Quite right: Cameron is a stupid twat

But as I explained in parliament, I find it difficult to see how a proposal to prevent a British national from returning to our country could be carried out, even temporarily, without legal, practical and reputational problems for us. The prime minister rightly emphasised that we must not breach international law by rendering a person stateless. But what is refusing to allow a person back with no other nationality, but an assertion of just such statelessness? How would my friend and colleague the home secretary have felt if, at the last minute, the Jordanian government had done the same to us over Abu Qatada? Where are the common law principles of freedom under the law and the presumption of innocence if individuals cannot return to face prosecution and trial in their own country on grave allegations that are being levelled at them? How would a temporary ban assist security, except temporarily?


That’s Cameron’s
own lawyer (well, the government’s) making that argument.

As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m a great deal less worried about what the jihadis might do to us than I am about what the politicians might do to our freedom and liberty using the excuse of the jihadis.

73 comments on “Quite right: Cameron is a stupid twat

  1. No it’s not. Cameron fired Grieve a couple of months ago, almost certainly because he is a reasonably serious lawyer and refused to play silly buggers ahead of the election.

    They replaced him with Jeremy Wright, who by all accounts is lobby fodder willing to countenance any old shite, hence the current deluge of illegal populist proposals.

  2. Five years ago both Coalition parties were railing against the encroachment on civil liberties under the previous Government. But, true to form, once a party is in power, they will go from zero to jackboot in nothing flat at the slightest provocation.

  3. But the jihadis wouldn’t be stateless, if they’ve sworn allegiance to the Islamic State. We would just be saying “fair enough, you won’t be needing this British passport now then.”

    Job done, without infringing on any of our liberties.

  4. As John B, said, Grieve is, significantly, their ex-lawyer. You sack your lawyer if you don’t like their advice. The current Gov’t struggle with this rule of law stuff.

  5. IF they’re citizens of the Islamic State they aren’t being rendered stateless by being stripped of British citizenship. The fact that they might have problems getting into places that are not the Islamic State is their problem.

    The Qatada case is different as he only had the one citizenship, thus could not be (legally) stripped of it. I was stripped of one of my two birth citizenships by a government’s legal whim, some 20 years ago. It’s a risk that those of us who accept multiple citizenships have to accept.

    I also think that removal of citizenship is pretty common practice for those who bear arms for a hostile power. One of the reasons Russia is so busy handing out passports in eastern Ukraine, isn’t it?

    We have a freedom issue here (government crackdowns), we also have a frankly existential threat from Islam. And at the moment the latter is the greater threat to our freedom and way of life – it’s far more than just a threat to our lives.

  6. “I find it difficult to see how a proposal to prevent a British national from returning to our country could be carried out, even temporarily, without legal, practical and reputational problems for us”

    Yes. It’s quite an unholy mess they’ve gotten us into after decades of mass immigration, multiculturalism, tossing out British passports like confetti, and enshrining European human rights legislation in our domestic laws. No quick or easy solutions to that.

    “The prime minister rightly emphasised that we must not breach international law by rendering a person stateless.”

    International law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The provisions against creating stateless persons were formed in a very different world to the one we now inhabit.

    “Where are the common law principles of freedom under the law and the presumption of innocence if individuals cannot return to face prosecution and trial in their own country”

    Here’s the problem – Britain is not their country. Lord Wellington was right. Raising a man in a stable does not make him a horse. Jihadi rapists and beheaders are not our countrymen and we owe them nothing.

    Unfortunately the stupid and malicious decisions of successive British governments to “rub our noses” in “diversity” have caught up with us, from the child-rapists of Rotherham (and God knows how many other towns and cities) to the suicide bombers and murderers of London, Cardiff, and everywhere else we’ve been enriched.

    As usual, Cameron is pussyfooting around the problem, seeking cheap stunts in place of a joined-up policy that would actually make a difference. The British government is only succeeding in advertising its own ineffectualness. That’s likely to make the problem worse.

  7. Blokes in Places: they are only citizens of the Islamic State if we recognise the Islamic State as a state. Which we don’t, which is why we’re helping the Iraqis and the Kurds to fight against it.

  8. The laws and common law traditions you base this on are from a different era, when threats were different. Just as we no longer burn witches, because times have changed, now we are re-addressing (or should be) the right to citizenship and passport-holding. It cuts both ways.

    I wonder how many people who oppose this scheme would be happy if a head hacker called Mohammed from Bradford moved in two doors down and started wandering about holding up posters saying ‘Behead those who insult Islam’?

    It’s no good asking the cops to do anything about it, because they’ve proven before that they won’t.

    A lot of this fine talk is by people – myself included – who are unlikely to have Mohammed nearby. I’m more interested in what the other people of Bradford think, to be honest.

    I suppose it’s possible that one day Cameron or his successors will want to take away my passport (though I doubt it, and I don’t think they’d ever get a democratic mandate if they did).

