» Thanks to all who RT'd our piece asking whether Rod Liddle had made these comments: http://bit.ly/7sv6be - any more help appreciated 7 hrs ago

» Labour should thank @guidofawkes for helping push 'airbrushed Cameron' meme & campaign into media: http://bit.ly/5MR4m1 7 hrs ago

» NY Times plans to charge web readers, ditching 'special membership' model favoured by Guardian: http://bit.ly/6yQoN4 8 hrs ago

» I was on Radio 4's Sunday programme this morning about ban on Islam4UK: http://bit.ly/6Oogoa (29min in) 9 hrs ago

» Excellent: "Freedom of speech, if it means anything, means journalists never having to be told they’re wrong" http://wp.me/phImL-LQ 16 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Should whites be allowed to stay in Britain?


    by Rumbold on 5th December, 2009 at 9:48 PM    

    This is the question Mr. Liddle has us consider when he writes this extraordinary piece:

    The first of an occasional series – those benefits of a multi-cultural Britain in full. Let me introduce you all to this human filth.

    It could be an anomaly, of course. But it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks.

    So, because a crime was committed by black people, no black person should be allowed into this country? Mr. Liddle argues that the “overwhelming majority” of crimes in London are committed by black people. Thankfully, Alex Massie and Charlotte Gore quickly dismember that notion. As Charlotte Gore points out, the majority of crime in London is committed by white people.

    Alex Massie on Rod:

    My word! How daring! How delightfully refreshing to see someone trot out the kind of tired, stale prejudice you can find in thousands of boozers across the country! Or at any BNP meeting, for that matter.

    Charlotte Gore on Rod:

    What makes the mind boggle though is that you might actually believe that this counts as a valid argument against multi-culturalism. Surely not… surely? You’re not that stupid are you?

    Yes. Yes, I think you are.

    Any stereotyping is wrong, as it reduces people to blocks, rather than treating them as individuals. To attempt to stereotype and get it hopelessly wrong is something else.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs, Other racists






    87 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Should whites be allowed to stay in Britain?

      [...] the story on Topix Posted in [...]



    1. Rumbold — on 5th December, 2009 at 1:02 PM  

      Leon:

      Eh? When has MixTogether said anything like that? I don't agree with everything he says, but please provide a link to a piece/comment where he blames black people for the overwhelming majority of crime in London and says they shouldn't be allowed in. Otherwise you owe him an apology.

    2. Leon — on 5th December, 2009 at 12:55 PM  

      Amazing isn't it? Both Ron Liddle and your mate from MixTogether now have the same opinion about black people.

    3. raincoatoptimism — on 5th December, 2009 at 12:57 PM  

      The argument, from now, aimed towards Rod, should not be to try and show white people to be the criminals this is futile and speculative. If it was found to be true, the only action worth taking would be to bring justice to those criminals, not blame the wider community, which seems to me the most useful action to be born of reults on crime. However, owing to the jokey title of this entry, we might well recognise the correct modus operandi for Liddle clap.

    4. Reza — on 6th December, 2009 at 12:48 AM  

      “Mr. Liddle argues that the “overwhelming majority” of crimes in London are committed by black people.”

      No he didn't. He wrote of specific crimes, which are committed disproportionally by young black men.

      “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.”

    5. frolix22 — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:37 AM  

      You see, if you are going to correct someone Reza, you have to make sure you get it right yourself. Your statement of what Liddle said is actually very different to the direct quote you then include in your post. Or perhaps you simply do not know the difference between “committed disproportionately” and “overwhelming majority of”. Extraordinary.

      On the original piece: it is becoming clear that the Spectator has simply stepped off a cliff. Mad Mel is more deranged then ever and the publication now appears to have a wingnut for an editor.

      The Spectator is beginning to resemble one of those weird American right wing foghorn publications which have simply given up on notions of rationality and fairness.

    6. damon — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:18 AM  

      That is a really off the wall blog post from a former editor of the Today programme to have made.

