Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 13,350 comments
  • 614,303 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Not at all. I wasn't kicking up a fuss as you put it, I was responding to another poster who was attacking the media for bringing religion into it. I then simply asked who raised the religion subject first, the media or the mudering **** heads.

From a few comments you think you know me. You think you have me sussed. You don't, you know nothing about me.

Pick that apart.

There is the irony. I never claimed to know you, and the fact you claim to know what I even think about you is the ironic part. You are getting a little too worked up over comments on the internet. Also I said it seems that way, you just corrected me to a degree to show me you weren't then showed me you are also agitated at only you know what.

The media did bring religion into it as much as the idiots that killed, and the media let it blow up via religion just to catch even more public animosity.
 
Grauniad

Pakistani gentleman stabbed in the back on his way back from prayers with such force, that it penetrated out the other side.

I don't remember this story getting that much coverage.
 
Pick that apart.

There is the irony. I never claimed to know you, and the fact you claim to know what I even think about you is the ironic part. You are getting a little too worked up over comments on the internet. Also I said it seems that way, you just corrected me to a degree to show me you weren't then showed me you are also agitated at only you know what.

The media did bring religion into it as much as the idiots that killed, and the media let it blow up via religion just to catch even more public animosity.

Well done.

I guess I must be reading too much into your comments. :rolleyes:
 
Grauniad

Pakistani gentleman stabbed in the back on his way back from prayers with such force, that it penetrated out the other side.

I don't remember this story getting that much coverage.

I remember reading that on either MSN or CNN website, since they link other news outlet stories.
 
Today was honestly the first I heard of it.

Via a retweet.

Sad honestly, but I tend to read stories of the opposite spectrum just to argue the more popular side. No one no matter their ideology deserve to be stabbed and hacked up for no reason.

Well done.

I guess I must be reading too much into your comments. :rolleyes:

And if you are I would correct you so, and understand especially if you say "seem or might mean" or any other paraphrase that cast doubt that you may have meant something else other than what I interpreted.

So are you going to continue with the sarcasm, and irony or debate why you may possibly think the media is fine in their handling of such a story?


*now remember I said may possibly, which isn't to be confused with me thinking you absolutely agree with the media. I'd hate for you to feel as if you are being targeted and all. Or somehow conveying me pretending to know you oh so well.
 
EDL are scared of Narnia.

BK6FbNZCEAAfaFA.jpg
 
Today was honestly the first I heard of it.

Via a retweet.

Why would you expect to have. It was not in London and he wasn't anyone special, solider, police, etc so it got ignored. I suspect this would have been the case whatever his race. The media don't report the news any more they create it and report what they like, this even includes local press these days. They will all happily admit to it too.:yuck:
 
Sad honestly, but I tend to read stories of the opposite spectrum just to argue the more popular side. No one no matter their ideology deserve to be stabbed and hacked up for no reason.



And if you are I would correct you so, and understand especially if you say "seem or might mean" or any other paraphrase that cast doubt that you may have meant something else other than what I interpreted.

So are you going to continue with the sarcasm, and irony or debate why you may possibly think the media is fine in their handling of such a story?


*now remember I said may possibly, which isn't to be confused with me thinking you absolutely agree with the media. I'd hate for you to feel as if you are being targeted and all. Or somehow conveying me pretending to know you oh so well.

I shall decline to discuss my view on the media with you as your initial interest was to paint a picture of me from a very short question I posed to another poster (wrongly, very wrongly). If your interest was about the media then why didn't you simply ask me directly my point of view.
 
I shall decline to discuss my view on the media with you as your initial interest was to paint a picture of me from a very short question I posed to another poster (wrongly, very wrongly). If your interest was about the media then why didn't you simply ask me directly my point of view.

Once again I didn't paint an absolute, which you seem to be hung up on. I said that you seemed, thus giving you the ability to correct it and move on. This is the internet yet again and to take it to a personal level seems unfounded. I did ask you directly and you are now refusing to answer based on you feeling as if this is some personal attack. I explained my reasoning you said it was wrong, I'm fine with being wrong and have moved on by asking you directly for correct input. I really don't see what the disconnect is here, that you can't establish at this point.

I'll ask again however since my initial interest was a media driven one, hence me posting a quote from you in the first place. Do you or do you not agree with the media on how they handled this subject?
 
The media are wavering from wanting to call it terrorism, or murder, depending upon whether their agenda is to sell copy, or have a quiet land and a happy people - or something else. Personally, I see it as both murder and terrorism, but really at root it is more than that. It is revenge. An inchoate and insatiable revenge that crosses centuries, continents, and even ethnicity.
 
