Also in the news

[urban.spaceman]

7 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Rule Britainia to be removed from last night of the proms because of its links to British Imperialism and upsetting the BLM movement. Now, I ain’t no racist or anything, fat from it, but this is getting slightly ridiculous. Why do black people want to erase their history? Surely where you come from, what you are and where you’ve ended up is something that makes a person what they are. Just because Africans were sold into slavery by their fellow Africans doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I traced my family tree back and it turned out some one on my mums side was hung for murder in Nottingham 300 years ago, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to scrub his name off the family tree.

Be very careful to not mix these two up. BLM is a political movement with openly Marxist leadership and, IMO, malicious goals that would actually harm the people they claim to represent. “Black people” aren’t homogenous and don’t all think the same either - racism against people of colour who disagree with the movement is rife online. Terry Crews is accused of being a c**n, piled on and abused every time he tweets something critical of the movement, which is quite regular. John Barnes too. Black lives matter and only racists will disagree with that. But Black Lives Matter is definitely worthy of critique especially if their state goals are as mental as they are. 

[leicsmac]

....and the fuzz who killed Breonna Taylor still haven't been touched, much less held accountable.

 

Anyway:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53881222

 

I don't think it actually matters what the people around him say, the cult of personality is too strong. Hopefully that, however, brings out the vote for Biden in a way that Hillary didn't get in 2016.

[Finnaldo]

Can I ask, as people have been very quick to point the finger, where BLM is linked to this decision? Have they petitioned or protested for this? If so I’d be happy to see the evidence but from what I’ve read this amounted to a black band leader emailing in regards to the use of these songs and the Finnish conductor being ‘inspired’ by BLM: 

 

“Dalia is a big supporter of Black Lives Matter and thinks a ceremony without an audience is the perfect moment to bring change,” a BBC source told the Sunday Times. (source: https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/23/bbc-considers-dropping-rule-britannia-from-last-night-of-the-proms)
 

I’ve seen this kind of thing repeatedly now, a company will take something, like a black mascot or a TV broadcaster removing certain episodes from their on demand service, and yet despite these people, who have had seemingly no complaints thrown at them, and even the likes of Owen Jones calling the decisions bizarre, and yet the blame ends at the feet of ‘Marxist BLM’

 

The truth is this is just pink capitalism in action. See a trend, market accordingly and capitalise off it. These companies haven’t got activists kicking down their doors threatening them into action, they are very conscious decisions, in this case from an individual (the conductor) and usually from a marketing team of a corporation, because they think the ‘trend’ of BLM will boost their image and sales. 
 

I think I may have watched half of the Proms once, so to be honest I have no dog in the fight. If people want it in I can’t blame them but if so, at least direct your ire at the conductor and the BBC producers who are responsible for the decision rather than a decentralised movement that played no part in trying to force this change. 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

12 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Rule Brittania doesn't exactly have the same impact as a statue of Hitler. 

 

And nor do half these statues that 'need' tearing down. Its just daft. 

 

And with reference to the obviously facetious Germany reference I made - didn't BLM demand that Gladstone be removed from Liverpool University because his parents owned slaves. Punishing the son for the sins of the father is a tenet of extreme fascism isn't it? I can't take any political movement seriously that's going to make daft stances like that. 

Can’t say that I disagree 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53897641

 

'nother day, 'nother black person in the US getting shot by fuzz even though he clearly presented no kind of capital threat to them.

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53897641

 

'nother day, 'nother black person in the US getting shot by fuzz even though he clearly presented no kind of capital threat to them.

That looks shocking. How many times did they need to shoot the guy? What is wrong with these thugs?

[davieG]

Orchestral versions of Rule, Britannia! and Land Of Hope And Glory will be performed at the Last Night Of The Proms, the BBC has confirmed.

It had been reported the songs could be dropped over concerns of associations with colonialism and slavery.

The pieces are usually sung but will be performed without lyrics this year, although they are expected to be back in full when the pandemic is over.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53895000

[twoleftfeet]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53897641

 

'nother day, 'nother black person in the US getting shot by fuzz even though he clearly presented no kind of capital threat to them.

it could be argued by the right, That another career criminal who didn't want to be arrested was killed whilst not complying with the lawful order of a police officer.