    It’s also possible that blokes from Bradford called Mohammed are going off to Syria for purely innocent purposes, and that they pose no threat to us if they get back.

    I just can’t get too excited about this, I’m sorry. These people are not in any real sense British, in the sense that their allegiances are not to the Queen and they place religious law above the law of the land.

    The extant British people were never asked if they wanted large parts of our cities taken over by radical Muslims, or whether it was OK to give them passports; the whole thing was always an artificial construct by lawyerly leftists who couldn’t see further than the end of their noses, or were doing it ‘to rub the noses of the right in immigration’.

    Well, thanks for that.

    It’s really not the same as taking my granny’s passport away, and it never will be.

  9. @JohnB

    ‘Blokes in Places: they are only citizens of the Islamic State if we recognise the Islamic State as a state. Which we don’t,’

    If guy X says he no longer regards himself as British, and believes himself to be the citizen of an Islamic State – and plenty of them do think and say such stuff – who are you or a bunch of old white guys in London to tell them they can’t be the same?

  10. I wonder how many people who oppose this scheme would be happy if a head hacker called Mohammed from Bradford moved in two doors down and started wandering about holding up posters saying ‘Behead those who insult Islam’?

    Hang on. Are we talking a dude who actually chops people’s heads off, or a dude with silly politics? If the former then yeah, I’d rather not live next to a serial killer, of any kind. Luckily, we have prison for those people. If the latter, then why the hell not?

    (I lived for several years in parts of Manchester and London with large Muslim populations, FWIW. Would prefer them over white chavs any day of the week.)

  11. If guy X says he no longer regards himself as British, and believes himself to be the citizen of an Islamic State – and plenty of them do think and say such stuff – who are you or a bunch of old white guys in London to tell them they can’t be the same?

    I’m nobody, but they’re the personification of the rule of law. And until the UK government says that Islamic State is a state, then for the purposes of UK law it isn’t a state. Cameron can’t have his cake and eat it here.

  12. Interested, agreed.

    However, what if he turns up at the airport and denies ever belonging to Islamic State? Do we suspend all due process for him/her? Because proving a case against individuals is going to prove one hell of a job.

  13. Tim, can we take it that Farage, who says that Cameron is merely following his lead, is also a stupid twat, and that you will be resigning from UKIP in protest against its policy?

    (PJF pointed this out on another thread or I wouldn’t have known.)

  14. @JohnB

    ‘Hang on. Are we talking a dude who actually chops people’s heads off, or a dude with silly politics? If the former then yeah, I’d rather not live next to a serial killer, of any kind. Luckily, we have prison for those people. If the latter, then why the hell not?’

    Why the hell would one not wish to live next door to someone who pranced about yelling about beheading people who insulted Islam?

    I can think of a number of reasons. It isn’t really conducive to good neighbourly relations, for one.

    Sure, we put them in jail if we catch them. I bet Lee Rigby is looking down now with a tremendous sense of satisfaction as to that.

    As for the serial killer anology, I think it’s a bit flawed.

    These people are – or appear to be – of a rather different order to ‘serial killers’.

    The fact is, we (I) don’t know what sort of threat these guys pose. The answer is possibly not much of one, but we (I) don’t know.

    But if serial killers went about bragging about what they were going to do I think we’d expect the cops to at least keep strict tabs on them. We might take measures to stop them travelling abroad, if we thought they were going to kill people elsewhere.

    Quite why religious nutbangers shouldn’t get the same treatment I am not sure.

  15. If people resigned from a political party every time there was one single policy they disagreed with then there’d be no members of a political party, would there?

    You know, all this compromise to collaborate in order to achieve the major goal sort of stuff?

  16. @Ironman

    ‘However, what if he turns up at the airport and denies ever belonging to Islamic State? Do we suspend all due process for him/her? Because proving a case against individuals is going to prove one hell of a job.’

    People deny things all the time. The question is what can be proven to the satisfaction of whatever authority has the power to act.

    I can think of circumstances under which due process should certainly be amended, just as I can think of circumstances under which it was correct and moral to drop high explosive bombs on German cities.

  17. Looking through the comments to Tim’s post, it hard to disagree with them or the post.
    Consequences.
    Consequences of a series of politicians of remarkable stupidity, over a lengthy period, producing an untenable position.
    Liberties under the rule of law require consent. And consent is evapourating. The jihaddi tourists obviously don’t consent to British law. A sizeable proportion of the immigrant population seem to have an ambivalent attitude to it. And the indigenous population are beginning to regard it as something works against rather than for them.
    Whatever government does is going to be wrong but government doesn’t have the option of doing nothing. This could have the making of another Norther Ireland “troubles” but on the city streets of the mainland.
    And don’t kid yourselves. There’s nothing basically different between the Germans & the Brits. This has the potential to go all the way to fascism & the camps.
    The consequences of utter stupidity.

