This is disgusting if allowed to happen

[postggj]

i think this thread will soon be over now so ill add my final entry

 

all this on extremists groups

control of the media

our civil rights being eroded in the name of bush and blair

gestapo style police for which the european court has ruled unlawfull

 

 

remember who died today, i believe she was a hundread and saved a certain diary so we will never forget what happens when free speach is stopped

 

cag

 

i salute you for keeping this thread open through difficult times

Edited January 13, 2010 by postggj

[Tezcatlipoca]

roony

Basic Account Holder

 

 

Cagger since : Jan 1970

Posts: 91

 

Come back ad hominen, all is forgiven...

[Bookworm]

remember who died today, i believe she was a hundread and saved a certain diary so we will never forget what happens when free speach is stopped

I have no idea who and what you're talking about, give us a clue? :-?

[postggj]

she saved the diary ann frank wrote

 

Woman who saved Anne Frank's diary dies- Hindustan Times

[Bookworm]

Ah ok, it makes sense.

 

Completely agree btw.

[kurvaface]

The sad reality in all this is that these religous hate filled people are infringing on our freedom of speech, expression and thought.

 

One would would associate Google with these freedoms but check this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvOhqeElP0s&feature=related

 

Even Google is mindful of offending these nutters.

[Desperate Daniella]

And they are doing it on benefits which Choudary says come from Allah - no, luv, it's the British taxpayers.

[babybear39]

IMHO they should be stopped getting benefits if they are inciting religious hatred! Send them back to their own countries and see what a reception they get there!

[Desperate Daniella]

Couldn't agree with you more. Of course they should. But, as we saw in one of the earlier posts, some of these countries don't want them back. And then of course we have Australia who get out the gunboats and won't let them in in the first place.

 

I'm beginning to see the point of exiling people. Surely there must be an island somewhere where they can all be sent to, give them enough food to live on, proper medical care, and allow them to rant to their hearts' content.

[babybear39]

Couldn't agree with you more. Of course they should. But, as we saw in one of the earlier posts, some of these countries don't want them back. And then of course we have Australia who get out the gunboats and won't let them in in the first place.

 

I'm beginning to see the point of exiling people. Surely there must be an island somewhere where they can all be sent to, give them enough food to live on, proper medical care, and allow them to rant to their hearts' content.

 

They'd all be dead within a month 'cos they'd all disagree and kill each other

[Desperate Daniella]

ROFPMSL

 

You do have a point there.

[Desperate Daniella]

On a more serious note though, I watched the second programme last night onDoctors and Nurses volunteering in Afghanistan and this poor marine had to have both his legs amputated and when he was interviewed at the rehabilitation home later he just said he saw it as "a setback". What a hero.

[caro]

Page 9 NOTW tday.

 

Home Secretary Alan Johnson is expected to impose anti-terror laws as early as tomorrow to ban al-Muhajiroun and it's latest offshoot Islam4UK.

The move will make it a criminal offence-punishable by up to ten years in jail-to become a member or to attend or address any meetings.

It allows the authorities to tear down websites used by the groups to spread hate,promote violence and recruit new members.The action will also make it a criminal offence to raise funds.

Home office lawyers have been secretly scouring the rule books to find ways of making the two groups illegal.

A Whitehall insider said last night,'The decision to proscribe the groups was made a few months ago-well before the march was even announced.

Gordon brown has branded the march 'abhorrent and offensive'-and Mr Johnson said he would have no hesitation in banning it.

 

Hmmm... I wonder what next will be banned if, and I quote "The move will make it a criminal offence-punishable by up to ten years in jail-to become a member or to attend or address any meetings." and the authorities are allowed to decide what is or isn't allowable.... What a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, and as far as I am concerned, ALL politicians' hands are the wrong ones... Just think, under such a law, a few well-greased hands, a few words in the right ears and a site like CAG could come under the same definition... After the OFT case, after the Manchester case and so many others where consumers have been taking a bashing, would you REALLY trust your government, under whichever banner, to be the ones to have such a tool? Oi vey.