The two sides in the states are so intrenched that it really doesn't matter what the full facts of the case are, as long as it can be used by either side to help their narrative.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

it could be argued by the right, That another career criminal who didn't want to be arrested was killed whilst not complying with the lawful order of a police officer.

The two sides in the states are so intrenched that it really doesn't matter what the full facts of the case are, as long as it can be used by either side to help their narrative.

Have they really reached the stage where “the right” can argue for summary executions by the police?

[worth_the_wait]

If songs are going to get banned because someone finds the lyrics offensive in some way, then I think an awful lot of songs are up for "cancelling" over the next few years ..................

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

If songs are going to get banned because someone finds the lyrics offensive in some way, then I think an awful lot of songs are up for "cancelling" over the next few years ..................

Do you think "Real Niggaz Don't Die" would be on the list

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

it could be argued by the right, That another career criminal who didn't want to be arrested was killed whilst not complying with the lawful order of a police officer.

The two sides in the states are so intrenched that it really doesn't matter what the full facts of the case are, as long as it can be used by either side to help their narrative.

Even if that was the case, not complying while not presenting a capital threat is not actually a justification for summary killing. There is such a thing as due process, after all.

 

21 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Have they really reached the stage where “the right” can argue for summary executions by the police?

I think they were there in terms of wanting that a long time ago to be honest, the current climate has just made them more comfortable saying so.

[urban.spaceman]

Who wants to tell them?

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Who wants to tell them?

What, that there's often a double standard with how awful killing events are reported in the media based on the ideology of the perpetrator, even if such perpetrators are often actually remarkably similar in the fundamentals of their beliefs?

[iniesta]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Who wants to tell them?

Since 2005, number of deaths due to Islamic terror - 88, far right - 3.

 

Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Since 2005, number of deaths due to Islamic Islamist terror - 88, far right - 3.

 

Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism. 

 

 

Your misuse of terminology makes your post a clear example of the sort of problem they're talking about.

 

Nobody sane doubts that Islamist terror is a major problem and needs to be taken seriously - and the perpetrators locked up for a long time / until they're clearly safe.

But there's a difference between "Islamist" and "Islamic". Islamists are those with an extremist interpretation of Islam that they use to justify atrocities. Islamic is people who follow Islam (the vast majority peaceably).

 

It's like the difference between these 2 sentences:

- "White extremist massacres dozens in Christchurch"

- "White man massacres dozens in Christchurch"...... would you be happy to be associated with that bloke in NZ, just because you're from the same broad group as him (I presume)?

 

Also, the figures you quote may be true for the UK since 2005, but....

- They're not true for many other countries (e.g. NZ, USA) and the article says that it analysed coverage of a list of international attacks, not just UK

- Why draw the line at 2005 (except to promote anti-Muslim bigotry)? Most deaths from terrorism in the UK in the 70s, 80s & 90s weren't caused by "Islamic/Islamist terror", were they? They were caused by the IRA, Ulster Loyalists etc.

[Finnaldo]

46 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Since 2005, number of deaths due to Islamic terror - 88, far right - 3.

 

Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism. 

 

Pardon my skepticism but I feel you’ve gone from the arbitrary date of 2005 to include 7/7, should you go from 2010, which is still about five years before far right terrorism really picked up, that’s 32 deaths from Islamic terror attacks. And that’s the attacks that weren’t foiled or killed rather than injured, which doesn’t give the full picture. 
 

This is one of the more recent articles I’ve seen with stats from the 31st March: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terror-attacks-far-right-islamist-europe-uk-stanwell-2019-a9581921.html?amp

 

It puts the number of individuals jailed on terror-relates offences as:

Total: 238

Islamic (77%) - 183

Far Right (18%) - 43

 

In terms of terror attacks foiled from March 2017:

 

Total: 25 

Islamic (64%) - 16

Far Right (32%) - 8 

 

So as expected, Islamic Fundamentalist terror attacks are still number one. However there’s further context, given that:

 

1) Islamic terror groups tend to work in larger cells, meaning more individuals directly involved and sentenced, whether far right doctrine dating back to the US in the 80s have tended to encourage individual ‘lone wolf’ attacks, meaning more incarceration doesn’t necessarily mean more terror attacks.

