Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

But white middle class right wing fundamentalist do have a problem???  

 

Or should we ignore the problem???

 

And if there problem was causing harm to multiple innocents, should that problem not be addressed?

Do they? 

 

Are you suggesting all white middle class male christians should be profiled and thought of as a danger? I would fundamentally disagree with you on that point.

[Nick]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Interesting, so you don't accept there is also a racist motive to these gangs acts?

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

 

Of course, in the methodology and justification for the sex offending there are elements of extreme prejudice / racism. But what I'm getting at here is that white racist people don't have sex with 12 year old black girls because they are racist. They do it because they are sex offenders first and racist second which enables them to justify their sexual behaviours. 

 

What is apparent is the dehumanisation in these cases being very similar to sex trafficking by organised crime gangs - for profit associated with drugs, firearms and prostitution.

 

Paedophile rings with varying members are child sex offenders first and choose their victim that best fits absolving themselves or justifying their behaviour second.

 

Edit: Or getting away with it - which also in these instances keep their offending away from family religion and culture which may pose conflict, so stick to sex offending with their other organised criminals and sex offenders from their own communities and victims from outside of it.

Edited 17 August 2017 by Nick

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

 

Of course, in the methodology and justification for the sex offending there are elements of extreme prejudice / racism. But what I'm getting at here is that white racist people don't have sex with 12 year old black girls because they are racist. They do it because they are sex offenders first and racist second which enables them to justify their sexual behaviours. 

 

What is apparent is the dehumanisation in these cases being very similar to sex trafficking by organised crime gangs - for profit associated with drugs, firearms and prostitution.

 

Paedophile rings with varying members are child sex offenders first and choose their victim that best fits absolving themselves or justifying their behaviour second.

Just gonna say I think that's a complete load of bollocks tbf, going by some of the comments made by that Newcastle bunch, it's completely the other way around, they rape these girls because they're white, they have literally said as much. That's not a "justification" that's a cause and effect. If it was a case of pedo first, they wouldn't be abusing legal aged girls also, surely. 

[Guest MattP]

48 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

If you can somehow justify that your offending by denouncing the humanity of your victim and choose to do so by attaching religious or cultural values as a vehicle to justify your abhorrent act thats you just coping with your identity and being a sex offender who happens to be Muslim or Pakistani.

I don't think you are, but let's actually assume for the sake of debate you are correct on this point and they are hiding behind culture to justify what is actual peadophilia as that raises even more interesting questions about culture.

 

In the report on Rotherham the local taxi firms were criticised as it was an open secret the trafficking was going on, in Newcastle the same was said about takeaways, in Blackpool and Burnley (I think) there were cases where it was all going on between familes, in one case three brothers and two cousins shared the same courtoom. In almost every case and every city this has happened the flats have been above businesses and a local "asian" cab service has been the main point of the transport.

 

So why are so many all-Muslim businesses ending up with groups of employees where so many find peadophilia acceptable? In mixed companies, which are the only ones I've worked in I don't think I've ever heard someone speak about child abuse, let alone ever work in a place that found child abuse so acceptable virtually everyone had a go and if you didn't you turned a blind eye.

 

Why do many Muslim families seem to have members where siblings, uncles and cousins often work together to achieve their desires? I'd imagine in 99.9999% of families a sex offender doesn't often ring his brother or cousin up to see if they fancy a bit of child rape as well or whether they are into it.

 

I think your idea they hide behind the culture to disguise peadophilia is very, very interesting, if it is the case it raises some even more criticial questions then if it isn't cultural. It's almost a mass conspiracy and it would be amazing it's all fell on the same sort of people. When you look at the demographics of the nation as a whole it's a zillion to one all the peadophiles who groom children in this way just happen to come from the same community.

Edited 17 August 2017 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Just gonna say I think that's a complete load of bollocks tbf, going by some of the comments made by that Newcastle bunch, it's completely the other way around, they rape these girls because they're white, they have literally said as much. That's not a "justification" that's a cause and effect. If it was a case of pedo first, they wouldn't be abusing legal aged girls also, surely. 

It's very strange, a Islamist blows themselves up and tells you it's for Allah and we refuse to believe it, now they are telling us they raping girls because they are white and we still refuse to believe it and instead search for the strangest excuses. I remember watching the dean at the vigil for the Westminster victims saying "we will never know what possessed this man to do this" - he said it literally a couple of hours after the whatsapp message had been released from the killer with the reason of why he did it.

