I find it quite refreshing that despite some of our obvious differences when it comes to football, there seems to be a coherent and sensible debate when it comes to Politics. Even with some of the Spurs lads, who probably think I'm a pain in the arse (only for pointing out the obvious flaws with their club) I find it quite reassuring that most of them seem to share similar political views to myself.
Agreed, and I'd include aftcw in that even though I disagree with his politics, I find we can all have sensible discussions about it. The ones I can't understand are the public sector workers I know who live in Wales, some of whom are disabled yet they still voted Tory and then complain about reduced budgets, job losses, lack of jobs and the state of the nhs
How the **** can a national newspaper run that? It's something I'd expect from some pillocks on Twitter, FFS. Corbyn backed homeopathy, so I'm out, but the idea that moving Labour away from the Tories would damage them is pretty funny. Even the premise of the article is as stupid as it is offensive. Destroy Labour? Then what? Dictatorship? Someone might actually create a proper alternative to the current crop of Thatcherite arseholes. Not sure that would help the Conservatives.
I sent a complaint to the Telegraph the other day after Andrew Gilligan wrote an absolute howler of an article on Abdullah Al-Andalusi. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cing.-And-by-night-preacher-of-extremism.html I had a look at his Wikipedia page and saw that we both attended the same secondary school. Quite ashamed of that, actually.
What was your complaint with the article? I may have missed something obvious in there due to not having prior knowledge of the person the article is about.
Like you I have no knowledge about the person in the article, and as such couldn't comment on it's accuracy. But the thing that struck me was how tabloidy the writing was. I don't read the Telegraph much as it's so right wing, but I always felt it was one of the better written broadsheets, but obviously not. Especially with the Jeremy Corbyn article earlier it seems to be going down the Daily Mail/Express route
I felt similarly about Khrisran guru-Murphy on channel 4, during his 'did you call them your friends' interview with Corbyn. Thanksfully Corbyn told him as much and berated him for tabloid style journalism. Channel 4 news is usually so much better than that and I thought they let themselves down with that.
Guru-Murphy is always an arsehole in interviews, he regularly pushes an agenda to get a story rather than carrying out a proper interview.
Abdullah Al-Andalusi is an activist and has appeared on numerous TV programs discussing theological, philosophical issues and he has worked against the PREVENT legislation which is discriminatory towards Muslims, whilst also having open debates about extremism, Islam and how easy people can be influenced by the media. The fact that he is labelled as an extremist in the subheading of the article is problematic. Does this mean anyone who shares a different view to Gilligan is now identified as an extremist? Gilligan claims first of all that Hizb Ut-Tahrir and CAGE are terrorist organisations and that Al-Andalusi has links with them. Even if he did, so what? They aren't terrorist organisations. The United States think tank Global Security concluded that the former have no links with terrorist activity in any way, shape or form. CAGE have been accused of being terrorist sympathisers, but they aren't. They stand for human rights, due process of the law and dealing with people ostracised by their communities as a result of poor treatment from the security services and the police. And if CAGE were suspected to be supporting terrorists, then why haven't the government banned them like they did with Al-Muhajiroun 5 years ago? Moving on. He then claimed in the article that Al-Andalusi had obtained access to confidential information. There was no evidence for this whatsoever. Why make a false allegation like that unless he had the intention to smear? Gilligan fails to realise that there is no hypocrisy in working with the government in the civil service whilst also criticising the way Muslims can be treated in public service jobs. Does working for an organisation mean they should be exempt from criticism if they are guilty of wrongdoing? It was an anaemic argument. The fundamental issue though was that he was deliberately trying to misguide anyone who reads the Telegraph in order to demonise any muslim who criticised Western foreign policy or who claims they are partially responsible for the radicalisation and disillusionment of those that join ISIS, Al-Shabab etc. Even if you don't agree, why smear? At least be willing to have an open debate about it.
I see where your coming from with the links to CAGE, CAGE are the opposite of a terrorist organisation. It is very worrying on a continent that has suffered so horrendously from fascism and hate propaganda - in the 2nd world war with Germany, Austria, Italy, Scandinavia, in the Bosnian/Balkans war, the recent Norwegian massacre, that the press in this country and others are so intent on promoting race hate. You'd think we'd learn from the 70s, the National Front and the 'Rivers of Blood' speech and the demonisation of Indian sub-continent and West Indian immigrants (or all commonwealth non-white immigrants tbh)...
Fair enough, I assumed it was probably due to the way he was presented but didn't know enough about him to be sure! I agree it seems to paint him as an extremist (no idea if he is or not) and it's written to get attention rather than fact based. Bringing in the confidential information thing was also clearly an attempt to make the story sound more interesting, but he claims that information is from a source as opposed to it being him making false allegations. I think the hypocrisy he is trying to highlight is the idea of someone who hates Britain, then working within the public sector in Britain. Which only really works if the guy is actually an extremist who hates Britain. I shall have to have a look and see who this guy is now!
I think organisations who put pressure on government to implement fair and just policies are very important for the country. Far too many people spend there time worrying and moaning about things to do with money, such as all the anti-austerity stuff, as if our government are so awful for hitting us in the pockets, yet legislation that limits privacy and freedom seems to be brought in with little or no fuss, with a "well I've got nothing to hide" thrown in for good measure. So I'm all for organisations who try to deal with issues surrounding human rights and freedom. But CAGE I'm not sold on. They've had some moments which blur there moral outlook, such as supporting convicted terrorists. They've had there assets frozen after one of there key members was arrested in relation to terror offences in Syria. What there views and motivations are I couldn't tell you, but it doesn't surprise me that they get questioned about there organisation.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. They have supported people who have unfairly been treated and have not been through due process or have dealt with people who didn't get the chance to exercise their human rights under the rule of law. A lot of people have initially been convicted but have ended up being set free due to being found not guilty. They are aiming to put an end to oppression and restore a sense of justice to people's lives. The whole point of CAGE is about fairness and not circumventing one's human rights even if they disagree with that individual or group's point of view. Sharing a platform with someone on an issue does not mean they agree with every single thing that someone says or does. My issue with what you've written is that you're not looking at the details of the cases you mention and are taking a simplistic view on things.
I'm sorry but it isn't nonsense. CAGE have supported convicted terrorists, there was an asset freeze in relation to Syrian terror activity, I couldn't tell you there motivations (good or bad) and I'm not surprised they get questioned. If you started an organisation which was based around terror suspects you'd expect to be questioned too, no? I agree I've taken a very simple view of the subject, which is also why I've not asserted any strong opinions, just cast vague suspicion and suggested I could understand why an organisation such as CAGE might be questioned. I would indeed need to do more research (beyond the bad press they've received) to gain a more in depth view of the organisation, the details of the cases and what it's motivations might be.
You do realise there are people in Guantanamo Bay that are innocent? Not everyone that is convicted there has a plot to commit acts of terrorism. In any case, regardless of whether they are innocent or not, the whole point is that they want these people to be subjected to the rule of law and fair trials. The names of some of these suspected terrorists have been flung through the mud, yet some have ended up being innocent in a court of law, after years of abuse, interrogation and in most case, being extradited. I think we need to be careful when we talk about Syrian 'terror' activity. There are some people who go to Syria or who want to go to Syria to fight against the rebels and against ISIS. Equally, there are others who go there to help out those in orphanages or to build wells for those whom have had their homes wrecked. It is absolutely farcical that most people with brown skin and a beard get racially profiled and get more thorough checks than others. I should know, this happened to me back in March. Secondly, questioning someone is absolutely fine. Demonising and discrediting them, however, is something else entirely and this links back to the article Gilligan wrote in The Telegraph about Al-Andalusi. There are two massive differences here. It's funny that organisations like CAGE who are actually trying to help those that have been mistreated and misunderstood are condemned for standing up for Human Rights and justice, yet we have organisations such as the Quilliam Foundation that are heavily praised in the media despite their role in vilifying any Muslim who seems to hold mainstream Islamic beliefs whilst labelling them as terrorist sympathisers. Society is so backwards.
Society is most definitely backwards! I know there will be people in Guantanamo (and most detention facilities in the world I'd imagine) who are convicted yet innocent. There's also plenty who are deemed innocent who are in fact guilty. My point was more that being involved with people convicted of terror offences is always going to draw attention and suspicion. As far as the Syrian terror offences, I've stopped short of suggesting this makes them terrorist sympathisers because as you say there are multiple reasons people go out and get involved in the Syrian situation. But having your assets frozen in relation to terrorism doesn't give off the best image of an organisation. Rightly or wrongly, it does make the lines look blurred. What was your experience in March? I've seen first hand how legislation passed in the name of stopping terrorism can be abused. I'm white and I've been interrogated at gun point under the terrorism act with threat of detention with no evidence. So I sympathise with those who have experienced some of the seemingly un-justified actions used by authorities.
Isn't it true that no one in Guantanamo has been convicted. Isn't it a holding concentration camp prior to entering the "justice" system. With the sting in the tail that many of them never do.