 

2) Given that Islamic terrorism has been the most established form of terrorism since the 90s/the Good Friday Agreement, and Far Right attacks have only really become a rising phenomenon within the last 5 years, the fact they’re was half as many foiled in three years suggest it’s a rapidly increasing trend. 
 

Overall, Islamic terrorism is still the top concern and should receive the most attention, but to suggest because only 3 people have died from far right attacks that there’s not a growing issue, or as the Head of the Counter Terror Unit put it, the fastest growing threat in the U.K. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49753325) is biased I’d say.

Edited 25 August 2020 by Finnaldo

[iniesta]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your misuse of terminology makes your post a clear example of the sort of problem they're talking about.

 

Nobody sane doubts that Islamist terror is a major problem and needs to be taken seriously - and the perpetrators locked up for a long time / until they're clearly safe.

But there's a difference between "Islamist" and "Islamic". Islamists are those with an extremist interpretation of Islam that they use to justify atrocities. Islamic is people who follow Islam (the vast majority peaceably).

 

It's like the difference between these 2 sentences:

- "White extremist massacres dozens in Christchurch"

- "White man massacres dozens in Christchurch"...... would you be happy to be associated with that bloke in NZ, just because you're from the same broad group as him (I presume)?

 

Also, the figures you quote may be true for the UK since 2005, but....

- They're not true for many other countries (e.g. NZ, USA) and the article says that it analysed coverage of a list of international attacks, not just UK

- Why draw the line at 2005 (except to promote anti-Muslim bigotry)? Most deaths from terrorism in the UK in the 70s, 80s & 90s weren't caused by "Islamic/Islamist terror", were they? They were caused by the IRA, Ulster Loyalists etc.

Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act or campaign which is committed by individuals or terrorist organizations who openly proclaim Islamic motivations behind their acts

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Pardon my skepticism but I feel you’ve gone from the arbitrary date of 2005 to include 7/7, should you go from 2010, which is still about five years before far right terrorism really picked up, that’s 32 deaths from Islamic terror attacks. And that’s the attacks that weren’t foiled or killed rather than injured, which doesn’t give the full picture. 
 

This is one of the more recent articles I’ve seen with stats from the 31st March: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terror-attacks-far-right-islamist-europe-uk-stanwell-2019-a9581921.html?amp

 

It puts the number of individuals jailed on terror-relates offences as:

Total: 238

Islamic (77%) - 183

Far Right (18%) - 43

 

In terms of terror attacks foiled from March 2017:

 

Total: 25 

Islamic (64%) - 16

Far Right (32%) - 8 

 

So as expected, Islamic Fundamentalist terror attacks are still number one. However there’s further context, given that:

 

1) Islamic terror groups tend to work in larger cells, meaning more individuals directly involved and sentenced, whether far right doctrine dating back to the US in the 80s have tended to encourage individual ‘lone wolf’ attacks, meaning more incarceration doesn’t necessarily mean more terror attacks.

 

2) Given that Islamic terrorism has been the most established form of terrorism since the 90s/the Good Friday Agreement, and Far Right attacks have only really become a rising phenomenon within the last 5 years, the fact they’re was half as many foiled in three years suggest it’s a rapidly increasing trend. 
 

Overall, Islamic terrorism is still the top concern and should receive the most attention, but to suggest because only 3 people have died from far right attacks that there’s not a growing issue, or as the Head of the Counter Terror Unit put it, the fastest growing threat in the U.K. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49753325) is biased I’d say.

Why are you adding context and nuance to these talking points - can't you see it isn't wanted?

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Pardon my skepticism but I feel you’ve gone from the arbitrary date of 2005 to include 7/7, should you go from 2010, which is still about five years before far right terrorism really picked up, that’s 32 deaths from Islamic terror attacks. And that’s the attacks that weren’t foiled or killed rather than injured, which doesn’t give the full picture. 
 

