The amazing car bombers of no apparent ethnicity

The thing is:

More than 100 cars have been set alight in across Sweden overnight, as gangs of masked youths went rampaging in a series of attacks believed to have been coordinated on social media.

Dozens of vehicles burned in Sweden’s four major cities – Stockholm, Malmo, Gothenburg and Uppsala – on Monday evening and in the early hours of Tuesday.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven reacted with anger and did not hold back during a radio interview on Tuesday morning.

‘I’m furious, for real. My question to these people is “what the f*** are you doing?”,’ he told Sveriges Radio P1.

If it had been the whitebread boys of the Swedish Democrats then I think we’d have been told.

92 thoughts on “The amazing car bombers of no apparent ethnicity”

  1. It’s a mystery all right. These PoNA (People of No Appearance) just keep doing naughty stuff across the West, and nobody knows who they are or why they do it.

    I suppose it’s just part and parcel, as a MoNA ( Mayor of No Appearence) once said.

  2. The Guardian had a couple of amusing statements;

    “In an interview on Swedish radio, he said he was “really getting mad” and that “society must react in a tough manner.” ”

    Followed by

    “No arrests have been made.”

  3. I parked up the car and waited for my companion to get out and shut the door before I activated the central locking.

    When I did, he gave me a wry, sad smile and said “It’s considered a bit rude to do that.”

    Stockholm, 1989.

  4. ” I parked up the car and waited for my companion to get out and shut the door before I activated the central locking.”

    First line of your new Thriller about an intelligence agency which tracks down these People of No Appearence and then does nothing about them?

  5. ” I worried all through the meeting praying it was still insured…”

    LoL.

    At least the Swedes can get hommous now.

  6. “and nobody knows who they are or why they do it.”

    Insurance fraudsters, and because they’re poor and can’t afford to repair/replace their heap-of-junk car.

  7. They are serially described in the Mail story as follows:

    1. Youth gangs
    2. youths
    3. culprits
    4. youths
    5. culprits
    6. youths
    7. youngsters
    8. young people

    The term “youngster” is especially revealing of the MSM mindset.

  8. It doesn’t involve gangs of RoP scumbags mass torching cars at random I’m fairly sure of that.

    Or are you suggesting it is a business with the firestarters being paid a commission to torch particular cars?

  9. “Or are you suggesting it is a business with the firestarters being paid a commission to torch particular cars?”

    That’s what Larmtjänst, a joint organization of Swedish insurance companies, seems to be suggesting.

  10. “Not en masse, usually.”

    Your objection is that crime is not normally that ‘organised’?

    Earlier this year, a dismal police report suggested that at least 5,000 criminals and 200 criminal networks were lurking in the country’s 61 “exclusion areas.”

  11. I recommend reading the article that NiV linked to. It is full of remarkable statements about Sweden’s ongoing attempt to become a failed state.

    Some choice quotes:

    “Between January and September 2017, over 6,000 cars have been burned”

    “In 1998, only 380 cases were recorded nationwide.”

    “car arsons have become a perennial hazard persistent in areas other than ghettos officially labeled as “vulnerable areas,” ”

    “Earlier this year, a dismal police report suggested that at least 5,000 criminals and 200 criminal networks were lurking in the country’s 61 “exclusion areas.” ”

    It would not surprise me if a significant number of these cases were fraud. Just another consequence of inviting huge numbers of violent illiterate peasants into a civilised nation. Concepts like insurance will just be another example of the native Swedes’ free money madness to them.

  12. NiV: “Your objection is that crime is not normally that ‘organised’?”

    Get back to me when those 5,000 criminals perform a co-ordinated burglary spree across the country, simultaneously.

  13. MC: insurance is regarded as contrary to the will of A, without whom no leaf falls, so perpetrating fraud against the blasphemous kufaar industry is an added incentive. Thanks for reading the article on our behalf, I have grown weary and mistrustful of any of NiV’s references.

  14. NiV
    Last year, 177/325 cases examined (5% of the total) were suspected fraud.

    Is this the arithmetic they use to convince themselves they only have 5% migrants?

  15. “Get back to me when those 5,000 criminals perform a co-ordinated burglary spree across the country, simultaneously.”

    Why? How would that be any different?

    Word has got around that the perpetrators are rarely caught, and the insurance companies pay out. Every gang is jumping on the bandwagon.

    Ask yourself why the arson cases are in the poor districts? If you want to protest against society, why not do it in the rich areas? Why only cars? Why not shops, public buildings, factories, or other infrastructure?

    Burnt-out cars used to be a regular sight on British sink estates and in ‘London overspill’ towns, too. Recent immigrants are often poor, and poverty is associated with crime. High concentrations of poverty are associated with organised crime gangs. And someone has spotted an effective scam, which everyone is now copying.

    They might be Muslim immigrants (quite likely), or then again they might not. All we know is that video shows that people dressed like ninjas with black hoods and face masks did it. And the authorities don’t have your X-ray vision superpower capable of identifying the perpetrator’s race and religion through an opaque mask at a distance, so they’re not saying. They seem to believe that the legal system needs evidence to make inflammatory accusations of criminality! Crazy, eh?

    “Thanks for reading the article on our behalf, I have grown weary and mistrustful of any of NiV’s references.”

    “We don’t need no steenkin’ evidence!!

  16. “Last year, 177/325 cases examined (5% of the total) were suspected fraud.”

    I think the 325 cases examined were 5% of the total claims (which fits with MC’s quote of over 6,000 car burnings in the year).

    Of those examined, just over half were thought to be fraudulent.

    If the cases examined were chosen because they were thought to be higher risk, that might be pretty much all the fraud – 2.5% of the total. If they were chosen at random, then fraud could be around 50% of reported cases (although even that would still leave 3,000 non-fraudulent car burnings, nearly ten times the level in 1998).

    Since this is investigations by a commercial insurance organisation, I suspect they will have targeted their resources at those thought most likely to be fraudulent, so the total level of fraud will be nearer the lower end.

    But whichever, even after removing fraud, there are still thousands of Swedes who are having their cars burned by violent thugs. Their next election is, what, next month?