 

It's a strange denial, I've never understood it. It's like a weirder version of this....

[Guest MattP]

One more thing I forgot to say as I'm off out, I doubt many of the offenders in these cases actually see themselves as peadophiles, they wouldn't see 14 year olds as children.

 

Why is another reason why the cultural side of this is so important, as Inno says, they weren't even shy to say they were raping these girls because they are white. (Even more terrifying is that's the public quote, can you imagine what they saying in private)

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think you are, but let's actually assume for the sake of debate you are correct on this point and they are hiding behind culture to justify what is actual peadophilia as that raises even more interesting questions about culture.

 

In the report on Rotherham the local taxi firms were criticised as it was an open secret the trafficking was going on, in Newcastle the same was said about takeaways, in Blackpool and Burnley (I think) there were cases where it was all going on between familes, in one case three brothers and two cousins shared the same courtoom. In almost every case and every city this has happened the flats have been above businesses and a local "asian" cab service has been the main point of the transport.

 

In virtually every one of these cases the same families have often been involved and with numerous members of it, in one case I think 3 brothers even shared a courtroom from the same family, numerous cousins also.

 

So why are so many all-Muslim businesses ending up with groups of employees where so many find peadophilia acceptable? In mixed companies, which are the only ones I've worked in I don't think I've ever heard someone speak about child abuse, let alone ever work in a place that found child abuse so acceptable virtually everyone had a go and if you didn't you turned a blind eye.

 

Why do many Muslim families seem to have members where siblings, uncles and cousins often work together to achieve their desires? I'd imagine in 99.9999% of families a sex offender doesn't often ring his brother or cousin up to see if they fancy a bit of child rape as well or whether they are into it.

 

I think your idea they hide behind the culture to disguise peadophilia is very, very interesting, if it is the case it raises some even more criticial questions then if it isn't cultural. It's almost a mass conspiracy and it would be amazing it's all fell on the same sort of people. When you look at the demographics of the nation as a whole it's a zillion to one all the peadophiles who groom children in this way just happen to come from the same community.

 

 

Its a good point.

 

And I do think that this type of CSE is slightly different from traditional peadophilic acts committed against very very young children. These kids are vulnerable teenagers and groomed into behaving in certain ways for men.

 

We do know though that it's not every Pakistani Muslim family of males committing these abhorrent acts though, right?

 

Bear with me....

 

So what is horribly scary is that in the cases of the 'convicted family settings', the sexual abuse and exploitation of these girls had become normalised. And this yes, is where it might appear that its a 'cultural norm' and it may have been but not within Muslim and Pakistani main-stream  culture but within that particular corrupt, organised and criminal Pakistani Muslim setting. Also because of the power, fear and control that these gangs had in the community, many didn't speak out against them because additionally the victims seemed to participate willingly. 

 

Christ, even social workers were labelling U16's as 'promiscuous' and 'making their own decisions' - the whole scenario was unbelievable that a child could be treated by child protection authorities as an adult - crazy stuff. And what did we do in some cases to protect these 15 year old abused girls - we sent then to a secure unit - imprisoned them for their own protection rather than have the ability to stop the abusers at source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

 

Of course, in the methodology and justification for the sex offending there are elements of extreme prejudice / racism. But what I'm getting at here is that white racist people don't have sex with 12 year old black girls because they are racist. They do it because they are sex offenders first and racist second which enables them to justify their sexual behaviours. 

 

What is apparent is the dehumanisation in these cases being very similar to sex trafficking by organised crime gangs - for profit associated with drugs, firearms and prostitution.

 

Paedophile rings with varying members are child sex offenders first and choose their victim that best fits absolving themselves or justifying their behaviour second.

 

Edit: Or getting away with it - which also in these instances keep their offending away from family religion and culture which may pose conflict, so stick to sex offending with their other organised criminals and sex offenders from their own communities and victims from outside of it.

In my opinion it's the opposite, I don't thinks age that motivates it. They aren't pre pubescent girls after all and it has often continued beyond the age of consent.