Incidentally, Sky News are calling this the "Woolwich Murder" - fairly matter-of-fact. The BBC refer to it as "a suspected terror attack" - a slightly less balanced outlook. ITN are currently calling it "a 'terror attack'" and referring to the culprits as "two suspected terrorists".


Just revisiting this post, summarised quite well here:
I've decided to pull on a shirt to show my support and a big, fat middle finger to pricks like that (the guy whose Twitter feed I posted and to whom E28 is responding... not E28 himself :lol: )

Help for Heroes merchandise is available here.

However, I'm buying a shirt for the Help for Heroes-supported Mission Motorsport charity that we reported on last year. They don't have an online shop yet, but there is a section of their Facebook site detailing what they have available and ordering details.

Have any clue if they ship to the States? I might grab one for the incident that happened.

Regardless of the fact that how inappropriate this may or may not be reported, the fact remains is that those two men caused terror on that bus on the scale of the Daniel Pearl beheading(if you haven't seen it, don't! Definitely not safe for work). The question remains though, will Prime Minister Cameron man up and call it what it is, unlike Obama who had to call the Bengazi attack terror only when Fox called him out on it after 14 days of constant reporting on the incident.

Benjamin Franklin had a quote that might fit here:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The ball is definitely in Cameron's court.
 
I don't know about Help for Heroes, but Mission Motorsport tell me their suppliers have indeed shipped to the USA before.
 
Grauniad

Pakistani gentleman stabbed in the back on his way back from prayers with such force, that it penetrated out the other side.

I don't remember this story getting that much coverage.

Difference between the story above and the one from yesterday is the perpetrator above was on CCTV, and presumably wasn't caught at the scene saying, "I'm killing this guy because he's a Muslim". I have no doubt whatsoever that if he stayed at the scene and said, "Hey I'm a Christian these dirty 🤬 are wrecking the country so I killed him", it would have received just as much coverage as anything else.

What tv personalities would you like me to give you, and from what event?
Because I could show you from 9/11, Fort Hood, UK Train bombings, Boston and this new one, just pick. You seem to be naïve and overly optimistic that news outlets don't jump or leap to conclusions, but where I live it is the norm, not sure about Canada. Also, how is it relevant to say that it was terrorism? Or better yet how is it relevant to say or display they were Muslim and Murders, not just Murders? Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you are okay with media wanting to sensationalize news just to get more viewers instead of telling the story as given, adding fluff for numbers isn't very respectful to the facts viewers should get. Filling in facts for even a moment just to keep the story going, isn't good journalism.

You choose. This news media practice is supposed to be widespread so I'd like to see several news sources that said, "Islam is the cause of all the wrongs of the world"

In this case it is relevant to say it's terrorism. There intent was not personal, they didn't kill this guy because he owed them money or slept with one of their wives. They killed him in the name of their religion to advance their religious or political ends. They also probably intended to instill fear and panic in the general public. I'm not a dictionary but that sounds like classic terrorism to me. And it's not like we even have to speculate about it. HE'S ON VIDEO MAKING THE CONFESSION!!. You may have missed that part.

3000 people don't need to die or 25 to make it terrorism. It's the intent that makes it terrorism, not the body count. These a$$hats were radical muslim extremist terrorists, period.
 
I said that you seemed, thus giving you the ability to correct it and move on.

Yes, yes, yes. I understand that, always have.
You assumed wrongly, but regardless that you acknowledge this now or not, the damage is already done. With your assumption you painted a bad picture of me that still hangs in this thread for others to read.

Many years ago I was standing in line at the works canteen when a top notch work colleague of mine started handing out trays to be polite, he was black by the way. We've worked together for years, and I said, as a joke, as shopfloor banter, “it's good to see that they found the right job for you at last”, wink wink, implying that he's crap at his proper job. Some muppet in the line took the comment to be racist, a black man only good enough to hand out trays, he complained and I was dragged into the office. Although it was sorted out in the end, the muppet who seemed to think I meant something else caused me to be labeled a racist by some thereafter even though the error was addressed. This is exactly what I feel you have done.
 
Yes, yes, yes. I understand that, always have.
You assumed wrongly, but regardless that you acknowledge this now or not, the damage is already done. With your assumption you painted a bad picture of me that still hangs in this thread for others to read.

And if they have the capacity to read on they will see I was corrected and that you were the one that wanted to keep it in the spectrum. Not sure why you think they'll just stop there and not continue on, but okay... I've had no trouble with anyone else correcting me or me correcting them and thus moving on. First time for everything though.