  17. “Is this the arithmetic they use to convince themselves they only have 5% migrants?”

    Are you suggesting the arithmetic is wrong?

  18. Quite sophisticated fraudsters – they park a selection of cars in a very large carpark and direct the arsonists where to find them and torch a handful of nearby cars to conceal the fact that they are targetting those ones.
    A number of culprits have been identified but the police did not arrest them: instead they ‘phoned the parents.

  19. “I think the 325 cases examined were 5% of the total claims (which fits with MC’s quote of over 6,000 car burnings in the year).”

    If people followed my links they’d have been able to see that for themselves!

    “Since this is investigations by a commercial insurance organisation, I suspect they will have targeted their resources at those thought most likely to be fraudulent, so the total level of fraud will be nearer the lower end.”

    That depends on whether they want to estimate the ratio, or whether they’re trying to catch specific fraudsters.

    And of course it depends where the burden of proof lies. It might be that they were *all* fraud, but they were only able to find any evidence of it in about half the cases.

    “But whichever, even after removing fraud, there are still thousands of Swedes who are having their cars burned by violent thugs.”

    How do we know what they were? (X-ray vision superpower, again?)

    ” Their next election is, what, next month?”

    And if your aim was to affect the election result, which way do you think this sort of behaviour would swing it? To whose political advantage would that be?

  20. John77, see my comment above.

    There were over 6,000 claims (see MC’s quote, above). They investigated 5% of those (325), and after investigation thought that 54% of the ones they investigated were fraudulent.

  21. “Vulnerable areas”, eh? I thought the “line to take” for sophisticated people was that these areas don’t exist in Sweden.

  22. NiV said:
    “How do we know what they were?” [violent thugs]

    Isn’t setting fire to someone else’s car (when not part of a mutually agreed insurance fraud) an act of thuggish violence in itself?

  23. “Isn’t setting fire to someone else’s car (when not part of a mutually agreed insurance fraud) an act of thuggish violence in itself?”

    If a weedy 10 year old girl did it – hit window with brick, pour in fuel, light match – would “violent thug” be the description that first springs to mind on being shown a photo of her? Blonde pigtails and teddy bear in hand?

    Arson takes no particular strength or courage. And if you’re doing it at the owner’s request, not even any deep malice.

    You might be right. They might be Muslims. They might be violent thugs. My point is, you’re assuming based on your own prejudices and theories, not on the basis of any observed evidence. When you get yourself a reputation for doing that, it’s like “crying wolf” and people stop listening. They start to assume that *all* accusations against immigrants are similarly evidence-free, and ignore them. That way, tragedy lies.

  24. NiV said:
    “And if your aim was to affect the election result, which way do you think this sort of behaviour would swing it? To whose political advantage would that be?”

    I don’t know; I’m not an expert in Swedish politics. For all I know, they might vote for parties who promise to build sports centres for disaffected youth.

    But it seems to be a big issue in Sweden at the moment (big enough for their PM to swear when interviewed about it), so I’d have thought it would have an effect on the upcoming election, and it will be interesting to see what that will be.

    Either way, I don’t think I’ll like the electoral result; at the moment the rhetoric seems to support either authoritarian anti-immigrants or higher government spending on integration. But you never know; perhaps someone will manage to successfully make the case for a relatively open immigration policy whilst also protecting private property from being torched.

    Either way, this is a political controversy that is being raised in various countries, including to some extent in our own, so it will be educational to see what happens in Sweden.

  25. @ NiV
    Following your link gets one to an agressive site that wants to email every time it issues a post. I had another go and think/hope I’ve sidestepped that and it says that 325 were investigated and 177 were suspected fraud. 177 is just 3% of 6,000 so your arithmetic is still wrong – the other 148 were deemed*not* to be frauds after the guys looked at them.
    It would have helped if you had said “177 or 325 out of 6,000” instead of 177/325 … (even “177-325” would have been better)

  26. NiV said:
    “You might be right. They might be Muslims. They might be violent thugs.”

    Excuse me, I didn’t say anything about them being Muslims. That’s entirely in your own mind. I don’t care whether they’re Muslims or not. What I do care about is that they are destroying other people’s private property.

    They have carried out a violent, thuggish act. That’s true whether they are Muslims or “a weedy 10 year old girl … with blonde pigtails and teddy bear”. I’m judging by what they do, not what they look like. Which do you do?

  27. @ RichardT
    Thanks – I ought to have read it first. I was just commenting on NiV’s response to Roue’s reasonable comment.
    The problem was “177/325 …(5%) ..” looks so much like a decimal point slippage.

  28. How do we know what they were?

    Well, thanks to Sweden’s suicidal government, we will never get accurate stats on who they were.

    And if your aim was to affect the election result, which way do you think this sort of behaviour would swing it? To whose political advantage would that be?

    Ah, so it is all a right wing plot?

    No doubt they secretly encouraged the import of millions of violent peasants so they could then encourage said peasants to set fire to stuff and thus sweep to power on the subsequent racist backlash.

    As a bonus they get the insurance on that Volvo the wife never liked anyway. Oh the deviousness of the far-right racist swine!

  29. MC said:
    “As a bonus they get the insurance on that Volvo the wife never liked anyway.”

    Don’t all Swedes like all Volvos?

  30. “Excuse me, I didn’t say anything about them being Muslims.”

    No, but others here did. “You” can be second person singular, or second person plural.

    “The problem was “177/325 …(5%) ..” looks so much like a decimal point slippage.”

    Fair point.

    My irritation was purely because it was apparent that nobody had looked at the link I was summarising, where they explained the numbers at greater length and where such a misunderstanding wouldn’t be possible. I was trying to keep it “pithy”, you know?

    “Ah, so it is all a right wing plot?”

    There’s exactly as much evidence for it being one as you’ve got. If evidence is not required, then why not?

  31. If you look at news reports you can see how these “insurance fraudsters” have parked the cars nearly in a row before setting fire to them, which at least suggests an ordered and tidy approach to things.

    On the other hand you could be completely irrational and assume that immigrant gangs, responsible for much of the crime in these cities, also torched other people’s cars across the country in attacks coordinated between themselves.