      I'd love to hear him reply to the accusation that what he said was horribly racist.

      He would perhaps say things like:
      ''There is no issue — with the possible exception of Iraq — on which Labour has been more deceitful to the public at large, or has more egregiously betrayed its core working-class support. The only reason Brown is addressing the issue now is that we are six months away from an election and he fears that the troglodyte BNP thickoes will chew away great big gobfuls of angry working-class voters across a diagonal swathe of supposedly Labour country, from the white-flight satellite towns of Essex to the old mill towns of east Lancashire.''

      He may need some editorship with his Spectator columns. My personal opinion is that we (in Britain) have lost the ability to discus this issue in any meaningful fahion.
      I'm in Kuala Lumpur at the moment. Here the police have a prison truck parked up on the pavement of one of the busiest intersections, and uniformed police (wearing fatigues and yellow berets) walk around demanding passports from anyone they suspect might be foreign. You can actually see people sitting inside it after having been arrested.

      Is Malaysia a fascist country though? Yes, a bit I'd say. Just like Dubai where I was last week.
      I don't know what Liddle thinks he's trying to adress. I agree that it's really lazy.
      There is a story in there somewhere I think, I come from south London and it has issues that don't seem to be able to be spoken of in public - (with decency).
      ''Human filth'' sounds like he was off his trolly at the time.

    7. Cauldron — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:28 AM  

      Of course Malaysia is a fascist country. By law, you cannot change your religion away from the state-sponsored religion (but of course if you belong to a minority religion its okay for you to convert to the majority religion). And by law, a certain percentage of jobs are reserved for certain races, irrespective of their actual talent.

    8. Sunny H — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:46 AM  

      The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.”
      and where are the stats to back this up?

      And to point out the obvious - he said 'multicultural britain' - when he's referring to races of people.

      there is of course a huge difference between race and culture.

      What Liddle Rod is actually implying is that people of different races can't live together.

    9. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 4:48 AM  

      Mr. Liddle argues that the “overwhelming majority” of crimes in London are committed by black people. Thankfully, Alex Massie and Charlotte Gore quickly dismember that notion. As Charlotte Gore points out, the majority of crime in London is committed by white people.

      This is bollocks, Rod Liddle stated specific types of crime.

      75% of London's gun crime involves the victim and suspect both coming from the capital's black communities.

      http://www.stoptheguns.org/whatistrident/index.php

      Robberies are also largely over represented.

      70% of muggers are black in robbery hotspots

      A study published yesterday by the Home Office shows that up to 87 per cent of victims in Lambeth, South London, told the police that their attackers were black. Nearly 80 per cent of the victims were white. Black people account for 31 per cent of the population in these areas.

      Eighty-two per cent of victims on the London Underground and 70 per cent of victims on commuter railways around London also identified their muggers as black.

      High proportions were also reported in Bristol and Birmingham city centres and Westminster, where 62 per cent of offenders were described as black and 72 per cent of the population is white.

      Police crime figures and ethnicity are very rarely released due to social cohesion reasons. A police chief did speak out a few years ago by pointing out that robberies in London areas were mostly young black men, with a similar statistic of 70%. He was attacked as being racist.

      In London post codes, robbery, gun and knife crime are disproportionately committed by black people. Why the obfuscation? How on earth are supposed to deal with an issue if you deny it exists?

      Sometimes I'm amazed Trident exists, considering the politically correct nature of authorities, where one is not to mention the obvious.

    10. John — on 6th December, 2009 at 5:17 AM  

      Muslims come out in numbers to oppose mosque in Walsall, UK
      http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/12/04/mosque...

      “Resident Zia-ul-Haq, aged 56, of Hart Street, said: “It is a victory for the people, …”

      “Imam Saeed, 65, from the Aisha Mosque and Islamic Centre, added: “We are happy the right decision has been made. …”

      Amazing how many Muslims turned out to oppose this mosque but not a single white person in sight — normally it’s the other way round. Is the reason for resident’s joy really what the residents claim it is? You would wonder why Muslims would be opposing a mosque until you realise it’s the mosque for the ‘other’ sect.

