvoPys

[subseastu]

I live in Leicester, I am white and I am the minority. That really isn't a problem for me, most of my friends, colleagues and clients are Asian (Indian sub-continent), I have been to India 5 times and know far more about Indian culture than most white people do. My city is a peaceful city where all races and religions get on, and I want to keep it that way. However, extremism will create a divide between the White/Hindu's on one side and the Muslims on the other. If we allow these extremists to continue to preach their hate of the west, divides and cracks will appear all over the country. No one wants that, but I'm sure they didn't want a war in Yugoslavia either

100% agree. Leicester on the whole is a peaceful place as it derby, nottingham etc (apart from friday and saturday nights obviously!) Its the small minority that are the cause of this unrest bringing up deep seated feelings of anger within the larger communities. It does sicken me that these people regardless of where born act this way whilst here in this country. I know they are angry about the usa and uk (nato generally) have done and I'd be pissed as well. But maybe they need to either think of a better way to log their protest that won't cause so much anger and maybe promote some sympathy from the rest of the population or go back to the country of origin and help there.

[aposhark]

100% agree. Leicester on the whole is a peaceful place as it derby, nottingham etc (apart from friday and saturday nights obviously!) Its the small minority that are the cause of this unrest bringing up deep seated feelings of anger within the larger communities. It does sicken me that these people regardless of where born act this way whilst here in this country. I know they are angry about the usa and uk (nato generally) have done and I'd be pissed as well. But maybe they need to either think of a better way to log their protest that won't cause so much anger and maybe promote some sympathy from the rest of the population or go back to the country of origin and help there.

Stu

[johncar54]

I am increasingly concerned that many people seem to find it necessary to state the race, and or, the supposed religion of people whom they are complaining about. Although in a few cases maybe to include that info is relevant, in most cases it is not and to do so may be verging on racist attacks, which may render the person writing the piece liable to prosecution. I am not saying they are, as I do not have enough knowledge to be able to make a 'professional' judgment, but some for sure come close.

An example would be where a person defaced a war memorial. To say that a person did it and that what they did was disgusting would be sufficient. To add their race and religion, at the very least borders on racism and maybe an offence

[les_taxi]

As a point of fact no poppies got burnt

And there were no "British soldiers burn in hell" placards too john?

[grahamw48]

I am increasingly concerned that many people seem to find it necessary to state the race, and or, the supposed religion of people whom they are complaining about. Although in a few cases maybe to include that info is relevant, in most cases it is not and to do so may be verging on racist attacks, which may render the person writing the piece liable to prosecution. I am not saying they are, as I do not have enough knowledge to be able to make a 'professional' judgment, but some for sure come close.

An example would be where a person defaced a war memorial. To say that a person did it and that what they did was disgusting would be sufficient. To add their race and religion, at the very least borders on racism and maybe an offence

Rubbish !

It's called freedom of speech.

So are you wanting to deprive us of that...on this forum ?

We have at least the same right of expression as those low-lifes demonstrating against our armed forces.

Their race and religion is VERY relevant to the debate.

[Dedworth]

I am increasingly concerned that many people seem to find it necessary to state the race, and or, the supposed religion of people whom they are complaining about. Although in a few cases maybe to include that info is relevant, in most cases it is not and to do so may be verging on racist attacks, which may render the person writing the piece liable to prosecution. I am not saying they are, as I do not have enough knowledge to be able to make a 'professional' judgment, but some for sure come close.

An example would be where a person defaced a war memorial. To say that a person did it and that what they did was disgusting would be sufficient. To add their race and religion, at the very least borders on racism and maybe an offence

Reference your somewhat bizarre last sentence - let's assume there is a CCTV image of a black man committing an armed robbery, on the wanted poster would your politically correct Police Force make no mention of the fact that he was ic3 Afro Caribbean and use Photoshop to whitewash his face ?

[les_taxi]

Dedworth you cant say Black you have to say non-white

This is another example of pc *****,think it was leeds city council (not 100%) sure to be fair.

They produced a memo telling staff to ask for coffee without milk rather instead of saying "black) as it may offend

[Arthur Little]

An example would be where a person defaced a war memorial. To say that a person did it and that what they did was disgusting would be sufficient. To add their race and religion, at the very least borders on racism and maybe an offence

So you're saying to *deface a war memorial is "disgusting" ... but let's leave it at that!? It's tantamount to sacrilege, John - and should certainly not go unpunished - regardless of the perpetrator's race or creed!

Say, for instance, a passer-by spotted a swarthy-skinned man *doing something along those lines and immediately reported the incident to the police. And the witness - assuming the felon was a black muslim - said as much in his/her statement when asked for a description. In effect, by your reckoning the complainant is just as liable - as the person committing criminal damage - to be prosecuted for 'racism' ... simply because he/she unwittingly referred to the offender being of a dark complexion ... and perhaps wearing a garment consistent with that normally worn by someone of the Islamic faith.

Come off it, John ... that's taking things too far ... even in these days of so-called 'political correctness!

