Fed up with the Anti British apologists..

a reply to: grainofsand
That would be a diplomatic visit :p

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Mclaneinc

And I did not say that radicalism is not in existence. What I said was, that because it is a tiny, insignificant percentage of Muslims who engage with it, that it is statistically irrelevant,

Do you wish to tell that to the victims, good god man, have some decency....

Just because knife crime is on our streets it does not make it 'insignificant' because small numbers die from it....

Any crime is bad but random acts of violence in the name of a religion / cult are beyond bad yet you still treat them as collateral damage...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: grainofsand

It would have to be at least as bad as, oh, I don't know, the number of teens murdered by gang culture following morons.

There were one hundred and 185 teenage murder victims in LONDON alone, between 2005 and 2015. That dwarfs the number of people who have been killed in the whole COUNTRY in the same period, as a result of terrorism. Heck, the number of people who have been starved to death or driven to suicide by our government in the last few years knocks both those numbers into a cocked hat.

Yes but gang violence is expected, religious violence isn't, get a grip...

I'm out of here, I'm STUNNED by Truebrits reactions and sadly the username does not fit the poster, people in general, not just Brits are being killed in the name of a cult and because its not 'statistically' enough to satisfy his argument the for some reason its ok.

I'm sorry but that sort of totally illogical response just disgusts me.

Radical Islam is the most abhorrent system out there and its has HUGE support in this many many countries from people who choose to support totally alien views about just about every Non Muslim person about and just as importantly about Muslims they feel are not Muslim enough. The fact that a member ignores this and makes it seem like its next to nothing just shocks me.

When I voted for Brexit I was one labelled a little Englander yet TrueBrit seems to equate to the Liberal Little Englander, I HATE painting labels but for once its needed.

You just keep turning your back on the real issue here, I've told no lies, I've not made things seem worse than they are but you keeps denying its the case...Utter BS

Will we be a Caliphate in 3 weeks, no, but with you IGNORANCE we will be a lot sooner..

I'm not replying any more unless its needed.....This was a rant grabbed and used for some liberal attitude against both free speech and normality...

Paul...

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Don't abandon the discussion due to the posts of one member. If you have more valid information or insights, don't hold back because you think they may not be 'needed'.

Some of us (me) would prefer to deal with people who can put coherent thoughts together in plain English and don't have a history of creating attention seeking threads in which they admit to trolling.

originally posted by: berenike
a reply to: Mclaneinc

Some of us (me) would prefer to deal with people who can put coherent thoughts together in plain English and don't have a history of creating attention seeking threads in which they admit to trolling.

Ooh, who's done that?
Let me play as well!
The most fun trolls to play with are those who are pompous, slippery with words, holier than thou, and audacious enough to choose a username which insinuates they speak on behalf of their nation.

a reply to: TrueBrit

He gets instructed . . .

Charles once visited an organic farm run by people I know. I was told months beforehand when he was going to be there but I kept my mouth shut. A rare case of me being sensible. Some fool spilt the beans the day before and the visit was nearly cancelled.

When he was there he became fixated on collecting eggs in the barn, finding the hidden nests. His security kept telling him it was time to leave. He hung on for twenty minutes but then security insisted and he left for his next appointment.

That's all he could manage in terms of deciding his own destiny. Twenty minutes then he was overruled.

We have more control over what we do than Charlie does.

a reply to: Kester

He could always choose to give up his income from the Duchy of Cornwall and resign as Prince of Wales.
His choice to live in that world.

a reply to: grainofsand

I have a feeling resigning from the Royal Family might be like stopping selling drugs for a well known South West Outlaw Bike Gang. You can't resign but you can get sacked.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

I can't be too specific but there's recently been an event that was immediately called racist and a result of Brexit. Then the story started looking a bit suspect. Then the newspaper editor for some reason felt he had to add a squirming explanation. No one arrested as far as I know.

Just minutes ago I was told it's all drug related and underworld repercussions are being spoken of. Nothing racist at all. The Brexit screeching was just a knee-jerk reaction from those who wanted it to be racist.

Will they publicly back-track with the same volume? I doubt it. They're creating racial tension by seeing racism where it didn't exist.

Interesting story re Charles, I suspect even leaving the Royal family would not give him a life back as he's always going to be a target for someone, I'm sure the cult of peace would love to get hold of him for one of their sick video's.

His life will never be 'his own'...

As for the constant idiocy to push the racist agenda over Brexit by linking stuff that isn't even true just disturbs me, we have enough problems without private agenda's to label people as if its going to change the argument and result in some massive change.

There's a wonderful video by Pat Condell called Hello Angry Losers which sums up the feeling of us who did indeed vote that way.

As for me, I'll continue to speak as I see about the radical lot, I've had death threats but I've also had a lot of support from Muslims who see that I'm just saying the truth and its not a 'general' attack, Douglas Murray, another man I respect as a speaker quite eloquently puts the point across and he's done his research which normal Muslims relate to.

Its not called 'the creeping Sharia' for nothing, Radical Islam has now touched down pretty much in every country it can and as soon as its there the trouble starts but unlike standard crime its hushed up and the liberals start siding up with it, the roots take hold and then the serious attacks start yet people still play the old 'in the grand scheme of things' nonsense which is superb for the Radicals, not so healthy for us lot though. As seen the new wave of attacks rely on the most simple methods, stealing a truck and simply mowing people down, there may have been an extra device in Stockholm and we can only be grateful it didn't go off. The worse thing is how do you Police against this, the radicals use encrypted standard apps to chatter so eaves dropping is nigh on impossible and worse still some of the attacks are simply ultra radicals going for the martyr badge on their own. At the moment I'm more likely to be killed by the local drug dealers here (they are not my greatest fan, but that's a different story) than a cultist Radical but if you look these attacks are growing in numbers and shorter and shorter time periods between them, as the Radicals feel more comfortable they will increase and THAT is the worry because THAT is what is going on yet unlike a drug dealer, they will normally only kill for spoiling their deals, grassing them up or attacking their own, the radical will kill you because he simply hates you, he needs no more reason that his ultra radicalised mental health issue, its as simple as flipping a switch for him.