  32. MC is correct. 5% checked 50% “found” to be fraud–in Sweden. A country that routinely brings pressure to hide RoP activites as far –or luckily further–than is humanly possible.

    Shame there exists plenty of film of car burners in France for example.The “French” seem to have been really heavy on the sun-tan and daytime pajamas–perhaps their minds were disturbed by bad weed or summat.

    And them soviets just loved queuing–it’s where they met all their friends.

  33. NiV
    Just to be clear, I did read the link before commenting, I was poking fun at your imprecise precis.

    What it says is, about 5% were selected for in-depth investigation, and about half of those were “suspected” to be fraud.

    I find this to be a fact free statement. Firstly it is not stated how the 5% were selected. If randomly, then they have a big problem to say the least. Half of arson claims are apparently fraudulent! If, as is more likely, they select the most suspicious 5%, then they were wrong half the time, leaving only 2.5%. But then we come to the weasel word “suspected”. Unless there was sufficient evidence for the insurance company to decline the claim, “suspected” doesn’t mean anything. So as I said, fact free.

  34. “I find this to be a fact free statement.”

    And do you identify all statements as ‘fact free’ impartially, or depending on whether you agree with the claim?

    “If, as is more likely, they select the most suspicious 5%”

    Why is it “more likely”? What are the facts on which you base that?

  35. But to return to the point of Tom’s post, whether they’re Mohammedans, or insurance fraudsters, or Mohammedan insurance fraudsters, their identities are being deliberately suppressed in order to manipulate public sentiment away from any reaction which correctly identifies immigrants as responsible for criminality.

  36. @ NiV
    I really don’t like sites that require one to sign in in order to read one post – so I don’t even read the Torygraph which gives a handful of free reads every (?week ?month) if I do so – since I already get far far too many emails and it’s too easy to miss an important one among the junk.
    I can understand your irritation and apologise for causing it.

  37. @ NiV
    Most insurance companies, even non-life ones, are stuffed to the gills with Actuaries these days – last time I looked UK numbers had grown tenfold within my working lifetime. So they will have identified patterns (e.g. “most fraudulent claims involve x1, y3 and z2 but not y1 or z1”) and will investigate those claims where the average cost of investigation is less than the average amount saved by rejecting fraudulent claims.
    Looked again -it’s more than tenfold – https://www.actuaries.org.uk/about-us/glance
    That’s a fact.
    That insurance companies will wish to save money by investigating the claims that appear most likely to be fraudulent is just an assumption

  38. NiV

    To what claim are you referring? I’m not seeing any claim to agree or disagree with.

    In any event, you’re making my case for me. It doesn’t say how the sample was selected, hence any statements about the sample are meaningless. Not that any factual statements are actually made. “Half of the claims were rejected for fraud” is a factual statement, “half were suspected of being fraudulent” is merely someone’s opinion.

  39. “their identities are being deliberately suppressed in order to manipulate public sentiment away from any reaction which correctly identifies immigrants as responsible for criminality.”

    Are they? I’ve seen the video, and all you can see is black-clad ninja figures throwing firebombs.

    Now, if they had video of very obviously asian or black youth, and simply omitted this in the headlines, you might have a point. (That’s happened in other cases, certainly.) But so far as I can see, they don’t report ethnicity in this case because you can’t tell the ethnicity from the video.

    Unless you guys really do have some sort of X-ray vision superpower?!

    And of course, the reason they go out of their way to not mention ethnicity is that they know racists will use any instance of ethnic criminality to fan the flames, whether it has anything to do with their ethnicity or not; whether they have any evidence or not. There are some crimes specifically associated with ethnic culture, like forced marriage, but insurance fraud doesn’t have any obvious connection, to my eyes, at least.

    Like I said, recent immigrants are often poor, and poverty is strongly associated with crime. As an argument for fixing poverty, sure. But used otherwise, it’s the ‘Group A Group B trick’ again.

    “I really don’t like sites that require one to sign in in order to read one post”

    I don’t remember it asking me – although I may have just declined automatically without particularly noticing it. I tend to have the ad-blockers turned up high, so that might explain it too.

    (In case you’re interested, you can get free ‘fake’ receive-only email addresses for this purpose at sites like mailinator.com.)

    “I can understand your irritation and apologise for causing it.”

    Thanks, but it wasn’t you that caused the (extremely mild) irritation. Only the initial complaints about my arithmetic!

  40. Yeah, damn those racists drawing attention to the folly of importing criminals. Not, I am well aware, NiV, that you see any problem with importing criminality and indeed you consider it a small price to pay in pursuit of your ideals.

  41. “Ah, so it is all a right wing plot?”

    There’s exactly as much evidence for it being one as you’ve got. If evidence is not required, then why not?

    What the blue rubbery fuck are you on about?