[Captain...]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

One more thing I forgot to say as I'm off out, I doubt many of the offenders in these cases actually see themselves as peadophiles, they wouldn't see 14 year olds as children.

 

Why is another reason why the cultural side of this is so important, as Inno says, they weren't even shy to say they were raping these girls because they are white. (Even more terrifying is that's the public quote, can you imagine what they saying in private)

That is a very interesting point and may go some way to explain why it is ignored if they don't view 14 year olds as children. If you heard of a bunch of lads who were always having 16 year old girls round drinking and taking drugs and having sex. You might not see it as abuse in the same way. If Muslim communities do, as you say, see 14 year olds as adults then they would find it easier to turn a blind eye. In no way am I condoning this behaviour or excusing or justifying just thought it was an interesting point.

[Nick]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's very strange, a Islamist blows themselves up and tells you it's for Allah and we refuse to believe it, now they are telling us they raping girls because they are white and we still refuse to believe it and instead search for the strangest excuses. I remember watching the dean at the vigil for the Westminster victims saying "we will never know what possessed this man to do this" - he said it literally a couple of hours after the whatsapp message had been released from the killer with the reason of why he did it.

 

It's a strange denial, I've never understood it. It's like a weirder version of this....

 

Respectfully, it all goes full circle and we end up here a fair bit Matt.

 

And I really do think that you need to take a step back and recognise that some Muslims are terrorists and some Muslims are part of criminal gangs that exploit children and young women. Its awful and its a problem.

 

They do this because they are criminals, sex offenders and in some cases blinkered violent fundamentalists.

 

They don't do it because they are Muslim no more than Catholic priests abusing boys because they are Catholic.

 

But this isn't all that demographic - of course its not. It may be rife, it may be deep rooted in areas - just like it has been in other cultures and religions but its not everybody and cartoons like the above take us and this debate back 6 pages - and you are better than that.

 

And its okay to talk about it, but when we do - we perhaps should not make sweeping generalisations or we run risk of being accused of prejudice.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That is a very interesting point and may go some way to explain why it is ignored if they don't view 14 year olds as children. If you heard of a bunch of lads who were always having 16 year old girls round drinking and taking drugs and having sex. You might not see it as abuse in the same way. If Muslim communities do, as you say, see 14 year olds as adults then they would find it easier to turn a blind eye. In no way am I condoning this behaviour or excusing or justifying just thought it was an interesting point.

Absolutely, if I had moved to a country at 21 where the age of consent was 25 I wouldn't have had any guilt about sleeping with a 23 year old.

 

Although that still doesn't justify the trafficking etc

 

This is why I've always argued when we decide immigration policy we should always try not just see economics but also try and take those who have similar cultural beliefs so adaptation to our society, customs and laws is easier, but that horse bolted long enough and it's for a different debate anyway. 

[Nick]

Just now, MattP said:

Absolutely, if I had moved to a country at 21 where the age of consent was 25 I wouldn't have had any guilt about sleeping with a 23 year old.

 

Although that still doesn't justify the trafficking etc

 

This is why I've always argued when we decide immigration policy we should always try not just see economics but also try and take those who have similar cultural beliefs so adaptation to our society, customs and laws is easier, but that horse bolted long enough and it's for a different debate anyway. 

Christ.  

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Respectfully, it all goes full circle and we end up here a fair bit Matt.

 

And I really do think that you need to take a step back and recognise that some Muslims are terrorists and some Muslims are part of criminal gangs that exploit children and young women. Its awful and its a problem.

 

They do this because they are criminals, sex offenders and in some cases blinkered violent fundamentalists.

 

They don't do it because they are Muslim no more than Catholic priests abusing boys because they are Catholic.

 

But this isn't all that demographic - of course its not. It may be rife, it may be deep rooted in areas - just like it has been in other cultures and religions but its not everybody and cartoons like the above take us and this debate back 6 pages - and you are better than that.

 

And its okay to talk about it, but when we do - we perhaps should not make sweeping generalisations or we run risk of being accused of prejudice.

Where have said at any point all Muslims are terrorists? I haven't, you are again sticking up strawmen as thinly veiled racism accusations.

 

What I said in that post is FACT. The man who drove along Westminster Bridge said he did it as a soldier of Allah, one of the rapists in Newcastle said he did it because that's all white girls are good for, to be raped by people like him.

