TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Stabbings in London are common. Mayor Khan is more occupied in a Twitter spat with Trump than safety in London.
-
Features
Europe's revolving door for terrorists
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
Bilby and Jokodo did though.
Neither do we read of terrorists we do not release early or whom we deport back to places like Pakistan once released.
So did Tay K. He managed to murder another person and record a hit rap song while released on "tether" that he got rid of quite easily.
I did not say he did. What I said is that he has a "part and parcel" attitude toward terrorism committed by his coreligionists.
Well he did get rid of the scourge of bikini-clad models featured on tube ads. Bare-chested male models are still there though.
And of course he did nothing about violent crime or terrorism. Part and parcel indeed.
Well they do have the same name, same ancestry and most importantly (as it is a set of ideas), the same religion.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
It is, unless you want to make us believe you'd ask the same about two Smith's, which were both know you wouldn't.
Derec
Contributor
I would. Two Roosevelts, Kennedys or Bushes too.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Yeah, right. Whi do you think you're fooling?
laughing dog
Contributor
The point was that we don't know the frequency of this type of recividism. Using an anecdote to drive analysis leads to poor conclusions.
The point was that he was not simply released.
Wow.
And what should the mayor of London do about terrorism or violent crime?
Wow, persisting in the pathetic smear. And you wonder why anyone would accuse you of bigotry or racism.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,378
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The Mayor of London can do very little about crime; He has zero authority over policing or courts.
The most senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police is the Commissioner, currently Cressida Dick. She is appointed by the Home Secretary (or strictly speaking by the Queen acting on the advice of the Home Secretary).
Both policing and the judiciary in London are, through the Home Office, in the control of the national government, and the increases in crime in the Greater London area in recent years are most plausibly attributed to the massive cuts in police numbers and funding, the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service, and even the funding of the prison system (where cuts have led to a significant increase in prisoners being given early release under licence).
All of this is the responsibility of the Home Office, and the only influence the Mayor of London has on it is via public opinion.
If you want to establish that a politician is to blame for increased crime in London, then the politian you need to look at is the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, or her predecessor, Sajid Javid.
Neither is called Khan; But doubtless their names are suitable fodder for our resident racist to imply that they are somehow likely to support terrorism, despite both being Conservative hard-liners on law and order.
Or maybe you can go back a little further, and blame Amber Rudd, or Theresa May, both of whom (particularly Mrs May) bear considerable responsibility for the cuts in policing across Britain.
It seems no more likely that Sadiq Khan supports terrorism against Londoners than that Theresa May does.
The most senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police is the Commissioner, currently Cressida Dick. She is appointed by the Home Secretary (or strictly speaking by the Queen acting on the advice of the Home Secretary).
Both policing and the judiciary in London are, through the Home Office, in the control of the national government, and the increases in crime in the Greater London area in recent years are most plausibly attributed to the massive cuts in police numbers and funding, the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service, and even the funding of the prison system (where cuts have led to a significant increase in prisoners being given early release under licence).
All of this is the responsibility of the Home Office, and the only influence the Mayor of London has on it is via public opinion.
If you want to establish that a politician is to blame for increased crime in London, then the politian you need to look at is the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, or her predecessor, Sajid Javid.
Neither is called Khan; But doubtless their names are suitable fodder for our resident racist to imply that they are somehow likely to support terrorism, despite both being Conservative hard-liners on law and order.
Or maybe you can go back a little further, and blame Amber Rudd, or Theresa May, both of whom (particularly Mrs May) bear considerable responsibility for the cuts in policing across Britain.
It seems no more likely that Sadiq Khan supports terrorism against Londoners than that Theresa May does.
Derec
Contributor
I did not know that. So what does he do except police unislamic ads on the tube?
In any case, the fact remains that he has been quite dismissive of the threat of terrorism. "Part and parcel of living in a big city" is what he said at one point.
I did not say that he supports it but that he doesn't take it very seriously.
Derec
Contributor
Nobody said he was. But that did not prevent him from committing a terrorist act.
