Off Topic Off-Topic Thread (Anything Non-Football Related)

Yes - but if we took it away, there would only be football left - and that is too serious to contemplate............

 

Maybe in principle it was a good idea, but the way he put this idea into practice was absolutely absurd. The letter implied that Islam and Muslims are not part of British society. First of all, how do you even define what 'British society' is? Is there a list of what one has to do in order to be part of this exclusive society? Second of all, let's look at this in a global context now. Although Muslim leaders do have to try and encourage people in general that Islam does not in any way endorse the activities of ISIL or the improper application of Sharia Law in the likes of Iran, would you expect the American government to get Priests or Vicars to demonstrate how Christianity is part of its society as a result of the actions from the Klu Klux Klan? Imams do not have any control over how a minority of people act, especially as a lot of these young people that are recruited by terrorist organisations have joined through the internet.

How about trying to focus on issues like preventing the marginalisation of Muslims within society? You know after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, people were throwing pigs heads and grenades into Mosques? Unsurprisingly this got virtually no mainstream media attention. How about trying to stand up to these kind of people and do more to prevent this kind of reaction?

I don't agree with this at all. The counter terrorism bill is a horrendous idea and I will explain why.

It criminalises people based on "looking suspicious" (whatever the hell that means) which means there will ultimately be encouraged racial stereotypes. The bill also criminalises people who have certain views/ideas. There is no clear definition of what they extremism is termed as and certain Islamic ideas will not be allowed without being scrutinised heavily. The data retention part of the bill is also ridiculous as it inhibits people's personal liberties and it means officials will use a person's browsing history to look for "extremist ideology" even when there is a strong possibility of there being no plan to commit terrorist acts. And the fact that "extremist" speakers at universities can be penalised too (again, how do you define such a thing?) contradicts the university's right to promote freedom of speech under the Education Act 1986. Finally, it also does not benefit people who are traveling to the Middle East to attempt to combat the regimes in Syria or ISIL or any other injustices which are going on. I would argue it supports McCarthyite tactics. All this bill does is marginalise Muslims even further by having them spied, tracked and interrogated based on insufficient evidence.

I agreed with the gist of what he was saying on it. Frankly however I couldn't give less of a damn what Boris Johnson thinks or says, especially after he is reported as supporting the Iraq War and calling for the Qur'an to be banned from the UK without engaging with the Muslim community. For him to suddenly change his tune like he's done in the article just shows what a odious little pig he is and always will be.

 

You are not reading this in the same way that I am. My reading sees Pickles declaring that Muslims are a part of British society and need to play a role in countering terrorism. I dont give much credence to how the US goes about things and Pickles attacked right wing extremism in his letter as well.

If this is true, and I dont doubt you can show us where this is reported, then I can only condemn it. We have a responsibility as a peace loving society to out any kind of racist activities. There are always a sad few who will be led by people with political agendas but that argument cuts both ways.

The bill is open to interpretation I will accept.Your interpretation is different to mine. I read "suspected of potentially performing terrorist activities". But there are grounds for concern as to how this information is used. It is nowhere near perfect but the problem the government has is that it has to start somewhere. The information presumably has to come from the secret service which, by its very nature, works secretively to produce correct information.This opens up the while debate of snooping and abuse of powers. The truth is that the internet is not controlled adequately and until is/ if ever it is, we will never really know if we are or are not being watched. I guess if someone is not 'behaving' then they may l have more concerns than others.

How? I never read this at all. Enlighten me, please.

There is almost a touch of paranoia about what you write here. You said in a previous post that a very small percentage of terrorist acts were performed by islamists - surely it is correct to ensure that other potential 'terrorists' are investigated. Show me where in the act it actually names Muslims, or does 'extremist' mean Muslim now? Unfortunately the popular press ignorantly jumps on the back of current paranoia and thus we have the groundings for the finger pointing and potential american style backlash. If the billis instrumental in stopping another 911 or Paris - no matter what cause it is in the name of - you must agree that it has to be a good thing.

Your opinion is yours to have and display - my opinion is that this insult tarnished a well presented argument and was unnecessary

 

I don't agree at all for the reasons I stated above. You're entitled to your view but I think he exacerbated the situation, if anything.

Do you really think I would make a claim like that unless I could back it up?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...ermath-of-paris-terror-attacks/#__federated=1

I find it difficult to believe that someone as intelligent as you can support something so abhorrent. Each to their own, though.

You're right that the internet isn't controlled but then there is the whole debate of whether officials have the right to view our browsing history in order to protect us from (potential) terrorist activity, but that sets a very dangerous precedent and not just because it invades our privacy and inhibits our personal liberties. Personally I don't feel the internet should be controlled. There are some downsides to this naturally but I do believe the pros outweigh the cons in this sort of situation.

Colleges, universities and schools will have 'Prevent' officers monitoring what is said. If they hear anything that they perceive to be extreme, they will monitor and report it to the Home Office. University lecturers are also being forced to give information about 'extremist speakers' within campus. Any political activist on campus is essentially in danger and the President of the Palestinian Society on my campus has told me his name is likely to be on a Government list - all for wanting to bring justice within the Middle East. Additionally, there have been no clear guidelines or information as to what the government term extremism as. How do you define such a thing? This also sets a dangerous precedent as anyone who is highly passionate about certain issues or anyone who may be slightly more conservative in their ideas about Islamic ideology e.g. restoring capital punishment, can easily be dubbed as having extremist ideology which then gets noted.