Many years ago I was standing in line at the works canteen when a top notch work colleague of mine started handing out trays to be polite, he was black by the way. We've worked together for years, and I said, as a joke, as shopfloor banter, “it's good to see that they found the right job for you at last”, wink wink, implying that he's crap at his proper job. Some muppet in the line took the comment to be racist, a black man only good enough to hand out trays, he complained and I was dragged into the office. Although it was sorted out in the end, the muppet who seemed to think I meant something else caused me to be labeled a racist by some thereafter even though the error was addressed. This is exactly what I feel you have done.

Well that is your personal demon, this is the internet where things are taken with a grain of salt believe it or not. In a world where trolls manifest and most people have a tough time believing what they see here, I don't think they'll be able to feel the animosity you think you've conveyed over your post. Great story by the way, and if someone felt that you were being wrong in nature they should have confronted you, but I didn't not go to some higher authority to complain, I gave you the ability to fix what I said. You did, I made notice of it and by acknowledging it as I've done, common sense would dictate that people would see it is fixed.

Yet please continue to play victim and dance around the question and take us off the beaten path, better yet why not pm me. That way these good people can get on with this topic. Not how you felt you were wronged and that people will somehow think you are oh so evil now.

You choose. This news media practice is supposed to be widespread so I'd like to see several news sources that said, "Islam is the cause of all the wrongs of the world"

In this case it is relevant to say it's terrorism. There intent was not personal, they didn't kill this guy because he owed them money or slept with one of their wives. They killed him in the name of their religion to advance their religious or political ends. They also probably intended to instill fear and panic in the general public. I'm not a dictionary but that sounds like classic terrorism to me. And it's not like we even have to speculate about it. HE'S ON VIDEO MAKING THE CONFESSION!!. You may have missed that part.

3000 people don't need to die or 25 to make it terrorism. It's the intent that makes it terrorism, not the body count. These a$$hats were radical muslim extremist terrorists, period.

No not period, you clearly don't get it. Anything can be terrorism, a serial rapist can be considered a terrorist while on the loose, a shooter that kills many in a school can instill terror. We as a people have now limited it to be terror if it is religious in nature, but more so if it is Islam religion. No one is speculating why they did it, and if you are that confused by what me and others have said I don't know really what else to tell you. I didn't miss any part really, I just wont allow ignorance to perpetuate in me because the media allows gullible people like you to be stuck on being naïve. Why is the media allowed to ostracize a group of people because of a very narrow percentage within their group.

At the end of they day it doesn't matter if they were terrorist or not, they are murders and that should be the center of attention. People that jump on this machine and then blame a group as if they all need to go...then I would say that most religions should go.

Also I will send you the videos
 
Last edited:
No not period, you clearly don't get it. Anything can be terrorism, a serial rapist can be considered a rapist, a shooter that kills many in a school can instill terror. We as a people have now limited it to be terror if it is religious in nature, but more so if it is Islam religion. No one is speculating why they did it, and if you are that confused by what me and others have said I don't know really what else to tell you. I didn't miss any part really, I just wont allow ignorance to perpetuate in me because the media allows gullible people like you to be stuck on being naïve. Why is the media allowed to ostracize a group of people because of a very narrow percentage within their group.

At the end of they day it doesn't matter if they were terrorist or not, they are murders and that should be the center of attention. People that jump on this machine and then blame a group as if they all need to go...then I would say that most religions should go.

Also I will send you the videos

Somebody clearly doesn't understand religious history, in particular, Islamic history. When the Islamic Empire was at its peak, the Muslims would infuse, much like the Romans would several centuries earlier, their culture into the vanquished nation. This not only affected religious beliefs in that area, but one might make the case culinary speaking as well. Take as way of two examples, the Calzone in Italy and Croissant from France. Both dishes honor Islam by maintaining a half-moon shape, more so to the Ottoman flag, and later Algeria, Brunei, and most muslim nations.
 
No not period, you clearly don't get it. Anything can be terrorism, a serial rapist can be considered a terrorist while on the loose, a shooter that kills many in a school can instill terror. We as a people have now limited it to be terror if it is religious in nature, but more so if it is Islam religion. No one is speculating why they did it, and if you are that confused by what me and others have said I don't know really what else to tell you. I didn't miss any part really, I just wont allow ignorance to perpetuate in me because the media allows gullible people like you to be stuck on being naïve. Why is the media allowed to ostracize a group of people because of a very narrow percentage within their group.

At the end of they day it doesn't matter if they were terrorist or not, they are murders and that should be the center of attention. People that jump on this machine and then blame a group as if they all need to go...then I would say that most religions should go.