      Are Muslims less tolerant than the natives after all? If they can’t even tolerate a mosque just because it’s for the other sect what chances do churches and synagogues have in Eurabia?

    11. Ravi Naik — on 6th December, 2009 at 6:06 AM  

      No he didn't. He wrote of specific crimes, which are committed disproportionally by young black men.

      Actually, he wrote more than that. Nobody disputes facts - there is a disproportionate number of blacks from certain communities that do commit street crimes. But for Mr. Liddle that sums up multiculturalism. The not-so-subtle implication is that non-whites (which is what he meant by multiculturalism) have only brought crime apart from “interesting” and “vibrant” contributions like curry and music.

      I can only think that this is due to the fact that the BNP has left a void now that it accepts non-whites as members and has tone down its racist rhetoric.

    12. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 6:26 AM  

      Ravi,

      Nobody disputes facts Rumbold & Charlotte Gore do .

      Charlotte Gore says ” In fact, the only category of crime in which black people commit the most crimes is in robbery”

      That's a lie. 75% of gun & knife crime in London where the attacker and victim are both black. Also 58% figure, which I am not familiar with, is not explained - what is the proportion of black people in London? It is a minority figure.

      Attack perceived racist sentiment, by all means, but do not lie or misrepresent people's words to justify your opinions.

    13. Ravi Naik — on 6th December, 2009 at 7:06 AM  

      Nobody disputes facts

      Rumbold & Charlotte Gore do .

      I understood from Rumbold that by “all crimes” he meant the list of crimes that Riddle mentioned, which seems to include all street crimes. And ironically, you bitched about Rumbold, yet you failed to show evidence that blacks are responsible for the majority of sex crimes.

      That's a lie. 75% of gun & knife crime in London where the attacker and victim are both black.

      Can you actually provide a link that states that? (I could not find this bit of information based on the link you provided). And the robberies and the 70% figure refer to selected hotspots, not in London or in the UK.

    14. MaidMarian — on 6th December, 2009 at 8:47 AM  

      Marvin - I think that your post is absolutely right, but it does all rather beg the question of where we go to from here.

      Do we flood areas of high crime with police regardless of racial make-up? I would like to think so, but looking at the talkboard feeling (not always a good meausre of opinion) on civil liberties that will get shot down. Do we profile? Again, runs afoul of the civil liberties argument. Harsher sentences? Might create as many problems as it solves. Personally I would like to see race sensitivity concerns given less weight in policing - many will disagree.

      This is what annoyed me so much about the Liddle link. If these street criminals see themselves as agents of multicultural goodness then I will eat my hat. Street criminals do not give a toss about multiculturalism's good and bad sides.

      This has the sum total of nothing to do with multiculturalism and it is insulting the victims of these crimes for Liddle to use their experiences to wave his penis at multiculturalism.

      There are real arguments to be had about policing, civil liberties and race. Indeed marvin, I believe that victims tend to be from minorities. Multiculturalism is a massive red herring here.

      I would draw the comparison with fraud. That is a terrible experience for victims, it is something that is growing and the like. There is none of the racial tip-toeing around policing of fraud - why should particular crimes be seen as different.

      Good post.

    15. Don — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:12 AM  

      Actually, there does seem to be huge tip-toeing around fraud in financial institutions, although not racial.

      So far the one thing missing in this thread is comprehensive, reliable and relevant data. I've googled like a good 'un but everything I've found is patchy and usually unreferenced. Are there proper figures available? Not the odd old article or PR release, but a real analysis?

    16. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:17 AM  

      Ravi what the fuck are you talking about? Gun & Knife crime is 75% black on black. Robbery is high %, in hotspots 70%. I am repeating myself. Sex crimes? I don't know.