  18. Just to be pedantic the stable/dog/horse thing wasn’t said by the Duke of Wellington, but rather of him, by Daniel O’Connell. Someone had accused Wellington of being an Irishman and O’Connell was anxious to correct the misapprehension, what with Wellington being a nasty prod member of the Anglo ascendancy and all.

    Apropos our troublesome Muslamic Fundamentaloids Steve has it right. We owe these bastards nothing other than a ticket back to the Mirpuri cesspits they hail from. They are among us, but they are not of us. If they’re not willing to get with the program they can go home. More to the point we need to start controlling our borders and then stop all muslim immigration. I daresay if you live in Notting Hill or Witney you perhaps are not alive to the existential danger they pose in the same manner as those of us who live in South Yorkshire. We have seen the trouble they cause at only 5% of the population. Just wait for when they are 30%. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up in a civil war in 50 years time.

    As for the legal advice, so fucking what? The great thing about politics is if the law is an ass, you can change it. If that requires withdrawing from the ECHR, so be it. What vexes me is that it is clear we need to do this, so why don’t we just get on with it? That is what leadership is. Unfortunately Cameron does not seem to possess that quality.

  19. As for the legal advice, so fucking what? The great thing about politics is if the law is an ass, you can change it. If that requires withdrawing from the ECHR, so be it. What vexes me is that it is clear we need to do this, so why don’t we just get on with it? That is what leadership is. Unfortunately Cameron does not seem to possess that quality.

    The issue is, Cameron is trying to appeal to people who share your apocalyptic beliefs, whilst actually holding the view (along with most people who can read) that the same tropes have been levelled against every incoming group since the Bronze Age and the correct ‘solution’ is to do nothing and it’ll all work out fine.

    He thinks that you’re thick enough, in aggregate, to fall for some superficial measures targeted at a few high-profile nutcases on a jihadi holiday (and, in the EU context, at a few headline-grabbing rephrases), whilst allowing those who aren’t clinically paranoid to get on with business as usual.

    It’ll be interesting to see whether that’s what happens, or whether crazier heads prevail.

  20. Stop him being a British National. After all fighting for the caliphate does rather suggest their loyalties lie with the caliphate and not with the British.

  21. “the same tropes have been levelled against every incoming group since the Bronze Age and the correct ‘solution’ is to do nothing and it’ll all work out fine.”
    Tell that to the Welsh, Cornish & Breton speaking communities, the original inhabitants of Hungary, the entire North African coast from the Straits of Gib to the Nile, then through to the Greek border, France, Benelux, Germany… then there’s North & South America, Aus, NZ…

  22. What about British Jews who fight for the IDF?

    As ac1 points out; After all fighting for the Jewish State does rather suggest their loyalties lie with the Jewish State and not with the British. Should we strip them of their British citizenship as well?

  23. @johnb78: Paranoid, eh? How many people have to die in bombings and beheadings before our lefty elite notice that importing an alien religion that is inimical to our values, enjoins its followers to practice taqqiya and kill or convert non-believers, and will NEVER assimilate is a problem? You can be a good British citizen, or you can follow the precepts of the Koran and Hadith faithfully, but you cannot be both. Thank goodness at least 2/3 of our Muslim population is only nominally so.

  24. Interested

    “The question is what can be proven to the satisfaction of whatever authority has the power to act.”

    No. The question is whether the authority with the power to act can prove its case in law applying all the standards of proof and due process that apply to all others. Its own satisfaction is quite irrelevant.

    “I can think of circumstances under which due process should certainly be amended.”

    That is a very denagerous line to take my friend. Marxists and fascists the world over are always looking for an “existential crisis” to justify suspending our rights. We are ourselves all too familiar with a certain two-bob fascist blogger in Norfolk who wouldn’t hesitate to take advantage of our acceptance of just such a “crisis”.

  25. “If people resigned from a political party every time there was one single policy they disagreed with then there’d be no members of a political party, would there?”

    Indeed. However, there are also fundamental principles that distinguish parties, or there wouldn’t be parties! Does stripping British citizens of their rights as citizens without a fair trial amount to just such a fundamental? Well it’s fundamental enough for the Prime Minister proposing it to be A Twat.

  26. I wonder how many people who oppose this scheme would be happy if a head hacker called Mohammed from Bradford moved in two doors down and started wandering about holding up posters saying ‘Behead those who insult Islam’?

    Call the police to complain that someone is inciting murder, which is a criminal offence, and/or any number of related offences already on the statute book. Done.

  27. @Witchsmeller,

    In the unlikely event that Israel declares war against us or our allies, then yes. Until then, no.

  28. @ukliberty,

    Dats Wasis.

    Where is your tolerance? Your understanding of the cultural differences that mean crimes by certain segments of society must go unprosecuted, in the interests of vibrant multicultural diversity?