    Actually, don’t tell me…

  42. A day in the life of Snaresbrook Crown Court

    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 1 – sitting at 09:45 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE P SOUTHERN
    Plea and Trial Preparation
    T20180768 BRADFORD Simon
    01MP0255517
    LINK TO:
    For Mention
    S20180557 BRADFORD Simon
    01MP0255517
    NOT BEFORE 10:15 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20180220 **** ******
    ***********
    Order made under s45, YJCE Act 1999 Linked to:
    T20180222 ***** *****
    ***********
    Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
    T20180223 ***** ***** ***
    ***********
    Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
    T20180224 ****** ***
    ***********
    Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 1 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 2 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 2 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 3 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HER HONOUR JUDGE L KAMILL
    FLOATING COURT ALL PARTIES TO ATTEND 09:45 AM
    For Trial
    T20180279 OZARINSKAS Paulius
    T20187031 SANHA Taira
    NOT BEFORE 10:45 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20187147 ******** ***
    ***********
    Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
    T20187148 **** ******
    ***********
    Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 3 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 4 – sitting at 09:15 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE M ZEIDMAN QC
    THE HONORARY RECORDER OF REDBRIDGE
    ADMIN WORK IN CHAMBER
    NOT BEFORE 10:15 AM
    For Application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
    U20180316 DS MORRISON
    For Application under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
    U20180317 DC DAINE COWAN
    10:30 AM
    For Mention and to Fix
    A20180165 OKEDEYI Saheed
    01JI0128018
    A20180170 STEWART Wesley R
    A20180180 MASEVO Fiston W
    01HT0480417
    A20180173 OLODO Oyekemi
    01KF0660517
    For Appeal against Sentence
    A20180181 VOICU Darius
    01KF0313718
    For Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
    A20180139 PHIPPS Nicholas
    For Appeal against Sentence
    A20180167 CAMPBELL Porscha
    01HT2021415
    For Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
    A20180177 ROWLAND Bradley
    A20180112 ROSS Nikki
    01JC0280517
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 4 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 5 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE O DEL FABBRO
    For Mention
    T20177418 PERKINS-BAYLEY Aaron
    01MP0003217
    RE: CONFISCATION. DEFENDANT TO BE PRODUCED. LINK TO:
    T20177420 BAYLEY Julian
    01MP0003217
    RE: CONFISCATION. DEFENDANT TO BE PRODUCED
    NOT BEFORE 10:30 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20171474 ST LEONCE Rufus Otis
    01JC0019017
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 5 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 6 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 6 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 7 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 7 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 8 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 8 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 9 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HER HONOUR JUDGE S CANAVAN
    Plea and Trial Preparation
    T20180760 HASAN Muhammad A
    01HT0223918
    PVL P’VILLE CT/BT2
    NOT BEFORE 10:15 AM
    T20180769 DOLINSKI Zbigniew
    01KG0214618
    PVL P’VILLE CT/BT1
    NOT BEFORE 10:30 AM
    T20180773 BELGRAVE Gordon
    01KF0350518
    PVL T’SIDE CT/BT3
    NOT BEFORE 10:45 AM
    T20187485 WILLIAMS Frank
    01KG0212918
    PVL P’VILLE CT/BT2
    NOT BEFORE 11:00 AM
    T20180770 TOWFIK Sadik
    01MP0408917
    LINK TO:
    T20180771 KNIGHT Charmaine
    01MP0408917
    T20180772 POMMELLS Mark
    01JC0203618
    T20180765 DAVIES Robert J
    01JI0077418
    NOT BEFORE 12:00 PM
    T20180535 PERKINS Delford
    01JI0105018
    LINK TO:
    T20187446 PERKINS Delford
    01JC0225518
    T20180720 FERGUSON Nathan
    01MP0457617
    T20180777 RASHID Haroon
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 9 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 9 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT BEFORE 02:00 PM
    T20180849 AHMED Munna
    01KF0216117
    T20187324 MIAH Mohammed I
    01MP0091918
    T20187490 RUSSELL Tashan
    01KF0209917
    T20187492 GULA Iryna
    01KD0207918
    T20187491 ESSIEN Roberto
    01MP0253917
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 10 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 10 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE M SHANKS
    For Pre-Trial Review
    T20171449 LEACHMAN Winston
    01KG0229017
    DEFENDANT AND OIC TO ATTEND. LINK TO:
    T20180003 LEACHMAN Winston
    DEFENDANT AND OIC TO ATTEND:
    NOT BEFORE 10:30 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20180151 PASIONEK Robert
    01JC0221317
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 11 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 11 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE N PETERS QC
    Committal for Sentence
    S20180552 BROWN Daniel
    01HT0173018
    NOT BEFORE 10:30 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20178213 GALBRAITH Thomas Joseph
    01KF0654617
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 12 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 12 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HER HONOUR JUDGE C ENGLISH
    For Mention
    T20187172 AL ALI Muhamad
    01KF0103918
    CTL APP: DEFENDANT TO BE PRODUCED. LINK TO
    T20187133 MOHAMMED Faudi
    01KF0085118
    CTL APP:
    NOT BEFORE 11:30 AM
    For Application for Bail
    T20171491 HAQUE Mohammed S
    01KF0574517
    OIC TO ATTEND
    T20180827 LEGRAND Alexis L
    01KF0375518
    OIC TO ATTEND:
    NOT BEFORE 12:15 PM
    For Pre-Trial Review
    T20180323 MOORE Mark
    01HT0124218
    OIC TO ATTEND. LINK TO:
    T20180325 HOQUE Muhibul
    01HT0124218
    OIC TO ATTEND.
    T20180328 SOJKO Lukasz
    01KF0154718
    OIC TO ATTEND.
    NOT BEFORE 02:00 PM
    T20180353 ADAMS Jason E
    01JC0334217
    For Application for Dismissal of Charges
    T20180440 KENDALL Michael
    01JI0160718
    For Sentence (Prosecution to Attend)
    T20180411 BARNETT Jason
    01HT0081118
    LINK TO:
    S20180355 BARNETT Jason
    01HT0081118
    LINK T0:
    S20180356 BARNETT Jason
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 13 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 13 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 14 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 14 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 15 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 15 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 16 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 16 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 17 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 17 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 18 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 18 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HER HONOUR JUDGE P LEES
    NOT BEFORE 10:00 AM
    For Application for Bail
    T20180783 SUN Weibin
    01KF0353018
    OIC TO ATTEND:
    NOT BEFORE 10:15 AM
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20187193 CHOWDHURY Mohammed
    01HT0051418
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 19 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 19 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    NOT SITTING
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 20 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 20 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE G POUNDER
    Trial (Part Heard)
    T20180183 ISAACS Barbara
    01MP0476817
    NOT BEFORE 10:15 AM
    T20178102 MUMTAZ Aqib
    01MP0279617
    DIGITAL
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 21 of 22
    The Crown Court
    at Snaresbrook
    Daily List for Wednesday 15 August 2018 at SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT
    Court 21 – sitting at 10:00 AM
    SITTING AT WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
    For Trial
    T20187236 RAJA Alyia
    01JC0101718
    LINK TO:
    T20187237 ALI Jovairia
    01JC0101718
    LINK TO:
    Published: 14 August 2018 at 15:50 JAC/733771
    Page No: 22 of 22

  43. “Not, I am well aware, NiV, that you see any problem with importing criminality”

    You misunderstand. No, I’m not in favour of importing or supporting criminality. What I’m opposing is using the criminality of some to restrict or ban non-criminals who happen to share a characteristic with those criminals. You don’t condemn all men because 95% of criminals are men. You don’t condemn all people with tattoos because a lot of criminals have tattoos. You don’t condemn all women called ‘Hillary’ because one of them’s a criminal. You don’t condemn all of group A because they happen to overlap with the bad/evil group B.

