91Èȱ¬

Constructive piece & debate about Conservative proposals.

Very good speech by Cameron.

Conservatives ahead on this than New Labour & Lib Dem's are nowhere (as usual).

The failure of multiculturalism is firmly on the main stage.

The Left & Liberal Supremacists/ultra progressives are too blame for social disharmony (RIGHT ON & PC agendas) for last 30+ years.

The failure is most manifest within those minority communities which are susceptible to religious & cultural manipulation from within for agenda couple for political/religious ideological motivations.

This biggest failure is self evident within Britain's Muslims communities.

Are they unable to appreciate that they are being manipulated & why do such manipulating forces presume mainstream society will stand by & do nothing in the face of this clear divisive & non indigenous threat of separatism.

As to those British Muslims who desire to deny women's rights & insist they cover up & discourage education, refuse to integrate, hold British host society in contempt & want Sharia Law …. you are more than welcome to choose any number of Muslim countries around the world to live your dream.

For those British Muslims who sincerely wish to integrate with mainstream British society, they continue to be welcomed & play an attractive part in society & make valuable contributions.

A rebalancing & a 'Renaissance of Rights' within The United Kingdom continues apace … rather belatedly

vikingar

Your (Tory?) guest, like Trevor Philips before, her talks about us going 'towards segregation' - surely we are already there (putting political correctness to one side for a moment)?

Interesting, isn't it!
On the one hand there are all these radicalised muslim youths, wanting the hijab for their women for religious reasons, and that is ok to make an exception - its their religion and culture isn't it.
On the other hand the catholic adoption agencies cannot have an exception because the law is above religious conscience.
So what are we now asked to think? Religious conscience is all right when it is that of another culture, never mind that they actually live here - but it is not all right when it is that of British catholics?
Well timed, hearing these two attitudes reported on the same day - but I don't think any of the politicians involved have grasped the irony here ...

The youth, many educated and able to access information, have read up on their Islam, unlike their parents. Therefore it is no surprise that the younger Muslims are more strict in adhering to Islam, as they have a more comprehensive understanding of it. This is not radicalism - Just because they adhere to their belief in all aspects of their lives, why should this be a threat? Instead true and strict adherence to Islamic values, prohibits the killing of innocent civilians, promotes understanding, dialogue and better interaction with the wider community. Yes Muslims are more politically aware, and realise that Islam has a say on many political issues. But why is this radicalism? If anything outside of the political norm is going to be labelled radicalism, then I guess we're all doomed to a lifetime of Big Brother 'Shilpa poppadom' headlines.

The statistics given in the report, for polygraphy tests on sex offenders, appear to suggest the likelihood of these tests being ineffective. An additonal test, also measuring brainwaves, nerve impulses, perspiration levels, levels of excitement etc should be carried out via the use of visuals. If an offender who has been released, as it is deemed they are no longer a threat and they are reformed, shows any levels of "thrill" to the visual tests, they will be identified much easier and would find it far more difficult to fake than a polygraph test.

We in Bournemouth are customer representatives to many companies and more talented representors ..often as a dare and a risk to the media

We don't attack...

We celebrate influencial people the way they like to describe themselves...

Then create leadership of the controversy to provide the toolkits to anybody maybe to politically correct the socialization to our points of view..as a challenge to the self serving to promote themselves differently...

If only they had sought to let us know their ways ...and understood the differences of ours ...as commonly happens in companies ...we would all be safe to promote ourselves free from the vigilantist misrepresentation of their socialisms that they use to excuse any physical attacks sermonising themselves and demonising our sorts..

The concept of prime minister could be replaced by a stone Buddha in the centre of the commons...better than those who think what is good for them must be good for everyone else... better than those who fear their image is all they have...a society free from agreeability...therefore able to participate as our own worldly sort..

As is contemporary...anyone can ticket, mail, text, phone, receipt, or publish, to support or raise support for the public... this should replace votes so that all customers can have representation to those services they need with those prospects they have...

We need less politics...less blood diamond think and better mechanisms as suggested for customer representation...

The sneaky little piece about benefits for single parents being slashed. I believe that the government should not do it and should start again, as i am sick and fed up of the women and children upon divorce being made the scapegoats for society and being used as slaves.I have been asking the government to do proper research to take proper note of all the research done on this by people like the Rowntree Foundation.
This policy does absolutely nothing for the poverty of lone parents, it is the usual sticking plaster politics. In fact the present policies and those proposed are in actual fact no more or less than domestic violence and illegal as well as an abuse of Human Rights and they perpetuate inequality. As i have stressed many times before education is the key and mainly the creative education of men.

The government seems to be runing scared and I think they should take a stance whether the Tory or Labour government is in power.

