Off Topic The Politics Thread

Top post Matt. As always, the long term answer lies in addressing poverty, ignorance and (in some cases) the emancipation of women.

 

I'd suspect they were still angry people with not much positive to believe in.

 

I don't know, what happens( apart from the fact his wife is not Hispanic and is not an illegal immigrant). What do you think?

 

Perhaps the radicalisation passed a point of outweighing the desire to preserve life. In that case there would still be a line that was crossed.

There will still be some cases where people are mentally sick.

 

I can't remember the exact circumstances of those people Nines, but if religion was their main motivation, ignorance obviously plays a part. And doubtless they had other beefs and grievances and thought that their lives weren't as good as other people's through no fault of their own, because of history, discrimination etc etc All these people are, almost by definition, inadequate and sad in some way.

Off to the States next week, to the place where the State Governor has just become Trump's running mate. My mates over there are telling me that he has already taken on a glazed, what the **** have I done, look when sharing a platform with The Donald. I'm expecting a million questions about Brexit, to which my response will be 'that's democracy, just like it will be if you end up with Trump grasping the nuclear codes'.

 

I don't think the radicalised would wait too long to try and clain their infamy. That in itself isn't very reassuring but it is better that it happens while the public are more willing to resource the security services. There's no guarantees but we give ourselves the best chance.

A right wing solution only offers the chance for domestic extremists to indoctrinate the vulnerable. That would make us moderate bystanders, exactly the same as the moderates we'd willingly remove to guard against the indocrinated minority.

 

It's Indiana, where Mike Pence, a Tea Party Republican, is Governor. One of those strange states where big business is actually the liberal voice, lobbying to over turn proposed anti gay religious based legislation (because it would make it harder to recruit whoever we want). Got an hour with my boss' boss, who used to be the Democratic Mayor of Indianapolis while I'm over, he's always good value on US politics, and I suspect he would like to get into it, even though it would entail a massive pay cut.

You are probably on this already, but I would recommend hiring bikes in DC, great way to get around to see the monuments and they are available from those on street rental stations. It's a really nice city, though it will be very hot and sticky.

 

In a way this has happened to some extent already, Col. As immigrants have moved into a district, the previous inhabitants have moved out, creating concentrations of people such that the pressures to conform to Western values and customs diminish. We've even got to the stage where second wave immigration is displacing the first wave in some areas.

So there are already walls of sorts. It's not really the fault of the immigrants or those vacating the areas into which they move. If I was, for example, a Somali immigrant then I would naturally seek to move to an area where there is already a concentration of other Somalis. We can't blame them for this; after all, there are British conclaves in Spain, aren't there? Many immigrants are just looking for a home from home.

No, the fault lies in the policies of successive governments and officials. We've probably done multiculturalism to death before, but this can only work where different peoples are willing to absorb the cultures of others. Notting Hill is a fine example of how this can happen, where the annual Carnival has become something that we all should celebrate and enjoy.

But my sense is also that Islam is a frightened religion. It's must be because of how it reacts to the threat of Western values. I've mentioned before on here of a former work colleague whose grandmother has been in this country for over 40 years yet speaks little English. Islam is frightened that the eyes of it's followers will be opened to the joys of Western culture and reacts violently to that, particularly to its women. It makes them cover themselves up when in public, yet turns a blind eye to domestic violence, drinking and drug-taking amongst it's male followers. It allows many of the males to venture into the Western world to earn a living whilst (in many cases) keeping the females safely at home. In some recent cases we have learned that it allowed the objectification and rape of young white girls through *****phile rings.

A faith more sure of itself would not have to encourage violence towards others, subjugate it's women and retreat into itself, which is effectively what ISIS is seeking.

But the fault in the West lies with successive Governments bending over backwards to promote their liberal credentials without a second thought to how this might all pan out. This policy has not only failed immigrants, for whom living in enclaves brings comfort on the one hand, but no sense of belonging to the greater society on the other, but also the people that were displaced.

 

What's the alternative to multiculturalism Ubes? The French are much less 'multicultural' than we have been, look where it's got them. Perhaps multiculturalism has helped limit the Islamic inspired terrorist attacks to 2 incidents causing deaths so far in the UK. Perhaps the fear and hatred here is less than in other countries, precisely because their beliefs are given some measure of respect (not from me of course). How on earth do you force integration?

The issue, at the moment, is with a particular twisted form of Islam, which, as Nines pointed out above, even ensnares western educated doctors and professionals. My views on all religion are pretty clear, and Islam is a particularly repellent example of it, but big generalisations may not help. The exception to this is probably the entrenched abuse of women. I might be tempted to say 'that's it, no more Muslim immigration of any kind except for heavily vetted genuine refugees within the limits we have set ourselves' because the attitudes to women are fundamentally opposed to our 2016 UK values. Although given some of the stuff you put on the joke thread I'm not sure that this is strictly accurate......

Where Islam seems to be different is there is less social integration over time. We still see concentrations of West Indians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews in some areas but nothing like the levels of Muslims, and of different nationalities within Islam. Yet I work with Muslims in my company every day, and their faith never even crosses my mind.......