This is one of the more recent articles I’ve seen with stats from the 31st March: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terror-attacks-far-right-islamist-europe-uk-stanwell-2019-a9581921.html?amp

 

It puts the number of individuals jailed on terror-relates offences as:

Total: 238

Islamic (77%) - 183

Far Right (18%) - 43

 

In terms of terror attacks foiled from March 2017:

 

Total: 25 

Islamic (64%) - 16

Far Right (32%) - 8 

 

So as expected, Islamic Fundamentalist terror attacks are still number one. However there’s further context, given that:

 

1) Islamic terror groups tend to work in larger cells, meaning more individuals directly involved and sentenced, whether far right doctrine dating back to the US in the 80s have tended to encourage individual ‘lone wolf’ attacks, meaning more incarceration doesn’t necessarily mean more terror attacks.

 

2) Given that Islamic terrorism has been the most established form of terrorism since the 90s/the Good Friday Agreement, and Far Right attacks have only really become a rising phenomenon within the last 5 years, the fact they’re was half as many foiled in three years suggest it’s a rapidly increasing trend. 
 

Overall, Islamic terrorism is still the top concern and should receive the most attention, but to suggest because only 3 people have died from far right attacks that there’s not a growing issue, or as the Head of the Counter Terror Unit put it, the fastest growing threat in the U.K. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49753325) is biased I’d say.

... What. 

 

He said no such thing. Or even suggest it for that matter. 

 

He said, sarcastically, "Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism."

 

When the uncomfortable reality is the focus isn't disproportionate, at least at this time. 

 

[Kopfkino]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It's like the difference between these 2 sentences:

- "White extremist massacres dozens in Christchurch"

- "White man massacres dozens in Christchurch"...... would you be happy to be associated with that bloke in NZ, just because you're from the same broad group as him (I presume)?

 

Well its factually correct so I don't know why that would be a problem. Just like the term Islamic terrorism is not factually incorrect. 

'Person massacres dozens'. Don't call the perpetrator a person, I don't want to be associated with him as a fellow person. 

1 hour ago, iniesta said:

Since 2005, number of deaths due to Islamic terror - 88, far right - 3.

 

Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism. 

 

But the report specifically looks at reporting on specific events and how the approach is different, the number of attacks or the number dead is only of minor relevance to that. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

... What. 

 

He said no such thing. Or even suggest it for that matter. 

 

He said, sarcastically, "Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism."

 

When the uncomfortable reality is the focus isn't disproportionate, at least at this time. 

 

Given posting history and posts elsewhere, perhaps, even though it wasn't suggested there, it can still be inferred?

 

7 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

But the report specifically looks at reporting on specific events and how the approach is different, the number of attacks or the number dead is only of minor relevance to that. 

This is right. Goalposts being moved and unfortunately too many people (including myself, tbh) bought it.

[Jattdogg]

3 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

If songs are going to get banned because someone finds the lyrics offensive in some way, then I think an awful lot of songs are up for "cancelling" over the next few years ..................

Whats wrong  with Cardi B's latest "WAP" ?  It's using colourful language to talk about her wet vagina and what she wants etc.  Sheesh

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act or campaign which is committed by individuals or terrorist organizations who openly proclaim Islamic motivations behind their acts

 

 

From the format, I assume that's a quotation, but you don't say where it's from - or are you just restating your opinion? 

 

I think it's more widely accepted to refer to "Islamist terrorism" or "Islamic extremist terrorism". 

Otherwise, you'd presumably have to accept "white terrorism" and "Christian terrorism" when some white power nutjob or born-again extremist claims to be killing people on behalf of white people, Christian beliefs or whatever.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you won't change your mind, so I won't waste our time any longer....

[Finnaldo]

25 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

... What. 

 

He said no such thing. Or even suggest it for that matter. 

 

He said, sarcastically, "Disproportionate focus is definitely due to racism."

 

When the uncomfortable reality is the focus isn't disproportionate, at least at this time. 

 

Just because Islamic terrorism is the highest proportion of terrorist attacks (and as I pointed out, deserves to be reported on) doesn’t mean that far right terrorism isn’t underreported, given its massive rise over the last five years. If one is regularly reported in the media as it should be, but the other is barely reported on at all, then there is disproportionate reporting on it. 
 

Is that hard to understand?