I think the muslim community is getting away with too many concessions through aggresive demands - cocessions that are not available to other communities.

I think any unreasonale behaviour should not be allowed and punishments should be linked to parents if anyone is found guilty - their Citizenships should be revocated and all be returned back to their country of origin no matter their religion or ethnicity.

Maybe the goverment should adopt a policy of "happy to stay, happy to go"

When is Newsnight going to run a decent debate with proper opposition concerning the Welfare Reform Bill currently before parliament. Perhaps the government want to keep it a secret because they know in their hearts that it has what could be described as a Nazi agenda. It is increasingly difficult to find out anything about this bill, but from what has been leaked it would appear that the theme of the bill is Arbeit Macht Frei, at least as far as the disabled are concerned. The government's recent lack of interest in a 91Èȱ¬ supported campaign to give the disabled winter fuel allowance must prove that they would prefer all the "economically inactive" disabled dead as soon as possible.

The disabled already get a crap deal, especially those who can't claim any form of DLA, and now it would appear that if a private company decides that your walk is not quite silly enough you will receive a benefit cut if you can't find a suitable job. There are already at least 1.7 million able bodied people out of work so only an insane employer would consider taking on someone who had been on incapacity benefit with a chronic disability like a bad back for any period. The ironic thing about it is that people with bad backs etc. probably became disabled by working too hard in the past. This simple fact will probably escape the comprehension of fat cat celebrity politics presenters like Andrew Neil who has probably never done a decent day's honest hard work in his life. From his past performances it is obvious that he hates anyone who claims state benefits, even if they have paid for them through National Insurance contributions.

I expect that the government will attempt to portray its welfare reforms like Hitler promoted resettlement in the east for the Jews. Lots of propaganda footage about how this person was helped into work ( probably a false short term contract local authority sponsored job ) with lots of individual ten bob fat cat idiots appearing who think that it would be good for them to rejoin the workforce despite being medically unable to continue over time. It looks more likely that the future of most disabled people lies in the virtual concentration camp of perhaps only £60 per week, with a private company taking the money which used to be paid out to genuine claimants and it and perhaps even more being siphoned off into the pockets of even more fat cat parasite shareholders.

In reality the only thing that needs reform as far as encouraging more disabled people to attempt a return to work is to scrap the current eight week rule and allow disabled people to go straight back onto full benefit at any time for life.

It would appear that Arbeit Macht Frei policy is now to be extended to single mums, who even now only get just enough benefit to provide basic food. The current anti single mum rhetoric is probably due to the right wing press continually publishing figures for benefit which bears no relation to the true figure received. I can remember seeing kids with rickets under Thatcher in the 1980s, but instead of giving families enough to live on they prescribed free vitamin pills instead, after the damage had been done. It would appear that lone parents are expected to forfeit the basic human right to bring up their own kids, I don't think that Stalin ever went as far as that. If lone parent benefits are cut Labour has no chance meeting its stated aim of reducing child poverty rates in this country.

All the evidence suggests that Blair is a closet Nazi, who now that it is politically incorrect to be racist, attempts to wage virtual racism on those on any state benefit. Its a bit like being addicted to methadone instead of heroin. He picked the right minister to do it, John Hutton would not look out of place as a defendant at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. I expect that most of the alleged generous childcare allowance will go straight into the pockets of high rate taxpayers who's wives could probably afford to stay at home and bring up their kids if they were not so greedy. Its time that someone focussed on the real parasites on the British economy, the fat cats who run the Stock Market.

Cameron, handpicked audience, delapidated room, messages about multiculturism. This has all been done to death on Channel 4' Celebrity Big Brother program!

Tories should set an agenda, and not belatedly follow what Labour have done a few weeks ago. The papers will pick up on outrage by certain Muslim groups at being compared as opposites to the BNP. What happened to the days we had a PM that spoke to and for all Britons?

Cameron needs to up the ante, as the bellow from GB bears down on him.

We cannot afford another election decided by readers of the tabloids!

Ref Martin Hoscik #2

"What's the difference between Muslims wanting their own rules in Britain and Catholics in Britain wanting opt-outs from laws they don't like"

errrr …. If choose you choose to ignore history & all the current examples of oppression & violence around the world … absolutely nothing :(

This is not an issue of moral or religious equivalence.

Its about social cohesion in the United Kingdom, national & historical shared cultural norms & values, institutions & laws .. based Christian society, then & now (albeit in emergent form).

A rather disingenuous 'sound bite' argument you made Martin Hoscik

Agenda or naviety perchance?

vikingar

I am no computer boff,but I think there is something wrong with the web connection to this programme.It is not accessible even its normal rather shuddering form.

Ref Martin Hoscik #16

"I don't see why followers of any religion should be exempted from the laws of the land ..... Both are the result by an underling assumption that followers of a belief have a right to expect society to indulge them and to exempt them from democratically passed laws ..."

Poor Law gets passed regularly & if it becomes unworkable & unenforceable as Bad Law it gets overturned.

What happens when 72% of a nation (for example this country) happen to be part of the biggest religion in the world (Christianity) [1]

What happens when are laws, institutions, social norms & shared values & culture are both historically & stilled enshrined in said religion (Christianity)

Q. who should we feel obliged to follow?

1. Right On & PC agenda, emanating from Left & Liberal supremacists ultra progressives (a distinct minority)?
2. vested rights of a distinct minority based on sexual orientation?
3. religious demands from a distinct minority (elements with 2% of British Muslims)?
4. calls from the fringe of secular atheists?

Q. care to put such issues to a national vote?

As subjects/citizens (who also happen to be the largest group) in a Christian society, we have the right to challenge secular atheist arguments about central tenets of the same society who constructs & adaptations have enabled so many distinct minorities (faith, politics, sexual orientation) too coexist, without any sole minority imposing its distinct but disproportional & unenforceable will on the vast majority.

Christian adoption agencies ARE NOT PREVENTING ADOPTIONS by Gay/Lesbian couples, they seek to continue with the practice to pass such requests they receive onto other agencies.

We have exceptions in other areas (health, animals) so the unwillingness to accommodate the worlds biggest religion with a 2,000+ year history on such matters (family & children) is more an intentional & deliberate militant move ref societal change, regardless of consequence & impact [1]

To override the majorities concern & push through change at pace with little not opportunity for balance, adaptation, review …. Militant Gay Rights are putting themselves at odds to the very society they are reliant to accommodate / accept / tolerate … their choices in life style.

I would argue it those minorities your viewpoint supports who demanding INDULGENCE whilst the majority (cross faith too boot) seek & rightly expect fairness, based on historical & current precedent.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

#6 wrote "prohibits the killing of innocent civilians, promotes understanding, dialogue and better interaction with the wider community."

Does this include practicing homosexuals? or would mobile crains go round the country hanging them ala Iran?

The debate here among the public is more sensible than the artificial,P.C.discussions of politicians,and I wonder if anyone has any ideas on something that puzles me,the liberal left is what has brought us to where we are now with Multicultreism and uncontrolled immigration,and the poll showed the percentage in favour of sharia law,Al-Queda,etc,how can the liberal left not see the irony of the fact that they would be the first ones to go under these laws.

robert wrote: "...I wonder if anyone has any ideas on something that puzles me,the liberal left is what has brought us to where we are now with Multicultreism and uncontrolled immigration,and the poll showed the percentage in favour of sharia law,Al-Queda,etc,how can the liberal left not see the irony of the fact that they would be the first ones to go under these laws."

There is no irony in this because those who would be the "first to go under these laws" are most definitely NOT the ones who have "brought us to where we are". Firstly, those who suffer most under Sharia law are non-believers (as opposed to believers in any of the religions related to Islam in the Abrahamic tradition), and especially people "born" into a religion who decide for themselves they do not believe, women and girls, and lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Thieves too (there being that thing about amputating the hand), but they have a choice and are punished under most laws anyway. It would be ridiculous to suggest that any of those groups have ruled this country. It has been christians, heterosexuals, and mostly men who have made almost all the decisions in recent years. Secondly, most of those in those groups, and certainly the politically liberal amongst us, have been against the divisive nature of multiculturalism from the beginning, because it is the antithesis of people being able to mix and grow, or decide their own lives, naturally. By going for multiple cultures instead of one culture with freedom from prejudice people are called upon to distinguish, if not separate themselves on grounds most would once have wished not to be all that significant in their lives.

I had a good friend who was an advisor on anti-discrimination when multiculturalism suddenly became the buzz word for government. She was outraged by it, desperately upset that civil servants and politicians had been hoodwinked by "professional representatives" of various ethnic groups, who weren't representative and were looking to make big money out of the con. She was a refugee from the apartheid regime in South Africa, and passionately committed to overcoming the sort of separate development that regime was based upon and promoting. Shared values, mutual understanding, education, and equality, for all, were the solution she saw. But suddenly the policy became separateness here too. This was under the Callaghan government, but Thatcher continued it enthusiastically, and Blair even more so.