      You do know that crime & ethnicity is a minefield, and figures are rarely released for social cohesion reasons? Are you aware of this?

      Ravi, get a fucking grip. Where am i lying? Don't be a complete fucking twat.

    17. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:25 AM  

      I'm afraid Rumbold that you are indeed trying to compare apples with pears. Crimes as a whole is a different stat to gun crime, knife crime etc. which are specific types of crime.

      There is a problem in the black community.

      Whether or not left-wing blogs will admit it, everyone living in London knows it.

      Everyone knows it has got worse under Labour, because their ideological pursuit of multiculturalism has prevented valid criticism of sections of the black community.

      Now the biggest danger to young black people is not skinheads but other young black people.

      The body count from knife and gun crime is far higher than anything we have seen from Islamic extremism. That's before you get to non-fatal shootings and stabbings for 'respect'. Is that OK just because it's black on black crime?

      Respect to Rod Liddle for having the courage to bring this up.

      This debate has only just begun.

    18. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:25 AM  

      I'm afraid Rumbold that you are indeed trying to compare apples with pears. Crimes as a whole is a different stat to gun crime, knife crime etc. which are specific types of crime.

      There is a problem in the black community.

      Whether or not left-wing blogs will admit it, everyone living in London knows it.

      Everyone knows it has got worse under Labour, because their ideological pursuit of multiculturalism has prevented valid criticism of sections of the black community.

      Now the biggest danger to young black people is not skinheads but other young black people.

      The body count from knife and gun crime is far higher than anything we have seen from Islamic extremism. That's before you get to non-fatal shootings and stabbings for 'respect'. Is that OK just because it's black on black crime?

      Respect to Rod Liddle for having the courage to bring this up.

      This debate has only just begun.

    19. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:26 AM  

      Look, I apologise to Rumbold. I don't think he's deliberately lying, and I know he has good intentions. I just got annoyed, I think I've explained why. And Ravi, I hope I've explained myself.

      Thankyou MaidMarian.

    20. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:28 AM  

      Marvin, I've got your back on this all the way.

      I am passionate about getting this problem sorted out, because I can't bear to see the waste of young black life.

      Slightly O.T., I bought that Maniac and Tinchy Strider CD months back, it's full of really horrible and homophobic lyrics.

    21. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:38 AM  

      Maid Marian

      If these street criminals see themselves as agents of multicultural goodness then I will eat my hat. Street criminals do not give a toss about multiculturalism's good and bad sides.

      Liddle's point is that multiculturalism has provided ideological cover while a vicious gang culture has infected poor black areas.

      He's not implying these little chiefs are making some point of high politics. If only.

    22. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:47 AM  

      And Leon, I've just seen your first comment, missed it before.

      You could at least have waited till I added a comment fat lad.

    23. Ravi Naik — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:49 AM  

      Ravi what the feck are you talking about? Gun & Knife crime is 75% black on black. Robbery is high %, in hotspots 70%. I am repeating myself. Sex crimes? I don't know.

      Let's try again. You said that Charlotte Gore was lying, and implied that Liddle was right. Liddle said that: “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community”

      Now, Charlotte said that Liddle is right about the robberies, which is 58%. Since, you said she is lying, I want evidence from you that blacks commit overwhelming majority of (A) knife crime, (B) gun crime, and (C) crimes of sexual violence in London.

      It is not the percentage of black crime in specific hot spots or black-on-black crime, but those three types of crime that Liddle mention in London.

      If you can't actually provide evidence then I guess you didn't add much to debate, and I guess I will stick with what Charlotte Gore said.

    24. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:58 AM  

      Ravi Naik do you live in London?

    25. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:00 AM  

      Why is it that people on left wing blogs are all for truth and science when it comes to climate change, but don't call for stats on ethnicity and crime to be made public?

      Do they only want the truth when it suits them?

    26. Ravi Naik — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:14 AM  

      Ravi Naik do you live in London? Why is it that people on left wing blogs are all for truth and science when it comes to climate change, but don't call for stats on ethnicity and crime to be made public?

