moonraker

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.

The UK may now want to set a new Tariff but the fact remains the UK Government not the EU has failed to react to the dumping of Chinese steel in the best interest of the UK steel industry. Putting aside the details of the Steel Industry this is a prime example of where our own Government had sufficient sovereignty to do something and abjectly failed to act. Embedded in Tory ideology is the principle that Government should not involve itself in any way with direct support to an individual industry, they struggle to see past this. Your comment about setting tariffs by committee is naïve at best, all Government is by committee, while the actual label may change Cabinet, Council, Parliament are all in effect other terms for committees. You use the term committee because in the popular perception it has negative connotations. If democracy is nothing else it is Government by committee.

The U.K. Stopped the EU imposing high tariffs on th chinese steel.

Just re-read and stand by my interpretation of your comments, your lack of clarity leads me to the conclusions I stated.

I did not say you did I said it is what you intimated.

You seem to be protesting about the failure of the Muslim community to respond to the terrorist problems in a manner that is open and supported by significant numbers. You also intimate that the lack of such a reaction is tantamount to condoning the Islamist extremists. Did you also take this view of the NI communities who failed to respond in the self same way as you demand? In such communities the fear of reprisals from the tiny minority of nutters is real, we saw real evidence of this in Glasgow last week, and the numerous kneecap pings and summary executions in Ni during the troubles was precisely designed to surprises any backlash. Your constant singling out of the Muslim community does your argument no favours and only serves to portray you as a bigoted ill informed, intolerant individual.

I don't dismiss any of your concerns and I do not unquestionably back the EU but I do believe it is the best option for our future.

Tough nothing to do with EU that dastardly European Court of Human rights has rejected the appeal by th family of Jean Charles De Menzies. What were they thinking backing the U K government!

The Greatest Britain of all Time was also in favour, mind you he did die over 50 years ago. Winston Churchill, a former army officer, war reporter and British Prime Minister (1940-45 and 1951-55), was one of the first to call for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’. Following the Second World War, he was convinced that only a united Europe could guarantee peace. His aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and war-mongering once and for all.

Quoting some one who dies nearly 40 years ago, very relevent.

So not the same as nationalising then. Not to allow government subsidies makes sense not only within the EU but outside. The history of subsidised industries is pretty poor, most eventually fail as they become reliant on the subsidies and neglect running the business efficiently and effectively. If you want the most extreme examples of subsidised industries and failure look no further than the old USSR. The WTO also prohibits government subsidies where the subsidies are contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods. So even without the EU the government could not subsidise the steel industry to counter cheap imports.

You have missed my point I did not claim we caused them although in the case of Ireland and all the troubles we can hardly blame anyone outside these Islands. You claimed we worked perfectly fine before 1975, my examples were just to illustrate that ‘perfectly’ might be a slight distortion of reality. Conversely are you intimating that all of our recent and /or current troubles such as they are can be laid at the feet of the EU: Blair/Bush alliance, North Korean threats, Islamist terrorism, world financial failure? I would argue that if a strong organsiation like the EU had existed after WWI, WWII would almost certainly have been avoided.