  29. I’m intolerant of incitement of murder.

    My point was we don’t have to further erode the rule of law, due process etc, to deal with some idiot waving a placard. Don’t panic.

  30. I’m all in favour of due process. But I look at the vibrant enrichment in Rotherham and see due process set aside.

    I’m sorta from that “community” btw (though thankfully not from Rotherham, that would be just too much to bear). What’s really racist is the holding of Pakistani muslims to a lower standard than everyone else. Immigrants should be setting an example, not have the law turn a blind eye to sexual assaults in the name of multiculturalism.

  31. Just wondering if my decade in Moss Side (owned a house there for 5 of those) out-street-creds johnb78.

    What has changed in that place, since I left not so long ago, is that the muslim women now go around in black shrouds, and the men in pyjamas and Osama beards. The cheap curry houses now will not serve alcohol. There is a deep, broad, and extremely worrying (at least to this atheist of muslim parentage) radicalisation of British-born muslims going on. You have to be literally and figuratively blind to not see it.

  32. I should add that radicalisation is aided and abetted by a limp-wristed government that refuses to address it for fear of being labelled wasis. Whereas it’s the not addressing it – holding the darkies to a lower standard – that is actually wasis.

  33. The Economist has a good piece on this. hey have interviewed a number of these British jihadis and found that the picture is a bit more complicated than we tend to make out.

    Yes, there are the beheaders and their supporters and these are the ones who tend to have burnt their British passports as they have not intention of coming back. The beheaders probably because they know that they will face some form of justice, perhaps in the form of disappearing before they get to passport control. And if they do get to passport control, well they don’t have a passport.

    Then there are those who realise they made a stupid decision. These could even be beneficial if they can be used to point out to other hot heads that it isn’t some greater glory that they are joining but Muslims killing other Muslims.

  34. @UKL

    ‘Call the police to complain that someone is inciting murder, which is a criminal offence, and/or any number of related offences already on the statute book. Done.’

    Yes, except that I used exactly that example because there have been a number of examples of just such placards being waved on British streets, at demos and suchlike, while bobbies either watched on with their thumbs hooked into their stab vests or arrested the (admitted meatheads of the) EDL or others who were complaining about it.

    So it isn’t as simple as ‘Done’, sadly.

  35. ukliberty: Call the police to complain that someone is inciting murder, which is a criminal offence, and/or any number of related offences already on the statute book.

    I don’t think incitement on its own would rate much of a reaction. Incitement while simultaneously wielding a scimitar might provoke a risk assessment.

    Done.
    Yes, where ‘Done’ = ‘Logged’.

  36. Ukliberty – “call the police”

    Those 1400 girls in Rotherham alone should have called the police.

    Lee Rigby should have dialled 999.

    Kris Donald, the teenager who was abducted, tortured, castrated and then murdered by a gang of grown men who “just wanted to kill a white Scottish boy”, should’ve got on the blower to Strathclyde Polis.

    Maybe we can install some special phones underground so people with their heads in the sand can plead with the authorities to do their jobs.

  37. Bloke in Germany
    Brave of you, given that the penalty for apostasy is death, to share your declaration of apostasy with us. I hope Timmy’s computer and ISP are hack-protected.

    IS, AQ, etc have been put up as examples of “resurgent Islam”
    In fact these movements look to me much more like the last desperate howls of a religion doomed to implosion. (Indeed Islam may be the first major faith to go straight from God to atheism without some table-turning nonsense in the middle.)

    If I were to start a religion of talking rocks, illiterate women wearing marquees, etc I don’t think I’d have much luck. No wonder the Koran is recited, and understanding it discouraged. (I’ve read it in translation. It’s utter tripe.)

  38. @Ironman

    No. The question is whether the authority with the power to act can prove its case in law applying all the standards of proof and due process that apply to all others. Its own satisfaction is quite irrelevant

    Yes, yes, obviously (and I don’t mean that snarkily). The question is, what standards and what process? I can foresee – for instance – a time when it will be quite impossible to get convictions for Islamist-type crimes in certain crown courts where the local populace, from which juries are drawn, comprise quite a few of that faith. So either we don’t prosecute such crimes, or we perhaps use Diplock courts. That is, the system will have to change to refelct the fact that the country has changed.

    That is a very denagerous line to take my friend. Marxists and fascists the world over are always looking for an “existential crisis” to justify suspending our rights. We are ourselves all too familiar with a certain two-bob fascist blogger in Norfolk who wouldn’t hesitate to take advantage of our acceptance of just such a “crisis”.

    I take your point, except that just because some people are opportunist scum doesn’t mean there aren’t such things as existential crises, and when they come along you have to react.

    I raised the bombing of German cities for exactly that reason. As Orwell put it, highly civilised men flying overhead trying to kill others whom a few years earlier they might have been sharing a train or a bier with. But it was justified by the crisis (in my view, not in other people’s views).