    Not condemning men doesn’t mean you support rapists. Not condemning immigrants doesn’t mean you support criminality. The logic of that should be simple enough even for you lot!

    “and indeed you consider it a small price to pay in pursuit of your ideals”

    What, like right to a fair trial, innocence until proven guilty, no collective punishments, Blackstone’s formulation, ideals like that? What price freedom, eh?

    “Actually, don’t tell me…”

    OK. I won’t.

  44. You are in favour of importing criminality, NiV. You told me so, a few weeks ago. Your view, which I took pains to elicit, is that it is preferable that, say, a Pakistani should come to live here rather than that xir should continue to live a blighted existence in Pak, plus, you said, if that meant that some of me or others already here were maimed, impoverished or otherwise immiserated, then that was a price worth paying because freedom knows no boundaries and it is preferable to offer the benighted a chance of freedom here, even if 23 girls get blown up at a rock concert, or whatever, because only about 173 people have been blown up by Islamic terrorists since 2001 (conveniently ignoring those otherwise maimed and harmed by Mussulmans who were merely nuts).

    I remember the conversation well, NiV. Since I assume you’re English, for whatever value that nowadays conveys, you made it clear that my life (you’ll recall I’m Bloke in Stabbed in the Neck) is of no more importance to you than is that of, as I think I put to you, Fatimah from Karachi. Whether or not that makes you a traitor, it in my eyes makes you a member of the enemy class. Like Harperson, Clegg, Blair, Mandelson, Heath and the rest of the tranzi gang. And given your concern for my wellbeing – you would import cut-throats to spear me – my view is you belong on the lamp-post next to the aforementioned.

    You can quote Neimoller at me if (when, I hope) it happens. Whoa! Lud, why all the hate, man? I’m all about the peace and freedom.

    You wretched, wretched man.

    Oh, and as for your use of ‘condemning’, it’s yet more intellectual or linguistic sleight of-hand. I’m talking about banning nutters from entry, because we can filter for criminality far, far more effectively than we do (which, by the way, you have previously admitted). That might, I accept, condemn in a loose metaphysical sense, Fatimah from Karachi to a continued existence more horrific than one we might offer her. But it is not condemnation. You are, as so often, subtly conflating terms to make a point. You are not nearly as honest as you think you are.

    Ecks has often challenged you on the matter of the number of conversions you’ve achieved, or even observed.

    I’ll go further.

    Dress yourself up as gayly as you can. Tassles and lippy everywhere. Maybe a nice skirt and some heels. Then take the train from Waterloo East to Woolwich about 2130 on Friday night. And report back with your findings.

  45. “You are in favour of importing criminality, NiV. You told me so, a few weeks ago.”

    No I didn’t. I said the same thing then I just did now.

    Blackstone’s formulation is considered by many a cornerstone of British common law and justice. Blackstone did *not* thereby support tolerance or any encouragement for proven criminality. The right to a fair trial – to face a penalty only for crimes you have actually done/attempted, not for any that people who look a bit like you have done – is fundamental to British justice. It doesn’t in any way support or tolerate proven criminality.

    Unless you’re bonkers enough to think we should permanently jail *everybody*, and thereby eliminate all crime, freedom always includes the freedom for bad people to do bad things. Whether someone is an immigrant is irrelevant to that.

    Most criminals are men. Getting rid of men would therefore reduce crime tenfold. Should we deport them, jail them, or simply shoot them all? Which option do you propose?

    Or do you think all male-perpetrated crime is ‘a small price to pay’ for allowing men the freedom to walk the streets?

  46. @ NiV
    Getting rid of men would NOT reduce crime to MINUS 900% of the current level – it might reduce *reported* crime to some smaller positive figure.
    In an all-female environment a lot of the excuses of female criminals would be blown out of the window.
    Also the inability of a significant minority to earn an honest living might result in them being *caught* stealing.

  47. NiV, Blackstone was not arguing that Bloke in Karachi is entitled to wash up at at Dover, effectively as human contraband, then demand free passage to as much rape and pillage as he could get his hands on. Blackstone was saying that if you live in England you are entitled to due process before the law. Blackstone could not and did not conceive of the situation in which we find ourselves. It’s yet more sleight of-hand from you: you move from principles of English justice, to fuck it, come to England anyhow you like (Bashi bazouk and Waffen Ss in Bermuda shorts especially welcome) , get English justice.

    And yes, you did say that you favoured importing criminality if meant that Fatimah from Karachi got a better life.

    I’m not going burrowing for the comments, there are enough witnesses.

    Be honest. You want open borders. You are an ally of Emma Thompson. You love it.

    I, on the other hand, want my country back. And within its borders I shall promote ideas of freedom and lack of government interference.

    Fatimah from Karachi will have to shift for xirself.

  48. “Blackstone was saying that if you live in England you are entitled to due process before the law. Blackstone could not and did not conceive of the situation in which we find ourselves.”

    On the contrary – it was exactly this sort of situation, and this sort of argument he was talking about!

    And he didn’t put in any sneaky caveat about “if you live in England”, either. Everyone deserves justice.

    “And within its borders I shall promote ideas of freedom and lack of government interference.”

    Hah!

    “Be honest. You want open borders.”

    Honesty doesn’t come into it – I’ve never said otherwise! It’s the same principle as for free trade.

  49. NiV, I’m a policed borders libertarian.

    You’re an open borders libertarian.

    As far as you are concerned, I am a traitor to liberty.

    As far as I am concerned, you are a traitor.

  50. After the London tube bombing, I’m sure that the first thing the Police Commissioner of London said to the press was ‘Islam is our friend.’ It’s indelibly stamped in my brain. The leaders of Sweden just said ‘Who did that?!’