[keithAngel]

Non believers burn in hell has long been the message of Christians to whats your point You can write on a piece of card "Suicide bombers burn in hell" if it makes you feel better In fact its always been state policy to dehumanise "the enemy" "The Bosch bayoneting babies " used to be a popular poster.

Personaly I would be some what angry if an invading force were killing my relatives the last century has not been peaceful and advanced teck will never make it better just less personal

How dare the bloody dagos bring it to our shores ? Well we have been exploiting them for a long time and taught and armed any one with the cash to pay

I might not agree with what you say,I might agree its pointless to ague further but I defend your right to have that view, misinformed as I find it to be

[johncar54]

Arthur, I am surprised at your comment. Normally you read carefully what was written and then comment. In this case you have completely missed the point I was making. That was, that in most cases mentioning a persons race, nationality and religion (and even gender) have nothing to do with the crime they committed.

Here (in the forum) we are up in arms if anything is said which implies any possible anti Filipino sentiment. For example if a person jumps red right and the headlines read 'Filipino woman ignores traffic signal and endangers people.' I and probably most here would conside a possibly racist remark, as the fact that the offender was Filipino and a woman would have nothing to do with a person, any person, endangering life by jumping a red light.

If one feels the need to mention a persons race, colour or religion, when that has nothing to do with the thing they are talking about, then that implies they are prejudiced.

On the other hand if as someone suggested here, the police are looking for a suspect then their physical description would be relevant, but probably their nationality and religious views would not, thus if the police said a 'black man who was believed to be a Filipino and a Muslim' that probably be would be racist.

I know some here want to 'defend our right to free speech' but unlike burning poppies which is not a criminal offence making racist remarks is !

When Madeline McCann was taken, the Daily Mail and Express allowed certain derogatory remarks about the parents to appear in their forums. I contacted the editors and suggested they should consider editing them. They stood on their rights to print the comments as 'free speech.' Subsequently they each paid around half a million pounds in compensation for publishing remarks which amounted to libel.

[Dedworth]

Arthur, I am surprised at your comment. Normally you read carefully what was written and then comment. In this case you have completely missed the point I was making. That was, that in most cases mentioning a persons race, nationality and religion (and even gender) have nothing to do with the crime they committed.

Here (in the forum) we are up in arms if anything is said which implies any possible anti Filipino sentiment. For example if a person jumps red right and the headlines read 'Filipino woman ignores traffic signal and endangers people.' I and probably most here would conside a possibly racist remark, as the fact that the offender was Filipino and a woman would have nothing to do with a person, any person, endangering life by jumping a red light.

If one feels the need to mention a persons race, colour or religion, when that has nothing to do with the thing they are talking about, then that implies they are prejudiced.

On the other hand if as someone suggested here, the police are looking for a suspect then their physical description would be relevant, but probably their nationality and religious views would not, thus if the police said a 'black man who was believed to be a Filipino and a Muslim' that probably be would be racist.

I know some here want to 'defend our right to free speech' but unlike burning poppies which is not a criminal offence making racist remarks is !

When Madeline McCann was taken, the Daily Mail and Express allowed certain derogatory remarks about the parents to appear in their forums. I contacted the editors and suggested they should consider editing them. They stood on their rights to print the comments as 'free speech.' Subsequently they each paid around half a million pounds in compensation for publishing remarks which amounted to libel.

The Politically Correct Police Force now can't mention that the fugitive they are after is male along with his nationality and religion, who because of his nationality and religion might seek to conceal or be sheltered by and/or amongst that community.

You are correct - Poppy Burning like thousands of other actions is not a specific and listed criminal offence. However in this incident with its timing and action in a public place it is "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

[les_taxi]

The Politically Correct Police Force now can't mention that the fugitive they are after is male along with his nationality and religion, who because of his nationality and religion might seek to conceal or be sheltered by and/or amongst that community.

You are correct - Poppy Burning like thousands of other actions is not a specific and listed criminal offence. However in this incident with its timing and action in a public place it is "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

Let's hope is does become a criminal offence soon,I'm sure it's an offence for people to burn a Koran outside a mosque and shout Muslims burn in hell.

[tuft249]

the uk forces certainly shouldnt be in afghanistan or have ever been in iraq. the taliban is nothing to do with the uk government . did they ever take such action against the cowardly IRA. no, course not. bloody sunday not bloody enough. they have helped to kill 500,000 civilians in iraq with the cowardly usa. every person that died in the 7/7 bombing of london has the uk government to thank for that. muslims shouldnt be burning poppies but fighting the taliban is a cowardly act. if you want to be world policeman then you could do worse than start with the some of the two bit nothings that run a certain in south east asia. the taliban are worth ten of mr duterte

[KeithD]

The Taliban sponsored and helped Al Queada, I'd say that has something to do with the UK.

As usual in all these things, the end result is talking to all parties, it's the only way to get peace.