    I’m not saying the current situation is that serious – speaking humbly, I have no idea – but then I’m not suggesting bombing people, either, just restricting travel.

  39. @JohnB

    ‘The issue is, Cameron is trying to appeal to people who share your apocalyptic beliefs, whilst actually holding the view (along with most people who can read) that the same tropes have been levelled against every incoming group since the Bronze Age and the correct ‘solution’ is to do nothing and it’ll all work out fine.’

    I think BNIS might have beaten me to this, but sure, the ‘same tropes’ have been ‘levelled against every incoming group since the Bronze Age’, and some times it did all ‘work out fine’. In other cases, not so much.

    I don’t know if you studied O level history, but in case you didn’t there was some stuff about the Corn Laws and suffragettes, and a lot about conflict between races, tribes, villages, nations, individuals and so on down the last couple of thousand years or so.

    Just because we happen to have grown up in a relatively civilised era – bought and paid for by the blood of men who were prepared to confront some of those ‘incoming groups’ – doesn’t mean it will ever be so. That’s very naiive indeed.

    And even if it had been true in all cases, which it very much was not, so what? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

  40. By the way – ‘do nothing and it will all work out fine’? I didn’t have you pegged as a Conservative!

  41. @bif

    More complicated than that in that to be an apostate you have to have been a follower, and I managed for reasons too complicated to go into to avoid that. Though certain relatives do regard me as muslim by descent. And there are some obscure muslim sects about that don’t go in for the stoning and beheading stuff, or even the wearing of shrouds in places where shroud-wearing is not normal. That make an overt effort to fit in, in other words.

    But that would be to get far too technical when you are dealing with a virulent form of Islam that doesn’t bother to distinguish between apostates and never-muslims if there’s a juicy beheading to be had.

    I don’t sign on to Timmy’s site with a traceable email address. It works, but would take immense effort or security services connections to identify the person behind it. So they’ll have to abduct Timmy and beat my identity out of him. Sorry, Tim.

  42. @UKL

    ‘I’m intolerant of incitement of murder.’

    So are the police – except, it seems, when certain sections do the inciting. Weirdly they seem to be the same sections as are currently under the microscope, or something, in Rotherham. Could there be a connection? If so, what is it?

    By the way, I’m getting a bit tired of allegations of racism being thrown around. it’s not about the race – Pakistani Muslims are broadly the same people as Indian Hindus and Sikhs.

    Yet no-one apart from your actual genuine racists has a bad word to say about Hindus or Sikhs.

    I believe (figures not to hand) that both have outperformed the ‘white British’ economically, and that while Sikhs are very slightly overrepresented per capita vis a vis WB in prison, Hindus are considerably under-represented ie they are highly productive and very law abiding members of society.

    Pakistani Muslims – taken as a group, which is I know unfair – are far more likely to be on benefits and vastly more likely to be in jail than their fellow sub-continentals and (I think) WB.

    BTW, it’s high time the media stopped using the catch-all term ‘Asians’, which is unfair and (dare I say it) probably in itself racist (do they all look the same, or something?), and calling a spade a spade, no pun intended.

    It’s like Partition never happened for some folks.

  43. @BIG

    ‘What has changed in that place, since I left not so long ago, is that the muslim women now go around in black shrouds, and the men in pyjamas and Osama beards. The cheap curry houses now will not serve alcohol. There is a deep, broad, and extremely worrying (at least to this atheist of muslim parentage) radicalisation of British-born muslims going on. You have to be literally and figuratively blind to not see it.’

    I literally cannot understand how some people can’t see it.

    The only explanation I can achieve – absent that they just never go to such areas – is that they are so wrapped up in their hatred of the other team (conservatives etc) that they are prepared to use any stick with which to beat them, all the while believing that the situation is under control and always will be, and that if it ever seriously gets out of hand it can be dealt with.

    Best summed up by UKL’s comment above: ‘Just call the police. Done.’

    In what fucking world?

    Re your own background, my aunt is a Malay Muslim, and my cousins on that side of the family are too. Nicest people you could wish to meet. No desire whatsoever to chop anyone’s heads off. They just don’t eat bacon, that’s about it. There’s a lot of it about, it’s just that they are not the ones one should worry about.

  44. I agree with what has been stated by others above–these jihadis are British only on paper and are only here because of the divide and rule tactics of the left–including BluLabour. The idea that–while they are technically British their passports can be whipped off them and the scum of the state won’t extend that to you and your Granny is foolish at best. Of course they will–power over you is what the bastards live for. Who caused this problem in the first place–and now they want to solve it with more powers that they will only use in limited ways?. Promise.Bullshit.

    The fact must be faced that the dangers posed by Islam all across the West cannot be countered until the left are smashed. The Rotherham events were enabled by leftist doctrine at every level. Smash the left and solutions to Islamic aggression will emerge.