 

That is not prejudice, that is fact. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

Christ.  

Out of interest what is so ridiculous about that? 

[davieG]

They do say a lot rape is as much about power as it is about the sexual gratification. It crossed my mind that there could be a large element of this I in these cases even to the point of doing it as an act of retribution.

[Nick]

Just now, MattP said:

Out of interest what is so ridiculous about that? 

 

 

Write down your own threshold criteria for non entry when 'beliefs differ' and you'll see why! Adolf.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It's very strange, a Islamist blows themselves up and tells you it's for Allah and we refuse to believe it, now they are telling us they raping girls because they are white and we still refuse to believe it and instead search for the strangest excuses.

 

Lastly, you have put up a cartoon and used the word 'they' to represent Islamists - (FACT) as both people who blow themselves up and rape white girls. I respond diplomatically and you use your two favourite phrases involving strawman and crying out that someones calling you a racist.

 

What you are doing still is blaming religion - not the individual. So you are typecasting Islamic people as both terrorists and rapist by their faith.

 

I simply suggested we should not talk about the issue using blanket stereotyping or risk getting accused of prejudice. Y'know like saying Islamists say X...

 

FFS.

 

 

 

 

[Nick]

22 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It's very strange, a Islamist blows themselves up and tells you it's for Allah and we refuse to believe it, now they are telling us they raping girls because they are white and we still refuse to believe it and instead search for the strangest excuses.

 

 

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where have said at any point all Muslims are terrorists? I haven't, you are again sticking up strawmen as thinly veiled racism accusations.

 

What I said in that post is FACT. The man who drove along Westminster Bridge said he did it as a soldier of Allah, one of the rapists in Newcastle said he did it because that's all white girls are good for, to be raped by people like him.

 

That is not prejudice, that is fact. 

 

If you want to talk about those individuals and incidences we can.

 

But you didn't mention or introduce them.

 

You described the perpetrators as Islamists. 

 

And thats what might be deemed as prejudicial and thats a fact.

 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

If you want to talk about those individuals and incidences we can.

 

But you didn't mention or introduce them.

 

You described the perpetrators as Islamists. 

 

And thats what might be deemed as prejudicial and thats a fact.

How is the person who struck the people on Westminster Bridge not an Islamist? 

 

I get the feeling you actually don't know the definition of the word do you?

 

I'll help you...

 

Islamist

ˈɪzləmɪst/

noun

1. 1.

   an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.

   "radical Islamists"

adjective

1. 1.

   relating to, advocating, or supporting Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.

   "hardline Islamist groups"

[Carl the Llama]

Yeah Islamist ≠ Muslim, Swan.  Not all Muslims are horrific cvnts but you can bet all Islamists are.

[Nick]

Ah okay.

 

But what I don't get is why are you making the point that fundamentalists are crazy and go around doing bad things...

 

If you don't mean Muslims nobody in this thread needs convincing of it?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Ah okay.

 

But what I don't get is why are you making the point that fundamentalists are crazy and go around doing bad things...

 

If you don't mean Muslims nobody in this thread needs convincing of it?

I don't even understand that question.

 

I called the Westminster attacker an Islamist and you started calling me Hitler and claiming I was calling all Muslims bad.

 

You've spent the last two pages arguing about communities, cultural, relationship, reasoning and values within the Muslim community and then we find out you don't even know what an Islamist is.

 

I'd go for a lie down if I were you. 

Edited 17 August 2017 by MattP

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't even understand that question.

 

I called the Westminster attacker an Islamist and you started calling me Hitler and claiming I was calling all Muslims bad.

 

You've spent the last two pages arguing about communities, cultural, relationship, reasoning and values within the Muslim community and then we find out you don't even know what an Islamist is.

 

I'd go for a lie down if I were you. 

It's a fairly subjective term:

 

The AP Stylebook entry for Islamist now reads as follows:^[32]

"An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi."

 

The Adolf joke was for you to ponder immigration based on cultural similarities!

 

Cheers for not being daft about it though.

Edited 17 August 2017 by Nick

[Nick]

Islamist and Islamism in terminology familiar to me refer to peoples who would like and support the rule of Islam - which I would imagine is many Muslims. But does not necessarily mean by means of terror or force, simply advocates of the faith.