Also I will send you the videos

Beg to differ. Terrorism has always had pretty much the same meaning since it first came into vogue in the 60's and 70's and its always been clear that individual acts motivated by personal gain, rage or any other personal motives are not terrorism. When the act is done in the name of a political, religious cause it becomes terrorism. The reason the focus is on Islam these days is because they commit the majority of terrorist acts. Period.

I,Along with most people just want the facts and am perfectly capable of making up my own mind. I don't want the media deciding for me what facts will overwhelm "gullible" people like me and only reporting that which I can discern the truth from with my limited mental capacity. Truth is, he comitted this act as a Muslim in the name of Islam. If people infer from that that all Muslims are evil, your issue is with them, not the media.
 
Somebody clearly doesn't understand religious history, in particular, Islamic history. When the Islamic Empire was at its peak, the Muslims would infuse, much like the Romans would several centuries earlier, their culture into the vanquished nation. This not only affected religious beliefs in that area, but one might make the case culinary speaking as well. Take as way of two examples, the Calzone in Italy and Croissant from France. Both dishes honor Islam by maintaining a half-moon shape, more so to the Ottoman flag, and later Algeria, Brunei, and most muslim nations.

Apparently the croissant was made in celebration of the defeat of Umayyad forces in Tours or Ottoman forces in Vienna, so it is not an example of Islam instilling their culture into a vanquished nation. No mention of the Islamic origins of calzone either.

If people infer from that that all Muslims are evil, your issue is with them, not the media.

The ideal media would report impartially and responsibly, neither of which was done by several news outlets. I have have friends that work in the British media/press (I myself have some media experience), and they all recognise that they have the power to agitate the public. You know things are bad when a British rapper has given the most easy to follow account of what happened without colouring the report with loaded language.
 
Victim has been named as Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old drummer of 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusilliers..he leaves behind a two-year-old child..
 
Terrorism has always had pretty much the same meaning since it first came into vogue in the 60's and 70's and its always been clear that individual acts motivated by personal gain, rage or any other personal motives are not terrorism. When the act is done in the name of a political, religious cause it becomes terrorism. The reason the focus is on Islam these days is because they commit the majority of terrorist acts. Period.

Truth is, he comitted this act as a Muslim in the name of Islam. If people infer from that that all Muslims are evil, your issue is with them, not the media.

British Kings, knights and armies began invading and slaughtering in the Mideast for religious reasons almost 1000 years ago. In more recent centuries it has been for political reasons, made more urgent due to oil, and easier thanks to the machine gun, aeroplane and poison gas. So the infliction and focus of terror is a two way street.

Neither Christians nor atheists nor Muslims are wholly good or bad. But the reality is that there is an irremediable long-term breach between the former invaders, colonizers and exploiters and the invaded, colonized and exploited. No amount of liberal apologies, foot shuffling or hand waving are going to fix this. What has been sown is now being reaped on the wheel of history.
 
So people filmed this guy getting shanked to death but do nothing to help him? I just saw the murderer on MSNBC with blood on his hands and on his knives hollering like a buffoon whilst the people looked on like sheep.

Disgusting.
 
So people filmed this guy getting shanked to death but do nothing to stop him? I just saw the murderer on MSNBC with blood on his hands and on his knives hollering like a buffoon whilst the people looked on like sheep.

Disgusting.

There was a woman who confronted them and tried to give first aid to the victim until she realised he was dead....she has been praised for her actions by the Police and the Prime Minister...
 
So people filmed this guy getting shanked to death but do nothing to stop him? I just saw the murderer on MSNBC with blood on his hands and on his knives hollering like a buffoon whilst the people looked on like sheep.

Disgusting.

(Un)Fortunately, members of the British public don't have access to firearms. So unless they wanted to take on two knife wielding killers, with their previous handwork in the street without a head and guts hanging out, with their bare hands, there wasn't a lot they could do. It was more the aftermath that was filmed not the act itself.
 
This murderer is a nutjob. What Islam is he pushing when he cuts a soldier's head and gutted off in public?

Not even the Devil would agree to this barbarity.
 
I just watched the video. That's pathetic. Now, some of you know that I don't believe anybody should ever be compelled to help anybody in danger for any reason because that's akin to slavery. But let's be honest, most decent people have an innate desire to help. I'm not appalled at the fact that these people didn't help, more at the fact that they couldn't help because their ability to do so had been stripped...either by their government, or by themselves because they are who the government derives it's power from.

If this had happened in the US it's very likely an armed citizens would have taken control of the situation rather quickly. I know that because it's happened numerous times. You lot should probably take a good look at why these people weren't able to help, and then remove that roadblock so you don't have to sit around and wait for the rent-a-cops to come whistling loudly in their goofy hats.
 
Back