  45. Interested,

    Yes, except that I used exactly that example because there have been a number of examples of just such placards being waved on British streets, at demos and suchlike, while bobbies either watched on with their thumbs hooked into their stab vests or arrested the (admitted meatheads of the) EDL or others who were complaining about it.

    So it isn’t as simple as ‘Done’, sadly.

    Please cite.
    If that is the case, it is still insufficient cause to introduce yet more laws (indeed would those be enforced?), erosions of the rule of law, etc, it is cause to persuade the police to do their jobs. Although, their priority at a particular point in time may be to keep the peace and at a later time they may arrest people suspected of committing criminal offences.

    I can foresee – for instance – a time when it will be quite impossible to get convictions for Islamist-type crimes in certain crown courts where the local populace, from which juries are drawn, comprise quite a few of that faith. So either we don’t prosecute such crimes, or we perhaps use Diplock courts. That is, the system will have to change to refelct the fact that the country has changed.

    I think there is already a process for jury selection outside the locale, if that’s considered necessary for a fair trial, but I need to refresh my memory. There is definitely a process for trying a serious case absent a jury. An example of this is the armed robbery at Heathrow; after three trials collapsed, the prosecution successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal to allow a trial without a jury.

    My point remains: we already have a plethora of laws and procedures. Let’s use those and if they prove insufficient then it would be right to make up new ones.

  46. If your position is that we must have new laws and the authorities don’t properly uphold the ones we have, what makes you think they’ll uphold the new ones?

    If your position is we ought to deport certain types and not let certain types in the country, you’re talking past / at cross-purposes to my argument.

  47. @Steve

    ‘Interested – well, things worked out OK for King Harold and the Saxons. Right?’

    Ha – funny thing is, Harold didn’t even take the do-nothing option. If he hadn’t whopped the Vikings at Stamford Bridge the week before maybe he’d have been successful, too.

    Either way, I suppose he could have welcomed William, handed over his crown and hoped to be allowed to go on his way to live out his days in peace and obscurity, but I don’t know if it would have worked out for him!

  48. BiG
    I’m glad you are protected. I’m pretty obvious on Tim’s computer so I suppose I’m more in danger than you in saying that Islam is complete bollocks.

    When I read it the only part that seemed reasonable was in Sura 7. “Man is made from a clot of blood”.
    Maybe true about the clot part.

    I do hope we are all over-reacting. Remember those Russians who wrote the pamphlet asking if the USSR would survive to 1985? Greeted with astonishment and incomprehension in the west, thrown in the gulag in the east, and then…

  49. @UKL – cite? Try google.

    As for the police doing their jobs, they do seem to find it hard in the post-Macpherson/MG series world.

    ‘If your position is that we must have new laws and the authorities don’t properly uphold the ones we have, what makes you think they’ll uphold the new ones?’

    That’s not my position. I’d like the authorities to scrap lots of old laws, introduce a few new ones to cope with the 21st century, and for the cops properly to enforce them or be sacked until such time as we get some decent cops.

    ‘If your position is we ought to deport certain types and not let certain types in the country, you’re talking past / at cross-purposes to my argument.’

    That’s not my position, either.

  50. @BIF

    ‘I do hope we are all over-reacting. Remember those Russians who wrote the pamphlet asking if the USSR would survive to 1985? Greeted with astonishment and incomprehension in the west, thrown in the gulag in the east, and then…’

    Over-reacting to what, though? That’s the question. (I don’t know the answer.)

  51. Either way, I suppose he could have welcomed William, handed over his crown and hoped to be allowed to go on his way to live out his days in peace and obscurity, but I don’t know if it would have worked out for him!

    Wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference to the British people, though. The general flow of migration and the shenanigans amongst mediaeval elites (so popular in GRR Martin’s form!) are completely disjoint.

    Regarding migration: it’s important to remember that, in the single stupidest migration decision in the history of the UK, entire Pakistani villages were encouraged (under both Labour and Tory governments) by northern mill owners to migrate wholesale to northern mill towns to provide cheap labour and keep British textiles competitive. And then, within 10-15 years, the mills all closed anyway.

    If you were deliberately to create a discontented minority with little or no chance of assimilating into society, you couldn’t have gone about it better.

    Meanwhile in proper cities where people choose to migrate and choose to live and there are jobs (like Manchester and London), you don’t get the awfulness which applies in the northern mill towns. Because it’s not something that stems from Islam, it’s something which stems from transplanting an entire community from one shithole to another shithole which transpired to be barely any better.

  52. (and given the information coming to light in other enquiries, one could argue that Muslim communities assimilated perfectly into 1970s Yorkshire culture…)

  53. The “Behead those who insult Islam” placard was carried at a demonstration against the Danish cartoons in 2006. The placards were condemned by muslim groups. Five men were subsequently arrested, and four were convicted and imprisoned.