[Guest MattP]

Thought I'd bring this piece from Douglas Murray back as it's quite relevant to a few things talked about in the last two pages, well worth a read about our denials.

 

The Islamists are telling us what they want, we just aren't listening: The meeting place of the two worlds could not have been more sharply defined. In Manchester Arena, thousands of young women had spent the night singing and dancing at a show in Ariana Grande’s Dangerous Woman tour. Songs such as the hit ‘Side To Side’ were performed: ‘Tonight I’m making deals with the devil/ And I know it’s gonna get me in trouble…/ Let them hoes know.’

 

Waiting for them in the foyer as they streamed out was Salman Ramadan Abedi, a 22-year-old whose Libyan parents settled in the UK after fleeing the Gaddafi regime. A man whose neighbours said he must have been radicalised in Manchester, ‘all those types’ having been driven out of Tripoli. So it was that on their exit from the Manchester Arena, these young women — out for nothing more than a good night — met a literalist from the Islamic faith. A man for whom the concept of a ‘dangerous woman’ was not a joke, not about ‘empowerment’ and certainly not a metaphor. Abedi would have believed it was real: devil, hoes, the lot.

 

Even after all these years, all these attacks and all these dead, the West still keeps asking the same question after events like those of Monday night: ‘Who would do such a thing?’ The answer is always the same. Sometimes the culprits are home-grown. Sometimes they are recent arrivals. Sometimes they have been in the West for generations, eat fish and chips and play cricket. Sometimes — like last month’s attacker in Stockholm, or last year’s suicide bomber in Ansbach, Germany — they arrived in Europe just a few months earlier. Sometimes people claim the perpetrator is a lone wolf, unknown to the authorities. More often it turns out (in a term coined by Mark Steyn) to be a known wolf, in the peripheral vision of the security services.

 

Yet still our society wonders: what would make someone do such a thing? The tone of bafflement is strange — like a society that keeps asking a question, but keeps its fingers lodged firmly in its ears whenever it is given the answer.

Only last month this now traditional national rite was led by no less a figure than the Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall. At the beginning of April, Westminster Abbey was the venue for a national act of mourning for the victims of the previous month’s terrorist attack. The Dean used his sermon — at what was billed as ‘a service of hope’ — to announce that Britain was ‘bewildered’ by the actions of Khalid Masood.

‘What could possibly motivate a man,’ asked the Dean, ‘to hire a car and take it from Birmingham to Brighton to London, and then to drive it fast at people he had never met, couldn’t possibly know, against whom he had no personal grudge, no reason to hate them, and then run at the gates of the Palace of Westminster to cause another death? It seems likely we shall never know.’

 

Actually, most people could likely make a guess. And had the Dean waited just a few days, he could have joined them. Masood’s final WhatsApp messages, sent to a friend just before he ploughed his car along Westminster Bridge, revealed this Muslim convert was ‘waging jihad’ for Allah. The Dean was hardly going to get back up into his pulpit and say: ‘Apologies. Turns out we do know. It was jihad for Allah.’ The impossibility of that scenario speaks to the deeper disaster — beneath the bodies and the blood — of the state we’ve got into.

For their part, the Islamists are amazingly clear about what they want and the reasons why they act accordingly. You never have to read between the lines. Listen to Jawad Akbar, recorded in the UK in 2004 as he discussed the soft targets he and his al Qaeda-linked cell were planning to hit. The targets included the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London. What was the appeal? As Akbar said to his colleague, Omar Khyam, no one could ‘turn round and say “Oh they are innocent”, those slags dancing around.’

It is the same reason why ten years ago next month Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed (an NHS doctor and an engineering PhD student respectively) planted a car bomb outside the glass front of the Tiger Tiger club on London’s Haymarket on ladies’ night. They then planted another just down the road in the hope that those ‘slags’ fleeing from the first blast would run straight into the second. It is why when Irfan Naseer and his 11-member cell from Birmingham were convicted of plotting mass casualty terror attacks in 2013, one of their targets was — once again — a nightclub area of the city. In familiar tones, Naseer speculated on these places where ‘the kuffar [a derogatory term for non-Muslims], slags and whores go drinking and clubbing’ and ‘have sex like donkeys’.