As Matt and Nines have pointed out we have a massive conundrum, how to deal with this without becoming the thing we despise.

 

What if 'becoming the thing you despise' becomes the only solution to keeping your loved ones safe, as might be the case should things escalate dramatically?

An alternative to multiculturalism, Stan? Well, we could have prevented the unchecked immigration from all corners of the globe, ensured that all learned English as a priority, ensured English was the only language in schools and of forms, documents and other necessary forms of literature, banned the burkha etc., not subjected the greater population to halal food for the benefit of a minority.

I wouldn't support all of the above, myself, but deleted much of the original list as it would no doubt be imflammatory to some.

My approach to real life is generally to try and focus on areas that unite rather than divide. Frankly, if I perceive the areas of division to be too much then I tend not to bother with the person. I reckon I actually have this in common with Muslims that create enclaves in this country, which probably puts me in the wrong too.

The joke thread is exactly that. In real life I am a hen-pecked weed.

It's actually too late to try anything different to multiculturalism. Europe has allowed an undesirable element to live amongst us and it will be nigh on impossible to identify and prevent every atrocity that will happen from now on. As it continues to allow more inadequately-checked refugees in, so too will more undesirables enter. This is a fact, isn't it?

It is easy to become further paranoid when the perpetrators of some atrocities turn out to be Western-educated doctors or teachers. It is both paranoid and distasteful to start thinking that there could be other Muslims amongst us that secretly despise us, but this could be true, couldn't it? They may never do anything no more awful than think unpleasant thoughts about us behind a smile, but it's a paranoid possibility.

If trying to keep a distance keeps your loved ones safe then who am I to criticise anybody for taking this approach?

As we have already agreed, it's all ****.

 

Comment on the joke thread was a joke sir.

I don't think we can blame Europe for the Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Somali, sub sharan African Muslims who live here and some of whom are radicalised.nour intake of Muslims from the EU, including Syrian and other refugees has been negligible. I won't contest that it is, and will continue to, provide real stresses in Europe.

I have no sensible answers. I don't really care what my do workers may think of me because of their beliefs, as long as they don't act based on them. I do care that ignorant men keep their wives and daughters ignorant and deny them a proper balanced education and a chance to join a wider society, and I do care that their kids are brought up in this poisonous atmosphere. Whether I care enough to do anything about it as long as they leave me and mine alone is a moot point. I think that we may settle into a tense world of de facto partition, which will just cement attitudes and solve nothing.

Meanwhile, those establishment elitists in Linklaters the lawyers, McKinsey, KPMG, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers etc start to reap the Brexit dividend as Davis tries to staff his new department by hiring consultants. If you fancy a career change skilled trade negotiators (of whom we have, currently, none) are expected to get £250k a year on permanent and pensionable terms. £500m a year just for the Brexit dept. So that's one and a half new hospitals which won't get built. Before 'Dr' Fox realises that he needs a bunch of trade negotiators too. Oh no, doom and gloom!

 

Yes, I know the comment about the Joke Thread was itself a joke, which I weakly tried to follow with a self-deprecating comment of my own. I must get to grips with these emoji thingies more

By 'Europe' I was including the UK. I didn't mean as in the EU or nuffink. I was trying to find a collective term other than the West, which I took to include the US, and didn't wanna bring dem Yankees into it.

I have no answers that would be deemed sensible (or palatable) to somebody perhaps considering themselves a compassionate human being. All I'm saying - and it goes back to the Spock quote - is that there is no beautiful solution that makes everybody happy, so perhaps something more pragmatic is required?

It could be that those that may suffer in Europe, including the UK , from atrocities in the future are "the few" in Spock's quote, i.e. the price we are prepared to pay in pursuit of the policies etc. we are implementing. Or it could be that there's a smaller price, or at least one that other people end up paying instead, that could be considered, but is unpalatable to us?

I'm just being the Devil's avocado here, and ever the pragmatist.

 

Theresa May had her first PMQ's and completely wiped the floor of Comrade Corbyn. I would say it was boys against men but that would disrespect her performance.
Sadly Corbyn means well in places but he is no leader. He is so weak at the despatch box. He asks some good questions but you fall asleep when he talks.
We really do need a strong opposition but Labour at the moment has no one who will convince voters.

 

Haven't seen it, but I'm not surprised by your comments. PMQs stopped being a genuine place to question the PM a long time ago. I can't remember when I last heard a serious answer to a difficult question. It's just a game played by showboaters. It's no way for grownups to behave.

 

Must say that this Owen Smith bloke, of whom I had never consciously heard of before a couple of days ago, has a lot of ground to make up. Unconvincing on his work for Pfizer - why didn't he say - ,they paid me as a lobbyist, it was my job, the views I lobbied on we're not necessarily my own' Or even easier 'by choice, I meant choice of medicines for doctors and patients, not a public/private healthcare choice. We (Pfizer) don't care where the cash comes from as long as it pays for our drugs'. Which is I suspect the truth.

 

It's watched by over a million people and really one of the best ways to get to see the leaders go head to head. However it is a bit of a show but you can tell a lot about people from it.
Take Blair's lies about WMD's. If it wasn't for the house televising the debate we probably wouldn't know now what he really is.