 

I quite agree. The rights of people in Britain appear to be chipped at bit by bit, and who knows where it could lead.

 

 

i think this thread will soon be over now so ill add my final entry

 

all this on extremists groups

control of the media

our civil rights being eroded in the name of bush and blair

gestapo style police for which the european court has ruled unlawfull

 

Ignore the signs of erosion of rights at your peril. Guantanamo Bay was a disgrace, and we need to ensure that our laws are as tight as they can be to prevent some future would-be dictator from eroding the right of everyone in this country, whatever their ethnic origins.

 

For now there's no clarity on the bank charges issue, allowing the banks to continue helping themselves to our money at will. Creditors are not required to provide a true copy of CCAs allowing bankers and other unscrupulous organisations to claim money is owed them, when in reality it may not be.

 

 

remember who died today, i believe she was a hundread and saved a certain diary so we will never forget what happens when free speach is stopped

 

cag

 

i salute you for keeping this thread open through difficult times

 

We owe it to to those who have gone before us to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.

Edited January 14, 2010 by caro

[determindator]

The people of Wootton Bassett and most of the country including me, do not want the free speech of this particular group. What are the suggestions as to the best way to deal with it then.

[caro]

I don't pretend to know the answers, but IMHO if they don't get the attention they seek they'll just be talking to themselves making the exercise pointless.

 

If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?

[Tezcatlipoca]

I quite agree. The rights of people in Britain appear to be chipped at bit by bit, and who knows where it could lead.

 

It leads to situations like the Brian Haw farce, where the government, without democratic consultation, rushed through a bill solely to get rid of one lone protester who was camping in the grounds of parliament.

 

It initially backfired in style, when said protester's barristers pointed out he had started his protest prior to the bill, so - ironically - Brian was the only citizen in England immune from it, but later legal-wrangling by the government has overturned this.

 

That any governemnt, anywhere, could use such bullying tactics and strong-arm administration to try to silence a peace protester is both farcical and appalling, but this is a good example that we are now at the stage where this government is both able and prepared to undemocratically push through legislation for absolutely no purpose other than silencing its critics.

That is the essence of totalitarianism, not democracy.

 

We owe it to to those who have gone before us to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.

 

Do we? Why, exactly?

Edited January 14, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca

[Surfer01]

Now maybe people will appreciate and understand why the Rhodesians (now Zimbabwe) and South Africans locked up people who incited terrorism!

[Bookworm]

Oh yes, Zimbabwe and Apartheid South Africa, those shining examples of democracy and respect of human rights. Yep, those are perfect examples, come to think of it...

[Surfer01]

Oh yes, Zimbabwe and Apartheid South Africa, those shining examples of democracy and respect of human rights. Yep, those are perfect examples, come to think of it...

 

At the time it was the correct policy to put in place to protect all the people. Now look at both countries which are being governed by former terrorists. One is now a banana republic governed by a maniac dictator who slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and South Africa is now governed by a former shepherd who has virtually no education and has several wives. At least formerly they had more of a democracy than they have now especially Zimbabwe as the vote was given to people of all colours who earned over a specific amount of money annually.

[caro]

Do we? Why, exactly?

 

Because they fought for the freedoms which we now enjoy and strive to maintain, especially those brave lads and lasses who are still risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose families are being deprived of their loved ones.

 

I'm not convinced that they should be asked to do this, which is a different matter, but the fact of the matter is that they are there and deserve our support.

 

Simplistic maybe, but it's my view and I am quite simple (as others will no doubt confirm).

[Bookworm]

At the time it was the correct policy to put in place to protect all the people. Now look at both countries which are being governed by former terrorists. One is now a banana republic governed by a maniac dictator who slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and South Africa is now governed by a former shepherd who has virtually no education and has several wives. At least formerly they had more of a democracy than they have now especially Zimbabwe as the vote was given to people of all colours who earned over a specific amount of money annually.

Let me get this right: You are trying to tell us that apartheid South Africa was a democracy? And that colonial Zimbabwe was a good example of democracy because of their voting rules ( wealth = vote, which effectively meant only a small proportion of the whites could vote, as rich black were near enough a contradiction in terms)?