That should scare people...a lot....

a reply to: Mclaneinc

First of all, no, none of this is expected.

But I deal with problems in order of scale. I deal with the largest problems first, so that I spend as little time working uphill rather than free wheeling, as possible.

That progression works across the board. Solve the largest problem first. The largest problem is gangs, kids killing each other over nonsensical notions of turf and what passes for respect, down in the gutter. That is a much larger problem than IS have ever posed us, and I am willing to bet that Londoners who have long memories, not short ones, would agree.

a reply to: Kester

A great deal more.

He is told where it is safe for him to go, to whom it is safe for him to speak, who may visit him at his home, who may visit him at whatever office he might occupy, wherever it may be. His every contact and acquaintance is security checked, double and triple checked. He has, likely as not, never had the advantage of being able to attain the strange peace that comes with distance from the nearest person, from genuine solitude. Spontaneity is absent from his life, largely speaking.

The cage may be larger than that provided to other citizens, but it remains a cage all the same.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Perhaps it is you who ought to read.

First of all, Kerr was handed the job of Governor-General by none other than the man whose Government he would later sack. Her Majesty had precisely NO role in that appointment, NOR in the dissolution of the government of Australia. From what I understand of the goings on at the time, Her Majesty was entirely absent from the decision making process, knowing only that there had been any specific action by Kerr to dissolve government after the fact. She was given the news by her Private Secretary Sir Martin Charteris and her Assistant Private Secretary Sir William Heseltine, both of whom maintain that all three of them, Her Majesty and the two aforementioned subordinates, were bewildered by the Governor Generals actions.

They were not the issue of the office of the Queen. She had, in fact, nothing to do with the dissolution of that government, or indeed with any other government which is notionally under her control. She actually has no REAL power at all. She cannot simply walk up to the doors of the Palace of Westminster, for example, order everyone out, and banish them all from the halls of power for all time. She cannot even dissolve the government without being induced to do so by the request of certain officials from within it.

The monarchy is a relic, a tourist attraction. It performs a function as a figurehead in some respect, but in terms of the actual power of the Queen, she really has none. This is a consequence of democracy, and generations and generations of civil war, protests, fights for rights on the part of citizens, which have focused all true executive power in Westminster.

Now... if you were thinking that Governor General Sir John Kerr sacked your government because he was accessed by a British concern, you could be right. Perhaps someone in our government did not want the ALP in government? We had Tory scum in power at the time here in the UK, so it is perfectly possible that some pressure was exerted from that direction, but if that is the case, it seems to have been buried very well. That, however, does not change the fact that Her Majesty had nothing to do with the dissolution of the Australian government that you refer to, did not order it, nor desire it, and was as shocked as anyone else when it was bought to her attention that it had happened.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Words that mean nothing ...he is her representative...we have the illusion of a democracy - we are still a military colony...maybe when we become a republic things can actually be said to be different; but the technical facts (laws) speak for themselves.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Sir John Kerr was under his own power when he made that independent choice.

Carry animosity only if you wish to, but understand, Her Majesty did not act to create the circumstance you describe.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Just as you have accused others of misunderstaning just what actually happened in the sacking of a previous Government of Australia; you should really get a grip.

Thats like saying the Queen is not involved in Royal Assent....she is only a figurehead yeah right.

www.parliament.uk...

a reply to: TrueBrit

I'm not saying she created the circumstances...nice try

Yeah she's only a figurehead (sarcasm) comes out to reassure people England still has its Gold at the Royal Mint - just like a puppet -

They rolled her out for a photo shoot showing England still has, cough, cough, its Gold 'safe' when Germany started demanding theirs back from USA.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Royal Assent? Do you know what that means? It means her OFFICE signed a letter patent more often than not. On the rare occasion, Her Majesty will go to the House of Lords and actually provide a Royal Assent on this matter and that thing, but first of all, heres the rub. She can only give Royal Assent to bills that have been put forward to her after being examined in our two houses, the Houses of Parliament, and the House of Lords. So its only once the government have examined and teased out, and buggered about with a new piece of legislation or what have you, that the Queens office (that is, Her Majesties Private Secretary, the Assistant Private Secretary, and so on) ever receive it.

Furthermore, in the case of a Governor General, he merely signs the document without any reference to her Majesty, and without her knowledge or any forewarning being given to her Private Secretary. So to be absolutely clear, once again, Her Majesty had nothing what so ever to do with it.

Its worth noting, that the last time a bill was refused assent, was during Queen Anne's time. Since that period, the role of the monarch in political matters has collapsed utterly, to the point where for Her Majesty to refuse Royal Assent to any bill put before her, would be utterly unthinkable, precisely because she is a figurehead and a tourist attraction more than any other thing. She does not call the shots, she does not have the ability to ACTUALLY order Parliament to do her bidding, any more than you or I could walk in there and start calling the shots. If you refuse to accept this, then you are, without wishing any offence, being either deliberately and willfully ignorant, or just not looking beyond your anger.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yeah you're probably right she is mainly ceremonial figurehead now but it appears that she may still have certain rare powers...see

www.liberalhistory.org.uk...

William IV’s dismissal of the Whig administration in 1834 William IV's dismissal of Lord Melbourne's Whig government in November 1834 was the last time a British monarch tried to assert political authority by bringing down a government that had majority support in the House of Commons.