    So when Interested writes about “Mohammed … holding up posters saying ‘Behead those who insult Islam’” and complains that “It’s no good asking the cops to do anything about it, because they’ve proven before that they won’t” he seems to be talking through his taqiyah.

  54. @Johnb78,

    I’d say the effect on cities is less awful but can still be problematic. In London, by and large, my impression is it’s a net positive. I know one part of north London with a more or less mixed Hindu, Muslim subcontinental majority (the Muslims are of the Indian variety that gets on quite well with the Hindus) and a small but obvious orthodox Jewish group. When you get things like the Tottenham riots, it’s difficult to tease out the racial element from the fact that rioting is a pretty regular occurrence in most big cities. Manchester is quite ghettoised. In south Manchester you can tell where the muzzies stop and the blacks start (where the Irish used to be dominant). Ironically it’s at a major crossroads where a lot of Somali (black Muslims) moved in about 15 years ago, and turned a completely dead no-go area into a genuinely vibrant, if still rather poor, and importantly now safe part of the world. There is cause for optimism.

    I have a theory that you start to see problems once a visible and poorly-integrated minority exceeds 5%. I suppose London is the exception that proves the rule. I note that white eastern Europeans moving in has, while controversial, not caused the same kind of issues, other than handwringium over “tekkin ahs jerbs and ahs wimmin” stuff.

    Overall, I think the UK has a fantastic live and let live attitude. The issues around an increasingly millitant Islam, both the high-grade beheading and jihadism stuff, and lower-grade “coming over here and changing our way of life” stuff is not to me a racial or even a cultural, let alone religious issue. It’s about how far tolerance accommodates intolerance.

  55. “If people resigned from a political party every time there was one single policy they disagreed with then there’d be no members of a political party, would there?

    You know, all this compromise to collaborate in order to achieve the major goal sort of stuff?”

    All perfectly reasonable, Tim; and it answers one half of PaulB’s question. The other half enquires whether you think Farage is a twat (and perhaps fascist bastard, etc) for holding a position so similar to Cameroid’s that the gap couldn’t accommodate a fag paper.

    Given that there’s a leadership election just started for UKIP, your opinion on the current leader’s position on a matter that seems very important to you would be interesting and probably usefully influential. A golden opportunity for an earnestly libertarian stand.

  56. The serfs in Russia were freed in 1861, and 50 years later Russia was booming, 20 years after that they were back to internal passports and serfdom in collective farms.

    Our history is a bit slower, about 700 years from Magna Carta to universal suffrage.

    And then a retreat to welfarism and “you can’t say That”

    We might be making laws which limit our freedoms which might be useful for twenty years but might take a hundred to undo.

    Freedom is achieved slowly. Tyranny is imposed quickly. I don’t trust Cameron to protect my freedom.

  57. “The “Behead those who insult Islam” placard was carried at a demonstration against the Danish cartoons in 2006. The placards were condemned by muslim groups. Five men were subsequently arrested, and four were convicted and imprisoned.

    So when Interested writes about “Mohammed … holding up posters saying ‘Behead those who insult Islam’” and complains that “It’s no good asking the cops to do anything about it, because they’ve proven before that they won’t” he seems to be talking through his taqiyah.”

    PaulB, perhaps due to ignorance, your comment neglects an essential aspect. The “muslim group” condemnation and police action / prosecutions were a result of persistent pressure from those crazy types, such as Interested and myself, who frothingly pointed out the worthless hypocrisy and criminal neglect of “muslim groups” and the police. At the time of the cartoon protests, the police and the “muslim groups” did fuck all, and would have continued doing fuck all if they could have got away with it.

    The police have now announced that they will be taking action over the Rotherham abusers (giving the perpetrators the chance to piss off to Pakistan using their cousins’ passports). One suspects that in ten years time there will be PaulBs and uklibertys posting blog comments stating that the Rotherham police had it all in hand and that the reminiscing crazies are “talking through their taqiyahs”

  58. “we also have a frankly existential threat from Islam” – i can’t see that we do, they have little influence and little power over us, our armies could destroy the islamic world quickly (by teatime with nukes), our police could arrest all our own muslims, they don’t pose an existential threat to the west, quite the opposite, the west poses a very great atheistic existential threat to islam.

    OTOH, the west is perhaps succumbing quickly to existential threats of its own making, among which might be feminism, atheism, socialism, greenism, birth control, falling population, mass production. welfare, patician disdain for toil, arty-fartyness, great wheel of karma, other stuff.

    Humankind has entered the golden age of mankind, of prosperity, health, liberty, populousness – but the west that led the way may not have long left.

    If ever the muslims deliver the final blow to the west (unlikely) it will be the west itself that destroyed us from the inside, the jihadi executioner will be no more than that.