  51. Agreed. That looks like an accurate summary. 🙂

    Like an open-borders free-marketeer, and a borders-and-tariffs free-marketeer…

  52. I don’t know who said it. I heard it recently….’Let in the third world, and you become the third world.’

  53. ’Let in the third world, and you become the third world.’

    Let in the third world, and the third world becomes you.

    In a free competition of ideas and cultures, where people are free to choose, they choose the one they like the most; the one that’s most beneficial for them as they each individually measure ‘benefit’. Same as with any product. It just takes a longer time with cultures.

  54. Choose the option that gives you a roof over your head, a little bit of money in your pocket, nothing in return. Then bite the hand that feeds you.

  55. https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/14/military-operation-masked-gangs-set-100-cars-ablaze-across-swedish-no-go-zones/

    ‘Police chose not to arrest the “young people” at the scene and have since contacted their parents, reports state.’

    Their parents will tell the kids, “Great job! But kill some people next time.”

    ‘Sweden is to hold national elections in less than a month, and left-wing Prime Minister Stefan Löfven reacted angrily to the latest attacks, blasting the perpetrators directly.’

    Directly?

    “I’m getting pissed off – really! My question to these people is what the hell are you doing?” he said on a radio show according to Aftonbladet, promising to push for harsher penalties against those involved.’

    Harsher penalties than what?

    On a radio show is not ‘directly.’ Nor is ‘contacting their parents.’

    The Leftard PM is detached from reality. I spect the Swedes are too and will reelect him.

  56. “Let in the third world, and the third world becomes you.”

    Comedy gold. No wonder Steve’s taken the night off.

  57. “Here’s the Third World becoming us:”

    I generally like Steyn, but I couldn’t quite figure out what his point was in this essay. Muslims, like Polish Catholics, are given the right to free assembly, and use it. The BBC with their free speech chooses to criticise one and not the other. (I don’t approve of their criticism of the Poles, but it’s their right to express it.) Cambridge university remove a statue (again I don’t agree/approve, but it’s their choice what statues they display.) There’s some praise of the architect of South African apartheid. OK, whatever. He had his good points as well as his bad ones. And Steyn will be doing a global over-the-internet Q&A session. And isn’t the internet wonderful? Even the third world like it/have it, and the free speech it makes possible.

    I’m guessing you’re either complaining about Muslims being allowed to hold an open air meeting, or that the BBC criticised the Poles doing the same. What’s your issue?

    You don’t want to surrender the public square, true – but if you exclude others from it, it’s no longer ‘public’. That’s just another way to ‘surrender’ it.

  58. Oh, sorry, misread that. Not an architect, but a precursor, apparently. Disapprove of CU rather more, but it’s still their choice.

    But otherwise, as above.

  59. You couldn’t work out what his point was?

    You generally like Steyn?

    I don’t believe you, on either score.

  60. Bloke in North Dorset

    “In a free competition of ideas and cultures, where people are free to choose, they choose the one they like the most; the one that’s most beneficial for them as they each individually measure ‘benefit’. Same as with any product. It just takes a longer time with cultures.”

    Bollocks. We’ve allowed them to ghettoise and reinforce the malign elements of their cultures and in some cases even supported it. That isn’t going to disappear overtime without some old fashioned tough love.

  61. Recent news report on a car theft ring in South Wales they published photos of the guilty white men only, no pictures of those listed in the case with names of an ethnic origin

  62. “In a free competition of ideas and cultures, where people are free to choose, they choose the one they like the most; the one that’s most beneficial for them as they each individually measure ‘benefit’.”

    What if they don’t? I think you’re forgetting we’re not talking about culture in a sense of what clothes you wear, and what TV shows you like watching, and what sports you play, and things like that, things that are rooted in the here and now. We’re talking about religious culture, where the here and now is over ridden by the hereafter. So IF you believe the religious bit, its not inconceivable that people will choose the shithole culture in the here and now, in the hope of the shining eternal hereafter.

    In purely secular terms, you’re right, people will look at what they have, vs what the other culture has, and compare. Like East vs West Germany. However had Communism been a religion its entirely possible that the East Germans might have preferred their Trabant filled shithole to the BMW filled West, because the Westerners were evil sinners who didn’t worship the true God, Joe Stalin (or whoever). And indeed wanted to destroy them as non believers.

    So you’re making an assumption that the ‘good’ culture will always out over the ‘bad’, on a level playing field. That seems to me to be a very dangerous assumption, one that when considering Islam has never happened anywhere at any time in history on the planet.

    Have you ever considered what happens if you’re wrong, and mixing up Islamic culture and Western culture doesn’t end up with the latter winning out, and the former ends up dominating?

  63. “What if they don’t? I think you’re forgetting we’re not talking about culture in a sense of what clothes you wear, and what TV shows you like watching, and what sports you play, and things like that, things that are rooted in the here and now. We’re talking about religious culture, where the here and now is over ridden by the hereafter.”

    First, because exactly the same thing has happened to *our* religious culture. Our religion used to have many of the same attitudes and proscriptions (ultimately, from the same original source), and those were the choices and changes *we* made. Human motivations and desires are much the same.

    Second, because we can already see it happening to *them*. If you compare present day Muslims against the historical record, or their othodox scriptural beliefs, they are already radically different. No Muslim state today acts like ISIS did, which is the orthodox Islam. In fact, most of them regarded it as incredibly bad PR for Islam and helped the West stomp on them. And Western Muslims are far ahead of the Arab nations, to the point where British Muslims going on holiday to the Gulf states often get thrown in jail for breaching the local Islamic morality laws!

    Compared to mainstream British society, their social attitudes are still atrocious. But the numbers on opinions that, according to Islamic orthodoxy should be zero, are very often not, and even more so for the younger ones. They’re moving, and in the right direction. As little as fifty years ago, British attitudes were similarly atrocious, and it’s taken us this long to make the same journey. It’s just a slow process.

