Why I am STILL NOT Charlie!

First of all let me disappoint one or two of you.  We are not suddenly going to get rid of our Muslims, we are not going to have mass round-ups and incarcerate them inside, er, 'concentration' camps, and we are not going to ship them all back to 'where they belong' (assuming you could work that out given how many of them were born in this country), and finally, we are not going to liquidate them.  Why?  Because in this country we just don't do that sort of thing any more, although I cannot speak for some of our European neighbours.  So, get used to the idea.  They're here, they're staying and there's an end on't!

However, there is no doubt that the Muslim population inside the UK is host to some deadly and malignant groupuscules who must be pursued with vigor by the appointed forces of law and order.  This sort of thing is not unusual here, we had exactly the same problem during the Ulster travails when the indigent Irish population provided cover for some equally mad, bad people intent on killing as many of us as possible.  Did that make the entire UK-based Irish population enemies of the realm?  Of course not, a tiny minority were, a fairly large but inactive swathe was generally sympathetic for the usual reasons of soppy 'Oirish' sentimentality and the remainder ignored it all because they simply wanted to get on with their lives.  Thus it is, in my opinion, with our Muslim population.

And it's no good moaning and groaning about the political class and their mistakes of the past in letting all these people in - you voted for 'em!  And anyway, whatever our politicians would or should have done, the immigrants would have come in by hook or by crook - because that's the way the world is today.  Sometimes I imagine you 'little Englanders' gazing fondly at your old atlases, like the ones I had at primary school in the '40s, and admiring the great swathes of red that covered the globe which indicated the reach and spread of the British empire.  Of course, that was 'immigration', too,  when you think about it - but of the right sort, doncha' know, old boy!

Immigrants from whatever ethnicity will always have their fair share of rogues and vagabonds and will certainly arrive with cultural, political and religious baggage but the majority of them have taken a very risky leap into an unknown in the hope of making a better life for themselves.  As such, they are usually diligent, hard workers who add to the wealth and well-being of their host nation.  The problem starts with their off-spring born inside this country, some of whom lose the virtues of their parents and, alas, take up the very worst characteristics of their hosts - and, boy, do we have some awful characteristics as any Friday or Saturday night on a High Street will confirm!  They are mostly male and young and they are imbued with what I call the 'warrior instinct', in other words, they want to go and prove themselves in battle - exactly the same motives I had when, young and daft, I volunteered for the army in 1959! 

So, our security services need to cut out the cancer inside our Muslim population but whilst they need to do it with ruthless diligence they must also do it with intelligent care, just as a surgeon slicing into a cancerous area must be careful how he wields his scalpel lest he kill the patient!  So far, it seems to me, our security services have done an excellent job but of course, as the old saying has it, the terrorists only have to get lucky once!

There is, however, one other crucial activity that needs to be pursued with vigor and this is one that must take place at the local rather than the national level.  There are people, many of them, who are imbued with what I will call 'community spirit'.  (I am not one of them, the very word 'community' makes me shudder but then I'm just a grumpy, old loner slumped in front of a computer!)  At the local level, every club, every organisation, every association of any sort should make a determined effort to make contact with their local immigrant community of whatever sort.  I would even be in favour of government grants to clubs and societies who can prove that they have made positive moves towards their local immigrants.  I urge this not because I have suddenly become 'Mr. Sociable' (no chance!) but because it is essential that every effort is made to seperate the 'goodies' from the 'baddies', or to use the old tactical jargon, it is necessary to 'drain the swamp'.

In the meantime, we must all uphold the right of people to be rude about other people whilst at the same time urging them not to be!  Good manners makes for a civil society, bad mannes produces the sort of yobbery that is commonplace today.   There are two adjuncts to that, however.  If your rudeness is linked in anyway to urging or provoking violence against an individual or an entity then the existing law should be used with full effect.  Secondly, there must, in future, be no limits on who or what can be the subject of rudery.  From pictures of Mohammed to the mob at Hillsborough who crushed 'footie' fans to death, nothing and no-one is exempt.  And that includes all those 'precious' icons so dearly beloved by the Left!

 

Comments

[Lawrence Duff]

'bout sums it up.

No comment!

SoD

[Lawrence Duff]

Oh maybe one then: -

I am Duff

SoD

[Peter Whale]

You got the kernel of the Plum-Duff.

[David Duff]

Thank you, Gentlemen.

[backofanenvelope]

"they are usually diligent, hard workers "

Weeeell, yes and no. Looking at those from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia, more than half the men and most of the women are unemployed. Have you looked at Pat Condell's latest video effort? This suggests that most of them are likely to stay unemployed.

If you think this is just a small patch on our population; think again. We have well over one million Pakistanis, a third of a million Somalis and I don't know how many from Bangladesh.

My suggestion would be, finding ourselves in a hole, stop digging!