Also - there are also going to be officers within nurseries and staff are alleged to have to report toddlers that are at risk of becoming extremists. Don't believe me? Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-at-risk-of-becoming-terrorists-9956414.html

No. There are ways of trying to prevent something like this happening again without having such farfetched and outrageous measures in place. Muslims aren't directly mentioned - no - but people do not always do their homework and Muslims are the ones castigated in the media for having such backward methods or for being responsible for kidnappings and sex trafficking (Boko Haram and the Rochdale grooming gangs for example). With the increased scrutiny upon Muslims after witnessing the regimes under the likes of Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam etc, people do feel paranoid and have misconceptions about Islam. People have their prejudices after some of the horrific events which have occurred - from 9/11 to the Islamic State. So although I may know about these statistics, I'm certain most other people do not know about them.

Other 'extremists' may be targeted too, but when you look at this bill in its entirety, I would wager that more Muslims will suffer from it than any other group of people.

Nothing is unnecessary about deriding a man who has very little moral integrity.

 

I have always thought that not everything that is reported in the media is always quite as it seems and that the media can be manipulated to push an idea or agenda for anyone.
The reports about the pig heads etc.are shocking and such activities are abhorrant and rightly should be condemned. The source, however, has reason to spin this to a degree and it is up to the media to balance this out. The BBC and Sky TV last week gave an inordinate amount of time to people who were apologists for Mohammad Emwazi but very little time to the story of the British soldier who won a Victoria Cross in Afghanistan. An imbalance that upset a lot of people.
The Independent's report on 'snooping' in nurseries and today's reports that teachers, councillors and social workers in England and Wales who fail to protect children from sexual exploitation could face up to five years in jail leaves you feeling that there is a potential challenge to 'human rights'. However, terrorists (of all persuasion), paedophiles and people who abduct and murder teenage girls, all show rather more disdain for human rights.
We need to return to a society that does care, does recognise right from wrong and encourages people to give up the beast within and not turn a blind eye or blame 'social conditions' when it suits them.Then, maybe these 'half-baked' assaults on the internet will not be needed. It seems we have far to travel.

 

The issue is that in dealing with rapists, murderers and paedophiles is that we don't know whether they have mental problems or whether they are just horrible people. So it raises the question - should capital punishment be brought back for these kinds of people or should we be aiming to rehabilitate them and help them get past their problems so that it ensures they do not do it again in future?

Personally although being relatively centre-left on the political spectrum, my view is that capital punishment should be brought back for those who are seen as a danger to society. During the period from 1960 to 1969, when capital punishment was abolished, crimes increased by a staggering 125%. So my view on it is that it is an effective deterrent and although people may claim that people have been wrongly accused in the past therefore if you kill that person, you could be killing someone innocent - well - I believe that it should only be used in situations where there is 100% certainty that the person has committed such horrific crimes. Common sense should also be applied when it comes to murderers as it could be manslaughter or accidental etc, but you get the drift.

A lot of people will not agree with me and I do not expect them to but ultimately with the amount of terrible things that happen in the world which don't get punished or get disregarded easily, I'm sure we would see a dramatic fall in crime if capital punishment was brought back

 

You do not convict unless sure beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore in the case of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, the judge and jury would have been 100% certain that they committed crimes that, it turns out, they didn't. If you are not 100% certain, then you do not even find guilty, let alone execute. Executions are done by barbarous countries and will inevitably be applied to the weak and the outsiders in society. I would want no part of it.

 

Currently yes. In principle and if done the correct way however I don't see many disadvantages to it at all.

We live in a soft nation at the moment. And it's something that has to be addressed.

 

Wow! that's a big jump from what we were talking about earlier. I never mentioned capital punishment, my point was about the 'snoopers' charter and how it wasnt necessarily intended to 'marginalise' Muslims.
It's not often I agree with a Spurs fan, but SpursDisciple could have been talking for me with regard to capital punishment. I know this is radically from the Islamic view of "an eye for an eye".

 

I highlighted in bold which bit I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the snooping bit, I was speaking about the human rights violations by rapists, paedophiles etc. The point I was making was about how to deal with such people.

The Islamic view is a separate issue. Not too sure about your interpretation of an ''eye for an eye'' as that's not really the point.

I'm talking about from a general perspective. Obviously each case should be examined in isolation and there should be 100% certainty that the series of crimes have been committed, but by eliminating a danger to society and by giving the victims or their families peace of mind knowing that the person who caused them harm can no longer do so is not a bad thing by any means.

A soft nation my friend.

 

We are soft.....I will give you that

 

Is that a 125% increase in overall crime or just crimes where capital punishment could be applied ?

 

It was a rise in the murders where capital punishment would be applied, so the latter.

 

You quote the years 1960-69 but capital punishment was abolished in1964 with the last hanging taking place in 1965.I think the capital punishment argument should be finished once and for all.A referendum should be held and you should register how you voted.All those who vote for capital punishment could then be used as executioners.If people feel that strongly about capital punishment then surely they would be able to administer the punishment

 

Actually having had another look, it appears I made a faux pas. The years I quoted were wrong. These were the years:

The point still remains, though.

 

How many murders were there in those years anyway?

 

Don't know the exact figure if I'm being honest.

 

I agree with this in the main, but would add one caveat...

Anyone named Bentley deserves to be strung up without trial.

 

I can't argue against that - although one goal was mitigation

 

Mafia game for international break on the Liverpool board:

Any more players from the champions-elect?

http://www.not606.com/threads/mafia-5-sign-up-sheet-target-date-23rd-march.293784/