    And third, the same principles by which free markets work better than all the alternatives apply here too. We know from economics that uneducated humans have strongly protectionist inclinations – the belief that the way to make something strong and resilient is to shield it from all harm, rather than subject it to competition, is deeply ingrained. Bastiat wrote his books 170 years ago making the errors in that way of thinking clear, and we’re still arguing about whether free markets are better than regulated ones even today!

    The only reason religions are more difficult to change than other social systems is that they have social organisations explicitly devoted to enforcing their rules. People are not afraid to change because of consequences in the hereafter – they’re afraid because of what the rest of society will do to them in the here and now.

    The very fact that they need such a system should tell you that what they’re doing is not the option people would prefer, and that without it things would change. Authoritarians wouldn’t need to erect walls if people didn’t want to cross them. And you can always tell which side has the better, stronger way of life by looking at the direction people are going when they sneak across it.

    It’s the one change we *do* have to enforce on Islam: to forbid its enforcement on others. We have to insist on the British value of tolerance – that they must allow members of their own community to behave in ways they consider to be against traditional morality, without a heavy social penalty. Tear down the walls, and let people choose for themselves. Of course, to persuade them of that, it would help if we believed and did the same!

  64. “We know from economics that uneducated humans have strongly protectionist inclinations – the belief that the way to make something strong and resilient is to shield it from all harm, rather than subject it to competition, is deeply ingrained.”

    More sleight of-hand, a conflation of the notion that a child relatively harmlessly falling off a bicycle is, from time to time, a good thing, or that a business exposed to competition is a good thing, with the difference of kind entailed by welcoming people to kill you. There are no life lessons to be learned by being blown up.

    It also conflates society, which you deem strengthened by diversity (tm, Justin Trudeau, David Cameron, et al.), with individuals. So, it’s theoretically possible you’re right that society is ultimately strengthened by mass immigration, and practically unarguable that in the meantime thousands of individuals are maimed and killed and immiserated.

    A strange conflation for a a self-avowed anti-authoritarian and libertarian.

    Oh, and thanks for the confirmation of your insufferable Emma Thompson-esque snobbery: only morons protest about welcoming people to kill them.

  65. I’m not proposing “welcoming people to kill you”.

    I’m proposing that we don’t reject a whole bunch of entirely people with no intention whatsoever of killing anyone, simply because they happen to share a particular characteristic with people who do want to kill us.

    By analogy with the feminist attitude to men – if you allow men to walk the streets unjailed, then by your logic you are “welcoming rapists”. Anyone can see that’s insane.

    You’re just repeatedly asserting the ‘Group A Group B trick’, over and over again. You should know by now it’s flawed logic. You know very well that *I* know it’s flawed logic, and that I’ll point out the gaping hole in the logic every time you use it. Do you imagine that if you repeat it often enough that one of these times I’ll somehow fail to notice what you’ve done?

  66. Yes, you are, NiV. You want Karachi Fatimah here, on the basis that we’ll see what happens when she gets here and because for vague societal policy-based reasons you think it is just a Good Thing. And if Bert and Doris Scroggs’ Barnsley corner shop finds itself a bit light of stock, or Fatimah’s juvie son decides to stab me, or Bert, well, heigh-ho. Let’s not discriminate, live and, er, learn, eh what?!

    But you are discriminating. Against Bert and Doris and Lud. We pay the price. Have you paid a price? Have you booked the train ticket from Waterloo East to Woolwich?

    To all of this, your answer is, “well, yes, but what about Karachi Fatimah? She’s entitled to freedom, why should we pre-screen her?!”

    And the answer is that the opposite discrimination to yours is the one that operates in favour of the people who already lived here. Bert. Doris. Me. Possibly even you.

    Unfortunately, there’s no middle ground. There might be if we were talking about Alphonse and Gustave from Clichy. But we’re not. And I’ll tell you, in 12 years of criminal practice in London, I saw one – one, mind you – actual French defendant (a klepto). But loads and loads of chaos waiving a French passport as a flag of convenience.

    In practice, your discrimination in favour of Karachi Fatimah is a welcome. And, it turns out, that hurts your countrymen.

    I understand that you don’t care about that, or at least if you do, then not much.

    You must understand that I and others like me will respond accordingly. I have no reason to extend any defence to a man (?) of my country who considers my life, my freedoms (such as they are), equally tradeable with those of someone on the other side of the world.

    Go on, get yourself mugged, stabbed and have a few teeth smashed in Woolwich on Friday night. Or not, who knows? Perhaps the Somali youth will love your skirt? What have you got to lose?

  67. “By analogy with the feminist attitude to men – if you allow men to walk the streets unjailed, then by your logic you are “welcoming rapists”. Anyone can see that’s insane.”

    Your analogy is made of straw. In our general society men are already here and fundamental – nothing new and alien is being introduced or “welcomed”. Anyone adopting the group-A / group-B fallacy for this would be mistaken, and I suspect it would be difficult to find many beyond Julie Bindel in troll mode suggesting all men should be jailed.

    If you want to stick with the rapey men angle, then a better analogy would be a women’s shelter suddenly being required to accommodate men. Now the group-A / group-B issue becomes real and relevant, and it is reasonable to exclude all over the potential few – purely for the benefit of those already in the shelter. Indeed, doing otherwise would be insane (so it is no surprise that you would support the introduction of men…).

    There is no benefit, indeed there is a detriment, to our society having caustic elements of the outside world living here. They’re only interested in “our shit”, not in our culture or philosophy. They literally hate us and despise us. Far from persuading them, being so weak and foolish as to let them in simply compounds their low opinion.

    It would actually be better for them (and obviously for us) to specifically exclude them whilst exposing them to our ways via modern communications. That way they can see the evidence, make their choice and change their own world, or not, as they prefer – while we are free to move into the 21st century unmolested by the 7th.

  68. Most odd. I thought this thread was unambiguously settled at 8.33pm yesterday (14th), and confirmed as such at 8.40pm..

  69. I call for the introduction of a law requiring it be necessary that anyone proposing open borders or other forms of mass immigration should accommodate, at the proposer’s expense, at least one current immigrant in the proposer’s home, even if it means said immigrant sharing a room with the proposer’s fourteen year old daughter.