[Manila_Paul]

The Taliban sponsored and helped Al Queada, I'd say that has something to do with the UK.

Other way around. Al Qaeda were funding the Taliban, who therefore tolerated their presence in turn. Most our terror threats are home grown and there hasn't been an Afghani involved in a terrorist attack outside Afghanistan for about 25 years. They're nearly always Saudis or from the UAE. IIRC 22 of the 23 on 9/11 were Saudi. All the top men in Al Qaeda are Saudi's too. They've got the money to fund the attacks and are at the forefront of spreading Wabbism. And given how big a human rights abuser Saudi is, it is funny how they've never been mentioned as a possible for invasion.

[grahamw48]

I suppose it isn't cowardly to supply most of the heroin available on the European market, to plant IEDs and then run away and hide, or to treat women as sub-humans.

[grahamw48]

[QUOTE=Manila_Paul;257492]

The Taliban sponsored and helped Al Queada, I'd say that has something to do with the UK.

Other way around. Al Qaeda were funding the Taliban, who therefore tolerated their presence in turn. Most our terror threats are home grown and there hasn't been an Afghani involved in a terrorist attack outside Afghanistan for about 25 years. They're nearly always Saudis or from the UAE. IIRC 22 of the 23 on 9/11 were Saudi. All the top men in Al Qaeda are Saudi's too. They've got the money to fund the attacks and are at the forefront of spreading Wabbism. And given how big a human rights abuser Saudi is, it is funny how they've never been mentioned as a possible for invasion.

OIL, and business from its profits.

Same reason we gave a ***t about Kuwait of course (plus strategic maritime considerations).

[Manila_Paul]

I suppose it isn't cowardly to supply most of the heroin available on the European market, to plant IEDs and then run away and hide, or to treat women as sub-humans.

The Taliban banned Opium and all but eradicated the poppy fields. Then NATO arrived.....

[keithAngel]

"using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

[grahamw48]

The Taliban banned Opium and all but eradicated the poppy fields. Then NATO arrived.....

When it suited their purposes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ble-cross.html

Normal business resumed now:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22710504/

[aposhark]

the uk forces certainly shouldnt be in afghanistan or have ever been in iraq. the taliban is nothing to do with the uk government . did they ever take such action against the cowardly IRA. no, course not. bloody sunday not bloody enough. they have helped to kill 500,000 civilians in iraq with the cowardly usa. every person that died in the 7/7 bombing of london has the uk government to thank for that. muslims shouldnt be burning poppies but fighting the taliban is a cowardly act. if you want to be world policeman then you could do worse than start with the some of the two bit nothings that run a certain in south east asia. the taliban are worth ten of mr duterte

I am with you on some of your points, in bold.
The UK government, under pressure from the US, negotiated with the IRA to end the troubles.
Don't know about Mr Duterte.

[aposhark]

The Taliban sponsored and helped Al Queada, I'd say that has something to do with the UK.

Other way around. Al Qaeda were funding the Taliban, who therefore tolerated their presence in turn. Most our terror threats are home grown and there hasn't been an Afghani involved in a terrorist attack outside Afghanistan for about 25 years. They're nearly always Saudis or from the UAE. IIRC 22 of the 23 on 9/11 were Saudi. All the top men in Al Qaeda are Saudi's too. They've got the money to fund the attacks and are at the forefront of spreading Wabbism. And given how big a human rights abuser Saudi is, it is funny how they've never been mentioned as a possible for invasion.

Bombing Sau'di would never happen and we all know why Not until we are self-sufficient in non-oil related energy and that looks a long way off.

[aposhark]

........You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Brilliant keithAngel

[grahamw48]

Brilliant keithAngel

Hardly.

It has to do with RELIGION not race...doh !

I would welcome any of those frightened Iraqi Christians into my home.

[Dedworth]

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Did you think that one up yourself or find it in the depths of the "old ones are always the good ones" folder ? Just a small step away from the tired Racist jibe

[johncar54]

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Thanks for that last comment, I have been trying to make that point in my posts here.

Re the first comment:- Unless things have changed, a person cannot be arrested for insulting a police officer. (One of the first things police in the Met learn is 'idle and silly words are unworthy of notice and should be ignored'). It has to be a member of the public

[bornatbirth]

you all have valid points, some more than others, isnt anyone else getting bored on this topic

[Dedworth]

Thanks for that last comment, I have been trying to make that point in my posts here.

Re the first comment:- Unless things have changed, a person cannot be arrested for insulting a police officer. (One of the first things police in the Met learn is 'idle and silly words are unworthy of notice and should be ignored'). It has to be a member of the public

Here speaketh the man who eons ago (post 28) said in respect of charges that could be made " I think I have gone far enough with this. I don't want to go on and on following tangents"

I'd have thought the Police protecting the poppy burners would not find it difficult to follow the example of Sherlock Holmes and deduce that "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" were not directed at the Police but at the general "British" population and servicemen.

[johncar54]

OK Dedworth I give up:- 'There are none so blind as those who do not want to see?