  59. “At the time of the cartoon protests, the police and the “muslim groups” did fuck all…”

    3rd February 2006: demonstration in London with illegal placards.
    4th February 2006: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee , condemns the placards.
    5th February 2006: Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, condemns the placards.
    5th February 2006: Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman Imran Waheed condemns violent protests and incitement of hatred.
    15th March 2006: arrests made.

    Contrary to your imaginings, muslim groups reacted immediately and the police made arrests after a brief delay for verifying identities and getting advice from the CPS.

  60. ” I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up in a civil war in 50 years time.”

    There won’t be time for any civil war. Europe and the west, and the people living in those places, will be overwhelmed by massive influx and home grown population replacement in short order. As the first to become modern, demographics are against us, and we will not win. This is probably the case even if we were to immediately start doing the kinds of things no western politician has the stomach to do.

  61. “Because it’s not something that stems from Islam”

    The awfulness of majority Islamic areas in the UK does indeed stem from Islam. Islamic culture is not even slightly compatible with general Western culture or particular English culture. It is completely alien and the single world culture in the most direct opposition to Anglo and Western culture.

    Do not fret though. The new Islamic culture will wash away little things like respect for individual liberty, the rule of law and property rights as soon as England has a large enough population carrying that alien culture. Worrying about whether someone’s passport can be removed when they swear allegiance to a hostile foreign army will become irrelevant shortly.

  62. PaulB, thank you for your correction on a couple of muslim groups responding promptly to douse the flames. I urge everyone to read your linked articles. It is useful to be reminded of what a laughably tiny part those voices were in the utter insanity of those days (with our own craven government telling us to show the “proper respect”).

    As for the police, I remain correct. “Googling” images of the events demonstrates quite clearly the police at the time standing around doing fuck all with the crime happening right there beside them (no need to verify or be advised of anything). Your own link provides us with an example of the police arresting people for carrying (not even showing) perfectly legal material whilst protecting and escorting the crazies. Four convictions after all that is a pathetic joke.

    So, three out of ten for your minor technical point, but minus several million for deliberately ignoring the wild-eyed elephant taking a massive shit all over the room.

  63. So Interested’s claim that the police have proven they won’t do anything about it is the opposite of the truth. And your claim that Muslim groups sat on their hands until you’d frothed persistently is the opposite of the truth.

    The remaining complaint is that “there have been a number of examples of just such placards being waved on British streets, at demos and suchlike, while bobbies either watched on with their thumbs hooked into their stab vests or arrested the (admitted meatheads of the) EDL or others who were complaining about it.”

    Unless google has failed me, the “number of examples” is exactly one. The police explained at the time that “a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears”. In a situation where the police are able to identify and arrest the criminals later, it seems to me thoroughly sensible for them to avoid breaking heads during the actual demonstration.

  64. @JohnB quite. Though it can be done – the Ugandan ‘Asians’ assimilated quite well. It’s a question of will on the part if the incomers.

    @PaulB

    Firstly, the police did nothing at the time, though I believe they did arrest counter marchers.

    Secondly, that was not the only time such placards were waved. It has become a worldwide meme (along with amusing variations such as ‘Behead those who say Islam is violent’).

    It is regularly shouted, too, which is an offence. I heard it myself at the Cenotaph in 2010. No arrests were made as far as I know.

    In fact it was shouted outside the trial of some of the guys from the original incident. One of those doing the shouting was Michael “Mujahid” Adebolajo, of whom most people apart from Drummer Lee Rigby have heard. Funny, eh.

    Thirdly, how many arrests? A token number to appease the Daily Mail, essentially. I suppose it’s not like there were photographs of lots more people holding placards, not to mention actual cops there who could have done something.

  65. The weird thing is, everywhere around the world people are being persecuted in the name of Islam. Try finding a church in Saudi, or kissing a woman you’re not married to on a street in Qatar, or getting roaring drunk in Karachi, or simply being Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, an ex Muslim, Zoroastrian, or anything else in much of the Middle East. People are being murdered for these ‘crimes’ as I write, and yet the useful idiots still prattle on. Mark my words, it will come here eventually.

  66. Interested: even allowing your starting point that Muslim regimes all persecute kaffir, that’d require a majority-Muslim population. Which there remains no sign or prospect of (Muslim fertility rates are known to fall those of society in general by the second generation, so you can’t use that one).

  67. @johnb78

    Interested: even allowing your starting point that Muslim regimes all persecute kaffir, that’d require a majority-Muslim population.

    That may be simplistic – think regions and smaller subsets?

    Muslim fertility rates are known to fall those of society in general by the second generation

    For my benefit, do you have any reliable sources for that, as I must admit I thought the reality was quite different.

  68. “that’d require a majority-Muslim population. Which there remains no sign or prospect of ”

    Even assuming that muslim birth rates in the UK are set to fall (which seems unlikely), there is a huge demographic bulge in the middle east and north africa which assures massive conflict as European population declines in this century and people from those regions seek a better life.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.