[Lawrence Duff]

BOE,

Your stats are supported by that recent survey that showed, remembering off the top of my head, that migrants from Europe had contributed a net surplus £4bn to the exchequer, while non-EU migrants consumed a net deficit £100bn, over a decade.

Why not simply demand that all unemployed benefit claimants, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, or other characteristic feature, must go to a workplace, any workplace, and be there for 35 hours a week and do whatever tasks that business or organisation offers that is within their capabilities and the law in order to receive their benefits?

The employer reports to the benefit office that the individuals concerned were there or not in order for the benefit to be received.

Or even better, the employer pays out the benefit and claims it back from the state by offsetting it against the PAYE bill; then we could sack the entire public sector benefit organisation and all its bogus "employment schemes". And we'd have the private sector tracking down benefit fraudsters to get their offset-able labour cost, rather than expensive and incompetent public sector bodies - remember what happened in London when they privatized the traffic wardens? We went from double parking and clogged highways patrolled by do nothing, unionized, douche bags who cost us a fortune, to an efficiency that was so extreme it needed reining in a few cases!

And if you treat everyone equally in this way, there can be no accusation of racism etc. etc.

SoD

[David Duff]

This is the opening lines of Condell's Wiki entry:

"Patrick "Pat" Condell (born 1949 or 1950)[2] is a writer, comedian and atheist internet personality. He performed alternative comedy shows during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom, and won a Time Out Comedy Award in 1991. He was also a regular panellist on BBC Radio 1's "Loose Talk"."

In addition, the entry tells us that he is a 'Kipper' and that Richard Dawkins has praised him.

So what's not to like? Well, everything, really! Although, perhaps he tells the occasional good joke!

[Dom]

"Why not simply demand that all unemployed benefit claimants ... must go to a workplace ... in order to receive their benefits?"

Because the employer would then fire a worker that he pays for out of pocket. You will soon have a situation that you don't want. A single payer state. Everyone is a state employee.

[backofanenvelope]

Pat Condell supports UKIP. News to me. Just what has it got to do with anything? You sound a bit like a Tory female MP I heard the other day. She grouped the murderous Muslims in Paris with Nigel Farage - all terrorists she said. I think it is called moral equivalence and is to be deplored. The problem for us is the same as it is for France. We have imported several million 3rd world subsistence farmers. We didn't ask them to come; we would like them to leave. They don't like us or our country.

Being English we are not going to round them up and deport them. I just suggest that we don't import any more. Not a single one. Including their grandmothers.

[David Duff]

When did I ever group Farage with murderous Muslims?

[Lawrence Duff]

"Because the employer would then fire a worker that he pays for out of pocket."

That depends on whether the ex-unemployed person turns out to be better than an employed person. If that was the case, the employer would sack the employed person in favour of the unemployed person, and the market would make the ex-unemployed worker demand the ex-employed worker's wages. The newly unemployed person would then show up on the "benefit" wage, and the newly employed person would show up on the "job wage", and you'd be exactly in the same net position.

That position being: -

(1) The unemployed continue to get their "benefit wage", but actually have to produce something for it instead of nothing sat at home watching daytime TV.

(2) The employed have to sharpen their act up for their pay lest one of the ex-unemployed proves a market challenger to their job. This will lower the price of wages, which we need to do to improve productivity in Britain.

So this ties back to the criticism Pop keeps firing at me when I recite the solution to our economic problems: -

(1) 10% inflation for 5 years (helicopter drop of money)
(2) Reduce public sector spending by 20%

Pop says (1) is do-able, but (2) isn't. (2) is all about productivity and closing the deficit. Sacking the entire social services public sector system and getting the unemployed all producing something while putting pressure on the labour market, is exactly what we need to close the £100bn gap.

SoD

[Whitewall]

BOE..."Being English we are not going to round them up and deport them. I just suggest that we don't import any more. Not a single one. Including their grandmothers". For Britain that is probably a good long term strategy. You might not be able to drain the swamp, but no sense in refilling it either.

[Lawrence Duff]

Nowe there's a useful overall stat in this link: -

"She also highlighted a study that concluded eight times more Muslims had been killed by Islamist terrorists than non-Muslims."

And that was while the West was on adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we have extracted ourselves from those two main events, and if we continue so to do, to adopt the "referee" position of holding the coats of the two protagonists - Sunni and Shia Islam - while they slug it out (while quietly encouraging them to exert themselves in the slugfest), that ratio should continue to move more and more in our favour.

Now of course, the "wanker in the black" will always come in for some abuse in any vigorous contest, but bearing in mind nearly 1/4 of the world's population will be fully involved in kicking the shit out of itself, we would do well to keep some perspective and realize that a handful of cartoonists every few years in the West will be a small price to pay while Islam goes through its reform and enlightenment metamorphosis.

SoD

[jimmy glesga]

Lawrence old thing your sense of humour is enlightening. Islam reforming should be an annual event with awards going tae burds disgarding the burka and closing their legs.

[Philo Vaihinger]

Hmm. I'm not sure you're even UKIP.