    This seems like a law that, based on their respective contributions to this thread, both Edward Lud and NiV should happily second.

    Using criteria established in this thread, arguments against?

  70. “No Muslim state today acts like ISIS did, which is the orthodox Islam”

    Saudi Arabia crucified a man the other day. Admittedly they beheaded him first, so you could say they were softening their jurisprudence from incomprehensible medieval style savagery to mere bestial brutality I suppose:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/saudi-arabia-crucifies-beheads-man-13051463

    SA also has stoning to death for adultery on the law books, and have executed several people for ‘witchcraft’ inside the last decade.

    You still refuse to answer my question – what if you are wrong and allowing Islam into the West results in it taking over?

  71. Edward,

    You’re repeating yourself again. Group A Group B trick. It’s still crap.

    “Your analogy is made of straw. In our general society men are already here and fundamental – nothing new and alien is being introduced or “welcomed”.”

    Newness is irrelevant to the point – and in any case not applicable (Muslim immigrants are nothing new – they’ve been here for decades). The point is that Group A (men, or muslims) would be excluded to protect us against Group B (rapists, or Islamic terrorists), and the ‘logic’ of the argument is identical. It’s a crap argument that can be indefinitely extended to exclude pretty much any hate group the arguer desires, and is transparently aimed at justifying persecution of Group A, not defence against Group B.

    “I suspect it would be difficult to find many beyond Julie Bindel in troll mode suggesting all men should be jailed.”

    I think it might have been one of Julie’s suggestions I was thinking of. Nevertheless, the ‘Group A Group B’ logic is identical. And when you’re using the same logic as Julie Bindel in troll mode, you’ve really got to worry!

    “If you want to stick with the rapey men angle, then a better analogy would be a women’s shelter suddenly being required to accommodate men.”

    The analogy works better as it stands. It emphasises the stupidity of it.

    But for what it’s worth, the same principle applies to women’s shelters. The aim is to keep the occupants safe. If the specific men you invite in are safe to be with, there’s no reason not to. Any more than you would exclude a woman with a tattoo because another woman there had been beaten up by a man with a tattoo. Or who was poor, or from London, or was illiterate, or a drug-taker, or any other associated characteristic. There’s reason to check more carefully, when occupants of a shelter are especially vulnerable. But blanket bans based on any shared characteristic are instances of the association fallacy.

    “They’re only interested in “our shit”, not in our culture or philosophy. They literally hate us and despise us.”

    A lot of immigrants don’t, and a lot of natives do. If you want to make the rule that we deport everyone who hates and despises us, that’s potentially justifiable. (It depends on who you count as ‘us’, of course. You might not get included.) But you can’t discriminate between natives who hate and despise us (like SJWs going on about ‘colonialist Britain’) and immigrants who do (like radical Islamists), if hate and despite is supposed to be your justification. Group B is “people who hate and despise us”. Don’t go trying to substitute any different Group A in their place.

    “That way they can see the evidence, make their choice and change their own world”

    They see the evidence that our so-called ‘principles’ of freedom and tolerance mean shit to us, and that we operate the same authoritarian one-sided application that everyone else does. Freedom for us, not for them. Free speech for us, not for them. Prosperity for us, not for them. They’ve got to follow our rules, but we’ll ban anyone from following theirs. We’re authoritarian hypocrites, like every other tinpot dictatorial culture. Why the hell would they think that was an example worth emulating?!

    “I call for the introduction of a law requiring it be necessary that anyone proposing open borders or other forms of mass immigration should accommodate, at the proposer’s expense, at least one current immigrant in the proposer’s home, even if it means said immigrant sharing a room with the proposer’s fourteen year old daughter.”

    So long as you agree the same applies to every other conceivable Group A category. If you want all men to remain unjailed, for example, you have to agree to a random man sleeping with your 14 year old daughter. Et cetera. Gonna be a full house!

    “Saudi Arabia crucified a man the other day.”

    They’re still a long way short of ISIS/orthodoxy. Rape/murder can get you the death penalty in the US, too.

    “You still refuse to answer my question – what if you are wrong and allowing Islam into the West results in it taking over?”

    What if the ants take over the world? What if gravity reverses and we all fall off into outer space? What if global warming turns out to be real?

    It’s the problem all authoritarians are ultimately faced with. What if people freely and with full knowledge of what they’re doing *choose* a lifestyle that we consider to be wrong, evil, wicked, unwise, sinful, and/or stupid? What if, despite all our warnings, they smoke and drink and eat sugar? Should we not stop them by force, for their own good, and for the good of society?

    That is the decision that *Every*. *Single*. *Fucking*. *Authoritarian* of *Any* *Type* that has *ever* existed has been faced with. Should people have the freedom to make mistakes? What if people, given freedom, freely *choose* to ignore what *we* know as good and wise and right?

    Well? What do you *think* they should do? And what do you think – having read any fucking history at all – happens to the world when authoritarians – of *any* stripe – are given control of it?

    Freedom of any sort depends on a certain degree of trust in the people’s judgement, and in any case imposes its own form of justice. It generally means we at least get the sort of government we deserve.

    Libertarians trust the people’s judgement regarding their own interests. Authoritarians don’t, because they know other people don’t agree with them. Authoritarian philosophy tells us that freedom is dangerous for this very reason. What if people use their freedom to make the ‘wrong’ choice?

    Fundamentally, the answer to your question is that if I’m wrong and freedom is not a principle worth fighting for, then the Islamists and SJWs and Communists and every other fucking authoritarian ideology that has ever existed are *right*, and therefore *deserve* to win. I don’t believe that’s true. Do you?

  72. “What if the ants take over the world? What if gravity reverses and we all fall off into outer space? What if global warming turns out to be real?”

    If thats the best you can come up with, I think you just lost the argument.

  73. “If thats the best you can come up with, I think you just lost the argument.”

    It wasn’t, and I didn’t. 🙂

  74. NiV is trying to get to Cork, while most of the rest of us (I would guess) are trying to get to Dublin. As Mr Lud eloquently summarised at 8.33pm on 14th August.

    If NiV is convinced that his route home is prettier, so what?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *