moonraker

Your credibility was already very low with this stupendously stupid statement you now have none whatsoever. There is not a single poster on here who's views from their posts could be accused of any of this.

As one who is so keen to ensure literal precision are you now proposing that Muslims may not comply with the ‘religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion’ the original and proper meaning of Jihad. I know the word has been hijacked and reinterpreted by some to mean violent struggle, but you of all people would surely refute that based on your well documented exactitude in matters of word definition. Should we therefore take a similar view of all Christians as the bible says ‘GOD Almighty Commanded His followers to fight for His Holy Cause’. It is men (predominantly) that have interpreted and bent these holy scriptures to their own non-religious malevolent ends.

Yes, but one is eminently achievable, practicable and enlightened, take away or tightly control guns, the other is, well not even hypothetically possible, and why stop with Islam, I personally am not very keen on a number of religions; Satanism, Scientology, Jedism to name a few. So which of the 4200 documented religions would you eradicate? so rather than Apples and Ornages more akin to comparing apples and cocunuts, one is soft and easy to deal with, the other is tough and very hard to get into.

Thank you, once again you provide the informed and mature understanding of these very complex issues. Sadly the myopic will still want to simplify everything and want to know when the backlash is coming, why Muslims run the labour party and what is going to be done about this or that and they will continue sight cherry picked examples of practises and behaviours that are in one or more ways, distasteful, unacceptable or illegal, and dogmatically failing to accept that it is universally acknowledged their are real issues, as there are in all cultures, but that does not excuse the blanket condemnation of a whole religion.

The best post on this thread by far, no insults, no silly links, no pedantry, just brilliant.

I listened to an interview with her on Radio 4 recently, she was remarkable person who fought against every obstacle athat was put in her way and produced some stunning structures. A great loss to architecture and our bult environment.

van many thanks for your non partisan perspective. Whilst I have argued to remain in your points are well made and sadly only to true. I suppose what I really want to happen is a complete realignment of the EU power structures and a recognition, as you allude to, of the regional variations that present such huge challenges that the eurocrats seem incapable of even voicing let alone addressing. To me the risk of leaving and failing to gain at least an equitable deal for the UK still seems to great, and the fragmented and fundamentally ill considered leave campaign does not provide a level of mitigation I can buy into.

Apologies you are correct, I was fooled by the use of the same photograph at the top of each article. Strange to use a phot of one meeting in an article about a completely different meetings. Still now we have 2 meetings, that really is conclusive evidence of the hold Muslims have on the Labour Party. What worries me even more now I think about it, the Tories have a Muslim in the current cabinet, their second in 5 years surely that is the end of British culture, I must check whether they are moderate or extremist although I am not sure it makes any difference so hope fully they are reasonable Muslims (is there actually such a thing). They certainly are persistent these folk, to think its only 150 years since the first Muslim sat in the house of Lords and now here they are in cabinet, the onward march of Muslim Culture is irresistible.

The spread of a culture and the rate of immigration are not one and the same thing. The spread of Western European culture around then world was not effected by mass migration but in the main by force of arms and/or superior technology.

You cant even work out that the two links you provide are two articles about the same meeting, that is a singular event and hence a meeting not meetings. I am now getting headache trying to comprehend what sort of logic it takes to continue to; not anwer questions, continually reference and repeat the same inconclusive evidence, attempt to alter that which others write and represent it as the original, fail to acknowledge anything anyone else says that does not support 'its not a backlash, were all doomed due to the Islamic march across Europe, to many muslims are extremist, extremist supporters or symapathysers and on and on'.

So now you have transmogrified my statement that ‘I wasn’t happy with the spread of any particular culture’ to ‘I am not happy to see further Muslim immigration’. Your pure gold Sour, your ability to interpret others views and statement into something fundamentally different (grotesque even) is straight out of the Donald Trump Debating for Dummies manual. Abraham Lincoln is oft quoted as saying ‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time’, but you couldn’t fool any of the people any of the time, apart from perhaps yourself.

Rubbish your have just answered questions you made up yourself, not ones you have been posed by others attempting to have an adult debate. As the questions you have posed are directed at me please allow me the courtesy of answering them rather than answering them for me 1. you say these ‘meetings’ yet referenced only one. 2. Why aren’t they moderate, what evidence do have to the contrary? 3. I have never said I am happy with spread of moderate Islamic culture or any particular culture across the UK or anywhere for that matter. 4. No I describe you as a bigot and against the definition of bigot the content of your posts presents a fairly water tight case for my claim. And another small worm for you to chew on, the most successfully enforced culture in history is that of Western Europe, I happen to believe that on balance this has been beneficial, however I am sure many decedents of the indigenous people of North and South America, Australia etc . might take me to task on that.

Yet again claimimg I said something that I clearly did not, and still no answers.

What proof is there that that was said, dont invent stuff.

Did you miss the official statements from respected and acknowledged Islamic institutions and leaders, no as usual you choose to ignore that which does not fit your bigotry.

Uh the answers in my last response moderates. Now will you answer the myriad of questions that have been put to you? Im not holding my breath. And as you are so keen on literal definition, neither I nor anyone else has ranted on this message board, ranting is verbal act not a written one.

Someone who choses what others may think and do within the law is a bigot, a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. Who are you to tell people how to live their lives, I thought the British had moved on from outlawing the adherence to the religion of ones choice. An still you fail to actually answer anything just answer a question with a question (Answer moderates) and drag up inconsequential third party media reports that you obviously believe constitute admissible evidence, when all they do is reinforce your bigotry.

Where did I say that, the segregation was not instigated by the Labour Party but by the attendees culture, traditions and religion. There are many cultural, traditional and religious behaviours and boundaries across Britain that I personally do not subscribe to, if others choose to adopt them or accept them and they are within the law and do not harm or devalue mineor any other individuals life who am I to criticise. Sadly you ignore a couple of the greatest British cultural traditions, that of tolerances and freedom of choice.

So a minor meeting of Oldham West and Royton Labour Parties - Labour’s ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ appears to be segregated and UKIP provides narrative whoopee. Without doubt men are on one side and women on the other, with one exception all of the attendees appear to be of sub-continent ethnicity, and I would hazard a guess that those attending are more than happy with this arrangement. What would you have the labour party do, force them to sit in designated seats, would that not be an infringement of personal choice. Are you advocating that all events in the UK must ensure that the genders are equally dispersed, the Women’s Institute or the Mothers Union might struggle to comply? This may be a cultural and religious issue but it is definitely not a political one. So if all you can offer as evidence of Muslims having a hold on our country is a single, local, meeting organised by a predominantly Muslim group in support of secular political candidate you really do need to grow up.

Wow which Labour Party meetings? Who are these Muslim extremists running the meetings? What are the meetings about?

YYou argue there has been no backlash, because your interpretation of the definition does not fit what has occurred and then you make a completely unfounded claim that Muslim extremists have a hold on British society. Within my understanding of the term ‘a hold on British Society’ I might concede that the bankers or other influential commercial interests have some sort of hold on British society but to claim that any terror group has is nonsensical, they certainly have an effect but that is not the same thing. Please explain what you mean by a hold on British society?

Or akin to the Premier League (the most successful league by a range of measures) who negotiate collectively. Or would you prefer the big 4/5 clubs ignore the rest of the clubs and just look after themselves? It is gnerally understood there is greater strength in numbers even when some of that number are individually obvioulsy not as strong as others.

I apologise, I was being somewhat reactionary. In my defence, I am somewhat frustrated with the inability of many of those who post simplistic statements about complex issues and then try to defend themselves with hackneyed assertions about what has or is actually happening. As I have repeatedly stated I recognise the failings of the EU but firmly believe that it is our best option. It is those who do not debate in a grown up manner, as you do, that irritates and leads to what you reasonably call patronising responses.

At last something I can agree with, just I do not belive leaving the imperfect EU is the best way to achieve that in our Globalised world.

And the problem with that is? It was not pedantic, just pointing out that your inference about commitees not working is wrong. The whole problem with the serial moaners on here is that they are incapable of thinking beyond their narrow self interest, the majority of their comments are just reactionary.