 

We must have been looking at different history books.

[Bookworm]

Because they fought for the freedoms which we now enjoy and strive to maintain, especially those brave lads and lasses who are still risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose families are being deprived of their loved ones.

 

I'm not convinced that they should be asked to do this, which is a different matter, but the fact of the matter is that they are there and deserve our support.

 

Simplistic maybe, but it's my view and I am quite simple (as others will no doubt confirm).

I'm quite simple too, so I'm sure someone will set me straight here, but aren't those "heroes" people who chose army as a career and get sent wherever as part as their job? Don't they know that joining the army actually does entail risking one's life in the process at some point? :-?

 

Don't get me wrong, I regret any loss of a young life especially in pointless battles, but why are these young people being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan? Where is our freedom being threatened in this country? :-? We KNOW we went to Iraq on an illegal war and fabricated evidence, so why are we still there after these years?

 

I deeply regret that young people are dying, even more so when it is senseless. But I also deplore the loss of lives of the civilians out there, because funnily enough, the vast majority of them are NOT AL-Quaeda or Taliban and they invariably get caught in the cross-fire.

 

Here where I live, there is a banner on the roundabout, commemorating the death of a soldier (that's how chavs do it around here, don't ask...) clebrating "our hero". All very noble, you might say. Except he didn't die in action, he was in the UK and killed himself and his girl-friend in a car crash. So celebrating him as a hero? Why?

 

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I am always wary of very public displays of grief/loss etc... In this day and age, the media sadly can turn what started as a genuine mark of respect or grief into a circus and a symbol of something altogether different, where people start believing that this is compulsory and necessary tradition, when it is anything but. In fact, I suspect that a lot of the parents of the young men and women would rather be allowed to mourn privately and quietly rather than see their children turned into the symbol of something they might not have necessarily have believed in, but they did the job for which they were paid, went where they were told and sadly died in the course of doing their job.

 

Before anyone starts laying into me, let me state for the record that I come from a military family, my father was a veteran of 3 colonial wars, all 3 of my brothers were in the Army, 2 of them having seen action in hotspots of the world, Chad, Beyrut, the USSR etc... and 1 each of my brothers and sisters spent years as humanitarian help, from Kosovo to Laos, from Ethiopia to Iraq. I admire them, respect what they did immensely, but they signed up for those jobs knowing they were risky and accepted those risks. My brother got blown up by a rocket in Yemen and still bears the scars (bits of shrapnel still work their way to the surface of his skin now and then that the surgeons couldn't remove because they were too deeply imbedded) and loss of vision in 1 eye. Other events happened which I won't go into now, but let me tel lyou that I have personal experience of this type of grief whch can befall a family, and I can honestly say that I would have absolutely hate the media and/or people using our own tragedies to turn them into a beacon for hatred and extremism.

[oilyrag]

removed entirely or

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
deleted

[oilyrag]

removed entirely or

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
deleted

[Tezcatlipoca]

Damn, Bookie got there before I did, but encapsulated a great deal of what I'd intended to post.

 

I'll only add that I think there's often a confusion between those members of armed forces who fought, and many died, in a war when our way of life and liberty were directly under threat, and those who are currently being asked to fight a very dirty, shameful 'war' for motivations far darker than the 'fight for freedom' being marketed to the world at large.

 

Let us be quite clear about this. Members of the armed forces choose to take up a career which they - presumably - accept may result in directly damaging or even killing them. They choose to do this for whatever reasons.

 

Whilst it's true that soliders are almost invaraibly - and unjustifiably in my view - blamed for the conflicts they are asked to fight, we should be careful about swallowing the political marketing and labour under the delusion the invasion of Iraq / Afghanistan is done to 'protect our freedom' or 'ensure our liberty' back home. It very obviously isn't.

 

Are those who fight in these zones heroes? Subjective, since the definition of what counts as heroism is largely decided by the individual.

Are those who fight in these zones fighting for our freedom back home? Very clearly not.

 

War, sadly, is as much about marketing as it is about morality.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca