Paris - breaking news

If you move to a foreign country to live, it is your responsibility to learn the language, the culture, the way of life. I plan to retire to Italy one day and am currently learning to speak the language and learn about their history.
My point is - If you cannot be bothered to integrate and wish to live your life as if you were 'back home' then perhaps you shouldn't have come in the first place. Every person that comes to the UK and is granted residency, should be expected to have more than a basic grip of English. Before even thinking of granting them a right to stay, they should be fluent. In terms of migrants - We should only be accepting the most highly skilled workers because there is a shortage of a particular skill or trade, or because they are experts in their particular field. We should go along the lines of the US and also grant a certain number of 'visas' each year to people from certain countries and refugees. We aren't a massive island and space is getting smaller each year. An influx of economic migrants from within the EU is simply not viable.

Back to the point about integration - The problem we have in the UK is that certain inner city areas within big cities are turning into no go areas unless you are a certain nationality/ religion or from a particular culture. There are islamic communities within the UK that are isolated from mainstream society and it is within these groups that extremism tends to thrive. I posted earlier about this in relation to France. The suburbs are breeding grounds for extremism. The Goverment should be tackling this problem.

 

I've visited Turkey around 30 times now since the mid 90's and there's a pull for me big time.
The people are lovely and the periods around Ramadan and Bayram are very special indeed.
My Turkish mates have been fighting (they do conscription there) for years against the Kurdish seperatists, the PKK and their view is that ISIS should be wiped off the face of the planet.
They see ISIS as a stain on their religion and the region.

 

Moderate Muslims [the majority] are aghast at what ISIS is doing. Unfortunately, we don't hear much from them. It tends to be the extremist nut jobs like Anjum Chowdry [however you spell his surname] that grab the headlines. That particular tit, although a British citizen, needs to be taught a lesson. He's preaching for Sharia Law. Guess what Anjum? You've never lived in a secular Islamic society that preaches extreme Sharia Law. You open your mouth and use Freedom of Speech, Democracy and the UK system to spout your rubbish. Try reality. You want that, you are quite welcome to go there. Abide by the laws and customs of the UK or simply piss off. No-one is forcing you to stay here.

 

Ever since Enoch Powell the liberal establishment has vilified anyone who even goes near the issues involved in this, I have been trying to find the news byline that I saw earlier this morning about a hairdresser who has been arrested for Inciting Racial Hatred because she posted a rant on Facebook about islamists and stated that she would not allow any muslims in her salon in the wake of the Paris attacks. The debate is always stifled because the structures that govern us and run our public services are institutionally socialist Liberal in their make up, the fear of upsetting the Islamic community has over-ridden any need to debate the impact that the Islamic community is having on the UK, you only have to consider the recent cases of abuse where the desire not to upset the Islamic community over-rode the investigation and prosecution of the men committing the crimes, this is even more so the time when we should be having the debate as to the future of this country and what we as it's people want, the multicultural ideal is a failed experiment and should be buried for good.

 

I think the ISIS threat is starting to have an effect. Right wing nationalist groups will be rubbing their hands in glee.
Whilst I don't condone racism or stereotypical behaviour I can sort of understand why people hold those views. I will say this again though. This is the United Kingdom. It is not Saudi Arabia, or another Islamic nation. You live by the principle of democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law. There is no higher law than Parliament [subject to EU law of course.] Either come here, embrace our culture, our customs, laws and way of life or go home. Sharia law has no place here.

 

I think it was BRS who has been going on about how it is the Wahabist (not sure of spelling) extremists who are the real problem - and he is right. These are nutters from Saudi Arabia who are intent on taking the entire muslim world back to a pre-development world where ultra conservative muslim rule applies. They have been used for nearly a century now as political pawns when it has suited different political ideals to do so - including by us.

They were used to bring the Saud family to power in Saudi Arabia. However, they had different goals to the Saud family, who were only interested in establishing their own rule on Saudi Arabia. The Americans were happy to prop up the Saud family as they had agreed to an oil deal that helped meet the vast American need for oil. After that the Wahabists became a threat to the Saud's who's real goal is power and money rather than any ideology. When they were causing problems at home they were sent to Afghanistan to fight the Russians on the pretext of defending Islam. Once there they were armed by the Americans who had an obsessive desire to wipe out he communists (even though the Soviet regime was already in the early stages of a state of collapse from within). There they were taught by the Americans how to fight a terrorist campaign using car bombs and guerilla tactics against the Russians who were mainly occupying the Afghan cities. One of the leaders of these Wahabists who we helped train and arm was Osama Bin Laden. Around the same time the Americans also armed Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis who were fighting another enemy, Iran. The desire to use these people was so great that in 1982 Ronald Reagan even publicly dedicated the Columbia Space Shuttle flight to the courage of the Afghan rebels (including Osama Bin Laden).

Once these people were no longer needed they were forgotten about and Afghanistan and Iraq were left to their own devices, along with the weapons we gave them. In the 1980s our manufacturing industries had collapsed and there was a real need to secure international orders. We (UK) signed the world's biggest ever arms deal with Saudi Arabia and supplied them with vast quantities of aircraft, artillery and defence equipment. However, we also supplied them with a huge number of rocket launchers, guns, missiles and mines, all of which the Saudis had no real need of, but they had more money than they knew what to do with. They didn't even know how to use them effectively which is why Saddam had no problems invading Kuwait and the Saudis had to ask for American help in fighting back. Once this happened we provided the Saudi fighters (including the Wahabists) with even more weapons. The same has been true in other North African and middle Eastern countries where we have supplied rebels with arms to fight regimes we saw an advantage in removing.

All of these have been short term decisions to support short term aims. Huge amounts of these weapons have been used against us since then. Many of the Coalition forces that were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were killed by British and American weapons that we had supplied when it suited us. We need to stop using these evil people when it suits us. it will always come back to bit us on the arse. We need to adopt more ethical approaches to our foreign policy and stop dealing and conspiring with evil regimes - even if they have oil and money.

The Wahabists are both out of control and uncontrollable. Anybody who disagrees with them is declared not a proper muslim and worthy of death - including most muslims who 'allow' themselves to be ruled by moderate muslims. They are relatively few in number but thrive in periods and situations where fear and panic reign. Most muslims are far more terrified of them than we are. They don't have the numbers to win a war with arms. Their only hope is to spread fear and panic so that muslims feel persecuted enough to decide that they are the lesser of two evils. They may be backwards but they are also clever. They have issued a general jihad on the west. They don't exert great control or organisation over their followers. However, they can offer advice and support to any nutjob who is radicalised and wants to bring death and destruction. The fear of what these people can do is far worse than the reality. But it is the fear that brings them what they want. It is also that fear that brings some of our own leaders what they want too as it gives them more power and opportunity to reinforce their own control and power.

We need to cut this problem off at it's source. Remove and destroy the Wahabists and do the same with anyone who seeks to radicalise other muslims. This problem has got nothing to do with international borders, refugees or immigration levels. They are all problems in their own right, but separate ones from the terrorist threat.

 

This. The Sunni's, Shia's and others aren't the problem per se. It is the Wahabi Islamists [a branch of Sunni] that are the problem. They are the most vocal group in Islam. They are ISIS, Al Queda etc.

Have a read of this.

http://www.sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html

 

It doesn't matter where an event of that nature is held. There will still be massive risk attached.

 

Assume you mean this one...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-in-islamophobic-facebook-post-a6736246.html

To be fair they didn't have much choice but to arrest her when she posted a post saying I am breaking the law.

 

The bbc article was edited ..broken into chunks and the full video statement was cut from the text
(Are the tories hammering the bbc atm? Are the bbc playing sit up, rollover and beg with the tories? Recent coverage would appear to indicate so.)

What Corbyn said in the guardian (hardly a pro Corbyn paper but not as virulently dishonest and manipulative as the usual suspects): and not from the heavily edited bbc video/ text

He said: “I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.

he was “committed to what the existing law is – that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat”.

“Surely if somebody is doing something wrong you act legally against them,” he said. “If we are setting ourselves up as the west, as in accordance with the UN, with international law and of our own laws, then I think we have to act in accordance with them.