I agree. It's quite a thing for a major city mayor to say.
Good question. I did not know he, if bilby is correct, had so little authority over policing.
What he does have is a bully pulpit though.
Islam is not a race. It's a set of ideas.
Keyword: Plot. Likely the actual actions for which he was sentenced weren't all that serious.
Here I agree--I have no tolerance for refugees who then commit crime other than things that were just how things worked where they came from. (Thus I would not deport for things like trying to bribe the cop who is writing you a ticket.)
Prosecuted for what? Most of them committed no crime in the country they left.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,378
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
As executive head of MOPAC, the mayor of London has strategic input into policing by the Metropolitan Police, but operational command rests with the Commissioner, who the Mayor or his Deputy cannot appoint or dismiss. The Commissioner is responsible only to the Home Office.
Policing in the UK is divided into (mostly county based) forces for administrative purposes, but unlike the crazy situation in the US where every tinpot executive of a town or county, or even a school, mall, or church, can have direct control of his own police force, all English police are under the central control of the Home Secretary, who hires, fires, and funds the various Chief Constables, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who fills the role of Chief Constable for that force (the Met has its own unique structure of ranks and divisions that are somewhat different from those used by other UK police forces).
The main responsibilities of the Mayor of London are those of other local government bodies in the UK - roads, garbage collection, sewage and stormwater, planning and building permissions, public transport (one of the most vital and significant responsibilities in London), and local law enforcement with regards to non-police matters such as parking infringements or breaches of planning permission. MOPAC provides strategic information and intelligence to the Met Police, but in no way controls the force.
As the chief executive of Transport for London, the mayor effectively owns the tube, and can decide what advertising space to sell, at what rate, and to whom. If he doesn't like a particular ad, he is completely within his rights to refuse to sell space on the tube for it - but he can't ban it; The advertiser can buy space anywhere else in London that is prepared to take his money.
And terrorism has been a fact of life - part and parcel of living in London - for well over a century, with groups ranging from anarchists and revolutionary communists, through suffragettes and Irish republicans, to Islamic extremists. Every nutter with a cause has tried to terrorise Londoners, and it's not likely that this will stop any time soon. Londoners simply shrug and get on with life - or, given the opportunity, tackle the fuckwits and give them a good stomping.
Londoners are, on the whole, huge supporters of multicultural diversity - and have been for centuries, since long before there was any language to describe it. They can easily grasp that not every Irishman is a terrorist, nor every German a Nazi, nor every Russian a red, nor every Muslim a suicide bomber. They know this, because their friends and neighbours are Irishmen, Germans, Russians, Muslims, Poles, Sikhs, Czechs, Jews, Pakistanis, Buddhists, Bangladeshis, Jamaicans, etc., etc.
Racism is for smallminded parochial dwellers in the monocultural deserts of middle England, and of the semi-segregated post-slavery enclaves of the New World, who view cities like London or New York with both awe and fear. Londoners just get on with it, as they have for more than twice as long as your nation has even existed.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
Yes, you did say he was released in your OP.
No, I was wowing at your silly response.
That's it - backtrack.
You mentioned their shared ancestry. And bigotry can be against ideas as well as people. You really are only fooling yourself.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Which had fuck all to do with this case. The guy we're talking about was born in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, a quarter century before the current refugee situation became a thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/30/usman-khan-cobridge-stoke-on-trent-neighbours-shock
Jokodo
Veteran Member
The guy was born in Staffordshire. If you insist he should have been deported, that's where he should have been deported to.
Don't get me wrong, this was one bad guy, but it was a British bad guy. Talking of deporting him "back to Pakistan" is plain racism, at least unless you also demand that catholic American perpetrators need to be deported "back to Ireland/ Italy/ Germany/ Austria"
Even in the unlikely case that he has Pakistani and Pakistani only citizenship - because neither he nor his parents ever bothered to obtain the British one - Pakistan has no reason to take him "back", as he was clearly born, raised and radicalised in England. By what rationale would they bear the consequences if the British society and school system's failure to turn him into a productive member of society?
Last edited:
repoman
Contributor
southernhybrid
Contributor
Let me explain to you Derec, as to why sometimes you appear racist based on your posting history. I'm sure you don't see yourself as a racist, very few people ever do. But, here's the thing. You have started many threads over the years about a minority, black or Muslim of Arabic background who has committed a crime or act of terrorism. You often use words like thugs to describe these people.
The fact is that at least in our own country, the vast majority of mass murders have been committed by white males. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember you starting many or any threads where you exhibit your anger at the white males who have shot murdered a lot of innocent people.
Perhaps if you started threads equally about both white male violence and minority male violence without using terms like thugs or scum etc. you would not give people the idea that you hold racist feelings.
I think most of us here know that there are people, primarily males, who are violent, and who have or want to kill lots of people. These people come from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicities. But, historically, in the US, the majority of these violent characters have been white. Think of the Jim Crow past when white people tortured and/or hanged innocent black people. Think of all the mass shootings starting with the one in the late 70s in the Texas Watchtower, Timmothy McVeigh and most of the more recent mass murderers. Almost everyone of them was a white male. So, my question for you is, why do you have a tendency to point out the violent attacks committed by minorities but rarely if ever mention those committed by white men?
I mean this post to be constructive criticism, and I hope you will take it that way. Please feel free to explain to me why you seem to start so many threads about the violence committed by minorities. I, like you, live in a black majority city. I personally love my black friends and neighbors and enjoy many aspects of their culture, so it's hard for me to understand why anyone would concentrate primarily on minorities who are violent when there are so many white men committing mass murders of innocent people.
If we do a lot of research, I'm sure we can find many examples in our own country when criminals with a violent past were allowed back on the street, only to commit another violent act. These criminals come from different backgrounds. White Christians have attacked black churches, and Jewish synagogues, as well as Muslim houses of worship. What is it about these minority members that make you feel so outraged. Maybe you're not outraged, but many of your posts give me that impression. Can you understand that?
The fact is that at least in our own country, the vast majority of mass murders have been committed by white males. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember you starting many or any threads where you exhibit your anger at the white males who have shot murdered a lot of innocent people.
Perhaps if you started threads equally about both white male violence and minority male violence without using terms like thugs or scum etc. you would not give people the idea that you hold racist feelings.
I think most of us here know that there are people, primarily males, who are violent, and who have or want to kill lots of people. These people come from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicities. But, historically, in the US, the majority of these violent characters have been white. Think of the Jim Crow past when white people tortured and/or hanged innocent black people. Think of all the mass shootings starting with the one in the late 70s in the Texas Watchtower, Timmothy McVeigh and most of the more recent mass murderers. Almost everyone of them was a white male. So, my question for you is, why do you have a tendency to point out the violent attacks committed by minorities but rarely if ever mention those committed by white men?
I mean this post to be constructive criticism, and I hope you will take it that way. Please feel free to explain to me why you seem to start so many threads about the violence committed by minorities. I, like you, live in a black majority city. I personally love my black friends and neighbors and enjoy many aspects of their culture, so it's hard for me to understand why anyone would concentrate primarily on minorities who are violent when there are so many white men committing mass murders of innocent people.
If we do a lot of research, I'm sure we can find many examples in our own country when criminals with a violent past were allowed back on the street, only to commit another violent act. These criminals come from different backgrounds. White Christians have attacked black churches, and Jewish synagogues, as well as Muslim houses of worship. What is it about these minority members that make you feel so outraged. Maybe you're not outraged, but many of your posts give me that impression. Can you understand that?
repoman
Contributor
Fuck Derec, just own it like me.
Rivers of Blood is true. Enoch Powell was a prophet.
Rivers of Blood is true. Enoch Powell was a prophet.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I could not have put it better myself.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Man, that may have been partially tongue in cheek, and I'm sure you're not a racist or a bigot, but don't you think there's enough partisan, simplistic and shallow analysis on this forum already?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,980
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Own it? You seem to have tried very hard here to keep people from knowing you're really a nazi.