The ill-effects were starkly obvious decades ago. For example, the prime trigger for the uprising in Liverpool under Thatcher was that a big new community centre, with floodlit ball courts and many other facilities, turned out to be solely for a relative handful of Caribbean people (ie born in the Caribbean, so the largest group to show up on the Census which only asked "Country of Birth"), bound to refuse access to all the tens of thousands of Liverpool Black people (a community centuries old and very mixed, and very British) or other locals, who were very deprived of such facilities. The exclusive drinking club next door, used by councillors, journalists, judges and senior officers of the city's entirely white police force, who were all, of course by coincidence, white, got burned down. The wrong changes.

The blame has to be not only on those carpetbaggers, those relatively selfish or extreme, unrepresentative "representatives" that government draws forth from every division or "community" that either needs some protection from discrimination or might be separately cultivated for votes or as a means of social control, but also with the civil servants and the politicians. It is they who have been too lazy to to make the effort to really understand and go direct to people with slightly different viewpoints and instead try to subcontract their responsibilities as representatives to people who they think they can work with, but usually don't really know. Often one feels convinced our rulers and mandarins really don't care at all

The result has been bad laws, bad spending, bad social effects. and very considerable disillusion as time after time big words promising new deals for people turn out at least partially misconceived, money wasting, even harmful. It is still progressing at full tilt. The machinery blind to alternatives, deeply invested in more of the same, denial of faults, and noses pushing as deep in the troughs as possible. Whilst the liberals amongst us stand marginalised and fearful, and, having argued against this at every turn, certainly not to blame.

I didn't know that David Cameron was that ignorant for all that 'sleek' look!

BNP is an organisation which believes in the superiority of one race and one race only - the white race.

Islam teaches the total opposite of that.

Muslims are composed of every race and nationality.

The BNP is composed of only one race!

Mahmud.

See today's Headlines! These & others of similar views should be deported to the countries who embrace the Sharia Law they desire... liberal lefties should go with them if they protect them & the safety of this country & it's populace.. claiming Human Rights!!

Peace,

As a muslim, I welcomed the speach and completely understood it...I think it was useful to me as a citizen living in the west and i am really tired of groups like muslim council of britain, hizb ut tahir or any other group wearing the cloak of islam. I want to read about their substance and what exactly have these groups done for the muslims in britain, apart from giving us a bad name?

Peace,

As a muslim, I welcomed the speach and completely understood it...I think it was useful to me as a citizen living in the west and i am really tired of groups like muslim council of britain, hizb ut tahir or any other group wearing the cloak of islam. I want to read about their substance and what exactly have these groups done for the muslims in britain, apart from giving us a bad name?

I was only able to catch half of the piece on polygraph tests,so it is possible that I missed some of the more cogent arguments in their favour,but in my view it will be a very sad day for British justice if these are introduced into a legal system which prides itself on its impeccable standards of impartiality.If they are not considered sufficiently reliable for use on all offenders then we are on rocky moral ground indeed in introducing them for a specific group,however horrific their alleged offences.

The ten pound challenge sounds like a brilliant idea in theory,but ten pounds won't buy much in today's money.I suspect its the students'families who will be skint by the end of it.

ref #15 vikingar

Actually the nations the first immigrants (first generation Muslims in UK) were from, were not'islamic states' - They were and are nation states, within which Islamic understanding has been diluted with cultural practices and traditions. There is no Muslim state within the world today, any Muslim would agree, which implements Islam, in the true and correct manner. The first generation also grew up in the colonial /post colonial era when the drive to deislamicise (Turkey, Bangladesh, Egypt etc etc) was at its height, meaning Islamic education was diluted, and put secondary. Of course there are remnants of Islam, but not to the correct degree (take the mix of tribal and patriarchal society mixed with Islamic sentiments under Taliban, which is named as islam)the
second/third generations, now with higher levels of education even literacy,have been able to read around, make distinctions between tradition/culture their parents practice,and Islam to look to implement what is correct.
Regarding certain group of Muslims wanting to impose their "radical" values on the UK, the Muslims I know, who are strict Muslims and adhere to Islam wholistically do not at all want to impose Islam on their non-Muslim counterparts as this is against the very nature of the example of the Prophet Muhammad. He disallowed compulsion in religion. Instead the fact that certain numbers of Muslims do want to strictly live by Islam, means that you know what you're going to get from them. That they must always be polite, helpful and willing to discuss their way of life with you openly and freely. It means they won't cheat you, deceive you or treat you badly as building good relations with Muslims and non-Muslims, is a requirement of their faith. I'd say you have more to worry about from the Muslims who don't adhere to ISlam strictly, who don't have a blueprint to follow which tells them not to steal, to intimidate, be violent, to kill innocent people.. the list is endless. The society should begin to see the benefits of certain sections of their community living by a moral code which upholds honesty and integrity to the highest degree.