 

Where does it come from, this hatred the Islamists hold — as well as everyone else they loathe — for half the human species? Even moderate Muslims hate it when you ask this, but the question is begged before us all. What do people think the burka is? Or the niqab? Or even the headscarf? Why do Muslim societies — however much freedom they give men — always and everywhere restrict the freedom of women? Why are the sharia courts, which legally operate in the UK, set up to prejudice the rights of women? Why do Islamists especially hate women from their faith who raise their voices against the literalists and extremists?

 

Do people think this stuff comes from thin air? It was always there. Because it’s at the religion’s origins and, unlike the women–suspecting stuff in the other monotheisms (mild though they are by comparison), too few people are willing to admit it or reform this hatred, disdain and of course fear of women that is inherent in Islam. It is a constant of Islamic history, along with the Jews, the gays and the ‘wrong type of Muslim’: always and everywhere, the question of women. It’s our own fault because we have been told it so many times. As the Australian cleric Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali famously said to 500 worshippers in Sydney in 2006: ‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside without cover, and the cats come to eat it, whose fault is it — the cat’s or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.’

This view is itself barely covered over.

 

Such disdain is what led to the abuse of hundreds of girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxfordshire and elsewhere across this country in recent decades. The fear is what led to the Pakistani Taleban beheading Shabana — one of the region’s most famous dancers — in the Swat Valley in 2009. And to the stoning of Ghofrane Haddaoui in Marseilles (yes, Marseilles) in 2004.

 

Obviously, in the wake of Manchester, there are security questions to address. Not least how someone once again known to the authorities could have made such a devastatingly effective explosive device. Certainly it shatters the comforting narrative we have told ourselves in Britain over recent years, that the security services are one step ahead of the terrorists on most things other than the (essentially impossible to prevent) knife and car jihad attacks.

But what we seem most likely to dodge yet again is the possibility of learning any proper lessons at all from this.

 

Theresa May and other politicians stress we will never give in. And they are right to do so. But beneath the defiance lie deep, and deeply unanswered, questions. Questions which people across Europe are increasingly dwelling on, but which their political representatives dare not address.

 

Exactly a year ago, Greater Manchester Police staged a carefully prepared mock terrorist attack in the city’s shopping centre to test response capabilities. At one stage, an actor playing a suicide bomber burst through a doorway and detonated a fake device while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘Allah is Greatest’). The intention, obviously, was to make the scenario realistic. But the use of the jihadists’ signature sign-off sent social media into a spin. Soon community spokesmen were complaining on the media. One went on Sky to talk about the need ‘to have a bit of religious and cultural context when they’re doing training like this in a wider setting about the possible implications’.

 

Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan was hauled before the press. ‘On reflection,’ he admitted, ‘we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.’

Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, followed up: ‘It is frustrating the operation has been marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers to have those playing the parts of terrorists to shout “Allahu Akbar” before setting off their fake bombs. It didn’t add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester.’ Perhaps when the blood has been cleared from the pavements of Manchester, someone could ask how many lives such excruciating societal stupidity — from pulpit to police force — has saved, or ever will save?

 

In Piccadilly Gardens, at lunchtime on the day after the attacks, crowds of people listened to a busker play the usual post-massacre playlist: ‘All You Need Is Love’ and ‘Everything’s Gonna Be Alright’. But just like the renditions of ‘Imagine’, the buskers are wrong. We need to do more than imagine. We need more than love. Everything is not all right. We need to address this problem, and start at the roots. Otherwise our societies will continue to be caught between people who mean what they say and a society which won’t even listen. And so they’ll keep meeting violently, these two worlds.

 

On Monday night, Ariana Grande was in her traditional suspenders, singing: ‘Don’t need permission/ Made my decision to test my limits/ ’Cause it’s my business, God as my witness…/ I’m locked and loaded/ Completely focused.’

 

Outside, waiting, was someone who was really focused. It is time we made some effort to focus.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Islamist and Islamism in terminology familiar to me refer to peoples who would like and support the rule of Islam - which I would imagine is many Muslims. But does not necessarily mean by means of terror or force, simply advocates of the faith.

The Oxford dictionary definition is quite clear.

 

Out of interest, let's assume you are right again, do you think the Westminster bomber might have liked the rule of Islam? 

 

I have a sneaky feeling he might. 

Edited 17 August 2017 by MattP