Topics about the Northern & Shell titles
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Messianic Trees
Membership Days Posts
#385860
Leo McKinstry "talks about the Islamic States and British values":

We MUST stamp on Islamic terror at home and abroad
Action is just as important in our own country. David Cameron said recently that "we have to fight IS or face mayhem on our streets" yet the mayhem is already here, as reflected in the killing of Lee Rigby or the July bombings of 2005.

In the name of tolerance the British state has refused to face up to the challenge of radical Islam, prefering a craven policy of appeasement.

But as Churchill once wrote: "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

That is exactly what has happened in Britain. Terrified of accusations of Islamophobia, the authorities refused to act against hate preachers, radical mosques and extremism in schools with the result that jihadism continued to grow.

Allied to appeasement is the climate of denial whereby the politicians try to downplay the influence of radical Islam by constantly telling us that the "vast majority" of the three million Muslims in Britain are moderate.

But it is the radicals who set the agenda as happens in all revolutions. Both the Nazis in Germany and Bolsheviks in Russia were at first tiny groups but their convictions ensured their triumph.

Secondly, the moderation of mainstream British Islam is often exaggerated.

Recent surveys have shown that 40 per cent of Muslims in Britain want to see the imposition of sharia law while a third of Muslim students studying here believe that killing in the name of Islam is justified.

Earlier this month the supposedly moderate Muslim Council of Britain moaned that any crackdown against the jihadists, such as the proposal to take away their passports, would worsen the problem by "leading young people towards radicalism".

So according to the Council we cannot try to uphold the responsibilities of British citizenship for fear that more young Muslims might want to hack off people's heads.

OUR civic institutions have been far too weak. They have refused to promote a unifying British identity or demand that Muslims integrate into our society.

So a separatist Islamic culture has been emerged in our urban areas characterised by the establishment of sharia courts, the wearing of the burka, the dominance of self-appointed community leaders and the contempt for free speech.

Often misogynistic, anti-Semitic, backward and superstitious this is the culture that has introduced practices that would have been unthinkable in the free Britain of the recent past such as forced marriages, female genital mutilation, predatory sex gangs targeting white girls and institutionalised ballot-box fraud.

"The gentleness of English civilisation is its most marked characteristic," wrote George Orwell in 1941.

How hollow those words now seem in the context of British jihadism.

If we are to survive we have to stand up for British values once more.
 
By Killer Whale
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#385900
Messianic Trees wrote:
If we are to survive we have to stand up for British values once more.
I wonder what that might entail. Maybe we should make
forced marriages, female genital mutilation, predatory sex gangs targeting white girls and institutionalised ballot-box fraud
illegal just to demonstrate our opposition to them. Or something.
 
By Messianic Trees
Membership Days Posts
#389037
Neil Hamilton on "the promise of Ukip for British politics":

Ukip offers an exciting era and has Labour on the ropes
Ukip is breaking the mould of politics. It is an insurgency of outsiders connecting with millions who have never voted or gave up on the old parties long ago, the 40 per cent who didn't bother to vote in 2010. It is the main challenger to Labour in the north and the Tories in the south. Clacton and Heywood are just the latest harbingers of a sea-change that became evident at Eastleigh in February 2013.Now the old left-rightcentre political spectrum is largely redundant. Millions see no substantial difference between Clegg, Cameron and Miliband. They are members of a professional political class and have more in common with each other than the voters they supposedly represent.
If in May's general election Ukip replicates its success in Heywood, Labour will never govern independently again. Over great swathes of the country last Thursday's message is "Vote Tory, get Labour". Vote Ukip and you can get Ukip.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#389101
Ironic really, given that Hamilton has benefited more than most from the 'they're all the same' meme. Without it he'd never have wormed his way back in...
By satnav
Membership Days Posts
#396950
Seasonal goodwill from Ann Widdecombe

Bah humbug! Another politically correct year, another chip at our British way of life
I hope the festivities are not too demanding, if that is possible these days, and that you have fun with your families. As I look back over the year I come to the "unmerry" conclusion that it has been a happy one for political correctness and a sad one for freedom and rational debate. So in a spirit of bah humbug to all who curtail liberty of opinion here is my round-up of what we should be able to say but could not in 2014.

Baroness Jenkin was perfectly in order to refer to "the poor". After all nobody objects when you refer to "the rich". Both terms are descriptive and cannot in themselves be automatically pejorative.

Lord Freud was only making a statement of the obvious in saying that some disabled people could not produce work justifying the minimum wage. Refusing to acknowledge this means refusing to address the problem of how to maximise independence on the part of those who want to work despite disability.

It is absolutely true that there are parts of the country which are flooded with immigrants. When I said this in 2001 I was called a racist and even now when immigration is at last able to be debated there is a resistance to the perfectly accurate use of "flooded" or "swamped".

There is no law against saying you do not believe in the validity of gay marriage but if you do say it you may find yourself deemed unfit to foster or even volunteer for the Red Cross.

It is simple common sense that there is an enormous difference between the experience of a woman who is pounced upon by a stranger and raped and that of one who gets drunk, goes home with a man and then gets into bed with him before shrieking rape the next morning. It is not justifying the crime but recognising her share of responsibility for the circumstances yet Judy Finnigan was reviled for calling a rape "non-violent". It is also inequitable that a man can be falsely accused, named and pilloried while his accuser is protected with anonymity, as the president of the Oxford Union found out. Saying it is time for a level playing field is not betraying women.

The one prediction I can make for 2015 with confidence is that far from rolling back the cancer of suppression the year will almost certainly see it advance even further into the British way of life. Sentences beginning apologetically with, "You're not supposed to say this these days but..." will be heard more often and sound even lamer.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#396955
mattomac wrote:Anne widdicombe is being far from censored she seems to appear on every fucking quiz show going.
There appear to be a few forces at play here. If she is on every quiz show then I suspect that she is there for coconut-shy value as she was on that Strictly nonsense. Ha, ha - let's all laugh at the spinsterly one with the silly voice and the puddin' basin haircut.

Now, whilst Mensa might not be on bended knee, she is no mug and, from what I can see, has reinvented herself as a professional anachronism. It pays very well, I hear.

The net result of this is that she has become a posh Farage. Not a woman-of-the-people by a long chalk but a self-appointed mouthpiece for common sense and, within that, she is just living up to her own star billing and feeling qualified to lecture us all from her pulpit.
It is simple common sense that there is an enormous difference between the experience of a woman who is pounced upon by a stranger and raped and that of one who gets drunk, goes home with a man and then gets into bed with him before shrieking rape the next morning.
No it isn't and no there isn't. Being pounced on by a stranger or someone you trust may certainly be nuanced but there is no "enormous difference". As for "shrieking rape", that is comfortably one of the foulest comments you're ever likely to hear. Anne, you're part of the problem.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13

Morrissey also says a few things about the Cure f[…]

It's a bit much to call it a Freudian slip I agree[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

You know my stance - I'd block you if I co[…]

Boris Johnson

Apologies for repeating what's been said on here b[…]