Personally I have no objection to what he ACTUALLY said ..it's pretty calm and sensible..particularly as the term 'shoot to kill' is associated with its (alleged) use in Northern Ireland by the state to avoid going to trial.

This on the day when Osbourne is scare mongering that isis will kill use via cyber attacks and why the snoopers charter is to be be pushed through quickly rather than be debated fully on parliament ...ignoring the fact that france has had an equivalent to the snoopers charter in place since the Hebdo shooting ...it certainly didn't work in Paris ...so if we give even more powers and freedoms to the state ..It will DEFINITELY work this time!! the state keeps promising us it will ..funny how it never does and the solution is to curtail civil liberty more .....All because the state tells us that they didnt have enough ...again ...and again ...and again


Ever felt you where being force fed a narrative? Who benefits from that narrative?

 

Believe it or not qualifying for UK residence got a lot harder in 2012. When me and my wife, who is an Indonesian Citizen, moved back to UK in 2005, we got a 1 year temporary residence visa for her pretty quickly in Jakarta. Then after that year we were told we could apply for permanent residence and just had to show some evidence we were still living as man and wife (actually an electric bill in our joint names). She was then granted permanent residence which gives her all the rights of a UK citizen except she cant vote and probably cant join army.
Apparently now its much harder to get temporary residence visa. You have to show proof of income to support your family, the wife has to pass an English test and you cant apply for permanent residence for 5years after which you have to show you have lived together for that time. If marriage falls apart before 5 years is up wife can be deported. Seems a bit harsh but certainly keeps them in their place.
After permanent residence for 2years they can apply for British citizenship but have to show proof of language ability and pass the Living in Britain Test. Try this - its not that simple
https://lifeintheuktests.co.uk/british-citizenship-test/

 

.

 

holland v Germany called off due to a scare.

 

A scare

Someone with a machine gun?

 

Well, I passed (22 out of 24) even if my eldest daughter didn't(17 out of 24). Wonder where she is going to live now?

 

Not clear.
The stadium was evacuated.

 

Talking to a customer today, her son works in a prison somewhere in London. Apparently, when news of the Paris attacks got through the muslim scumbags went wild, banging and shouting allah akhbar <then again, you wouldn't expect anything else from them

 

From the bbc.

Germany v Netherlands friendly called off for security concerns
Germany's friendly with the Netherlands on Tuesday has been called off because of a "concrete security threat" against the city of Hannover.

Evacuation of the Hannover Stadium, which was hosting the match, began less than two hours before kick-off.

The city's president of police Volker Kluwe told the BBC "there were plans for some kind of explosion".

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was set to attend the match at the 49,000-capacity HDI Arena.

Belgium's friendly with Spain on Tuesday in Brussels was called off on Monday because of security fears in the wake of last week's attacks in Paris.

England's match against France at Wembley on Tuesday night is going ahead, with tributes to be paid to the 129 people killed in Paris on Friday.

please log in to view this image

The German FA Tweeted soon after the cancellation

Two Dutch government ministers attending the match - Defence Minister Jeanine Hennes and Health and Sport Minister Edith Schippers - returned to the airport to travel home.

German team national spokesman Jens Grittner tweeted: "The team were diverted on the way to the stadium. In a safe place. We can't say more at the moment."

The world champions had initially not wanted the game to go ahead, having been France's opponents in Paris on Friday when the wave of attacks hit the city.

The contingent of 80 Germans, including players, coaches and staff, then spent the night in the changing rooms of the Stade de France stadium, before leaving for the airport on Saturday morning.

please log in to view this image

Associated Press sports reporter in Germany Ciaran Fahey, tweeted about the security measures around the ground

But the players, coaches and national football association decided to proceed with the game in a show of unity with the French.

The Associated Press agency reports there had been a bomb threat about an hour earlier outside the stadium, with streets leading to the ground being sealed off before the all-clear was given.

Hannover's mayor Stefan Schostok told German newspaper Bild:"Safety is paramount. This is a fear you will always have.

"I trust the police have made the right decision. If a threat situation exists, then those steps must be taken."

More follows.

 

Christ