      Yes, I do live in London. And I said that no one disputes that blacks from certain communities do commit street crimes at a disproportionate rate than other groups, which is no doubt a problem that needs to be tackled. What I object to is Liddle's assertion that blacks commit overwhelming majority of street crime in London, and then Marvin saying that Charlotte Gore lies, without actually showing evidence and then pointing two statistics that do not backup Liddle nor invalidate Gore.

      If you want to solve the problem, you want to have the facts and not exaggerate them.
      I have asked for evidence. Why are you against that?

    27. Charlotte Gore — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:17 AM  

      In my post I linked to the Home Office source which does not break down the statistics by individual crime, but does confirm what I'm saying. Rod, on the other hand, has not linked to any sources for his figures.

      He may technicially be correct about gun crime, knife crime (presumably that includes 'possession') but the home office doesn't report on that, and the true, overall picture is that whites commit the majority of crimes.

      I can say “in black areas, when you look at the types of crimes most likely committed by blacks, you see an overwhelming majority of crimes committed by black people” which would be a completely stupid, ridiculous and pointless thing to say - but that, in fact, is what Rod's saying - and importantly it's the *why* he's saying it that matters - he's saying that the hideous crime he linked to was somehow normal and expected because black people are violent criminals.

      He's a racist shit.

    28. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:19 AM  

      Marvin and A.C.:

      Nobody is saying that black people do not commit crimes, nor that there aren't areas (like gun crime), which, in London, mainly involve blacks. Rod Liddle was wrong however, not just in his assertions (about majorities), but the way in which he said it. Marvin, you and A.C. would never use the crimes of a member of a particular group to malign the whole lot, nor suggest that they shouldn't be allowed into this country.

      It is right and proper that we try and tackle crimes which disproportionately affect a particular group by focusing on that group. But Rod Liddle doesn't want to do that. He just wants to lazily stereotype them all and suggest that a whole race of people adds nothing to Britain.

    29. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:35 AM  

      Rumbold:

      It is right and proper that we try and tackle crimes which disproportionately affect a particular group by focusing on that group. But Rod Liddle doesn't want to do that. He just wants to lazily stereotype them all and suggest that a whole race of people adds nothing to Britain.

      You can't read that from his post. He is talking about multiculturalism, albeit in an angry way.

    30. MaidMarian — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:39 AM  

      Marvin - Thank you, I think you are spot on.

      A.C - To be clear I do not disagree, I think we have a slightly different emphasis. I honestly doubt anyone serious stood up and said, 'let street-crime flourish in the name of multiculturalism.' Maybe some people felt that policing it/prosecuting it was racialised (as opposed to anti multicultural) but Liddle is being disingenuous when he conflates multiculturalism with a high crime rate. I will say it till I am blue in the face: there is nothing mutually exclusive about multiculturalism and people being well integrated. I could name half a dozen muslims I have more in common with than I do Rod Liddle. Sod it, I probably have more in common with Homer Simpson than I do Rod Liddle.

      My issue about the link is that Liddle is doing exactly the same thing he accues other of; he is using crime as a stalking horse to take a cheap shot.

      The point of my previous comment was about Liddle's complete lack of thinking about where we go from here. My instinct (that's all it is) is that the civil libertarians may have to pipe down for a bit and that some sensitive racial toes may need to be trodden on. You say that you have a strong interest in this, how do you go about this matter? This is what we need to talk about, not talkboard blame.

      Multiculturalism is a massive red herring here. It is about the equivalent of saying that being male provides an ideological cover for rape.

      I can only agree with others that playing the stats here is a mug's game. Indeed, if you really want to play with fire on the stats, Somalis would be my starting point.

    31. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:49 AM  

      Charlotte Gore,

      Liddle may be a 'racist shit' as you claim or he may not, but at least he is raising the problems plaguing the black community.

      If left wing blogs want to criticise him then they should have the courage to raise the problem themselves.

    32. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:51 AM  

      Not against asking for stats. The stats are necessary, and my comment wasn't about you.

      I would expect blogs like PP to call for accurate stats on ethnicity and crime as they do on climate change.

    33. Don — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:53 AM  

      You can't read that(lazily stereotype) from his post.

      Well, goat curry and rap music certainly sounds like a lazy stereotype.

    34. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:55 AM  

      A.C.:

      Have you read his post? He talks about 'human filth'. He talks about overwhelming majorities' of crimes committed by blacks. He then asks:

      Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks.</blockquote<

      In other words, this is all any black person has ever done for Britain. It is not an attempt to debate harmful policies/stances. It's racist drivel.

    35. Charlotte Gore — on 6th December, 2009 at 10:56 AM  

      AC, hmm… never been accused of running a left wing blog before. Ask Sunny..

    36. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:01 AM  

      Maid Marian I agree that it is long past time for some sensitive racial toes to be trodden on.

      Are you confusing a multi-ethnic society with Multiculturalism though? Multiculturalism is the policy of not asking minorities to adapt to the majority culture.

    37. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:07 AM  

      He is describing the two particular criminals as human filth.

      Given the nature of the crime the description seems harsh but fair.

    38. A.C. — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:10 AM  

      He talks about 'human filth'. He talks about overwhelming majorities' of crimes committed by blacks.

      No stop misrepresenting what he's saying. Overwhelming majorities of SPECIFIC TYPES of crime, not all crime.

    39. MaidMarian — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:26 AM  

      A.C - 'Multiculturalism is the policy of not asking minorities to adapt to the majority culture.'

      NO IT BLOODY IS NOT!

      That may be what the talkboard warriors want it to be - that is very much not what it is about. Regardless, I asked what you thought the solutions were and I would be grateful for your thoughts.

    40. Don — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:27 AM  

      He is describing the two particular criminals as human filth.

      Of course he was, thus covering his back. And as a professional journalist he is juxtaposing that expression with his next paragraph. He knows exactly what he is doing, the guy is slime. Of course we need honest debate, this was something else.

    41. douglas clark — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:43 AM  

      Don, I agree. He knew exactly what he was doing. The words 'human filth' are a link to this: http://tinyurl.com/yfwqytq which leads you to a couple of young criminals. The reader is supposed to read that and then agree with his final paragraph. Which is a bit of a non sequiter. Probably deliberately. Print journalists are familiar with anti racist legislation, and this seems to me to be a way of subverting that.

      I see he's still using 'Seacole' as his middle name.

    42. Leon — on 6th December, 2009 at 11:54 AM  

      MC, why should I wait, you're an obnoxious piece of shit who has no real understanding of how racism works (sorry but having a chip on your shoulder about Asian people doesn't count).

      As for your comment about my weight, pathetic as usual, it has as much value as me calling you an ugly cunt.

    43. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 12:16 PM  

      A.C:

      if he had just limited his 'human filth' comment to those two, then fair enough. But, as Don points out, he goes on to say “It could be an anomaly, of course. But it isn’t.”

      And his assertion that the overwhleming majority of certain types of crimes have been commited by blacks has been proved demonstably false. If I made an assertion like that which was proved false I would apologise.

      What are you actually arguing here? You aren't arguing the same point as Rod Liddle, so why are you defending him?

    44. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:02 PM  

      And his assertion that the overwhelming majority of certain types of crimes have been committed by blacks has been proved demonstrably false. . If I made an assertion like that which was proved false I would apologise.

      Rumbold, the according to Trident 75% of gun and knife crime in London are black on black. So what the hell are you talking about???

      So we have evidence for gun & knife crime, and robbery, as not only being disproportionately being from the black community in London but, according to Trident at 75%.

      Will you apologise???

    45. marvin — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:13 PM  

      Amazing, really, that amongst otherwise intelligent people, the most important thing is to obfuscate facts so as not give fodder to racists. What happened to truth? And for Charlotte, the most important things is she can call Rod a 'racist shit'. Feel better now? I wonder how many young black lives have been saved now we can refer to Rod as racist shit?

      Is Mix Together a racist shit too? Maid Marian? Myself? I wish I could something to stop the killings, and the terrible crime on the streets - yet - the victims are more often than not black with regards to gun & knife crime.

      Pah. What's the point. Nobody's listening. And if they are it's only to call you a racist shit. Makes them feel good. They must be like really, really, antiracist. I think you should get some kind medal of antiracism Charlotte. That'll help the youths.

    46. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:22 PM  

      Marvin:

      Again, no one is saying that crimes like gun crime doesn't severly affect blacks. And we need to look at why that is happening and what we can do about it. What we don't need is some lazy stereotypes lumped in and a generalisation about not letting blacks in. That is our point. If Rod Liddle had said that misguided multicultural policies had helped to reinforce negative attitudes, it would have been worthy of debate (as it is not a clear issue). But he didn't. And he didn't say what can we do to help the black victims, but why are we letting them in.

    47. AC — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:25 PM  

      Leon, it's quite clear who's got the chip round here.

      It goes with your egg-head!

      If you want to get past the ad-hominem stuff then stop swearing and start treating me with a bit of respect. My intentions are as good as yours, and if you want to make out otherwise then f*ck you fatass.

      See how this works?

    48. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:32 PM  

      Oh for God's sake both of you. Just debate the issues.

    49. AC — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:44 PM  

      Rumbold

      Again, no one is saying that crimes like gun crime doesn't severly affect blacks. And we need to look at why that is happening and what we can do about it. What we don't need is some lazy stereotypes lumped in and a generalisation about not letting blacks in.

      Then if you think it's such a big deal, how about a post just on crime that disproportionally affects the black community instead of a partisan attack on someone your main audience already hates.

      Because if you solve the crime problem then Liddle has less to complain about, but criticising Liddle does nothing to solve gun crime, gang rapes etc.

    50. Rumbold — on 6th December, 2009 at 1:49 PM  

      A.C.:

      It is not a 'partisan' attack on Rod Liddle. It is criticism of him. But you are right in that regard, we shoudl talk more about such issues.

    51. johng — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:41 PM  

      human filth? Thats the most disturbing phrase of all in a mainstream newspaper. He should be sacked.

    52. douglas clark — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:48 PM  

      Rumbold, If we are going to discuss this we really need to see a heck of a lot of statistics. Are there any reliable statistics over time that would let us do that? And, equally it would be important to be able to deal with crime figures against class and age as well, for I suspect that that is just as much a factor, but who knows?

    53. douglas clark — on 6th December, 2009 at 2:55 PM  

      johng,

      I don't know how it works in England & Wales, but newspapers up here appear to be able to say anything they like after you've been convicted of a serious crime. I assume it's on the basis that you have no reputation left and any libel case you tried to bring would be thrown out on these grounds.

      Whilst I wouldn't personally use the term about anyone, I'd have thought a premeditated conspiracy to murder a pregnant woman followed by an attempt to do just that - which was only averted by someone else's intervention - would justify some pretty choice language about the convicts.

      No?

      If you read it otherwise, then Mr Liddle has succeeded in tricking you, which is what I suspect he intended all along.

    54. Reza — on 7th December, 2009 at 1:56 AM  

      The multiculturists blindly state that there will be a positive impact from the fusion of the best from different cultures. Mark Steyn points out that more often there is a negative impact from the fusion of the worst elements in both cultures.

      This is because for multiculturalism to exist, there has to be a climate where ‘moral equivalence’ is the accepted wisdom. And moral equivalence can only exist in an environment of non-judgementalism.

      And when you have this, you cannot blame the problems and failings of certain groups on their cultural deficiency. Indeed there can be no such thing as “cultural deficiency”.

      That would be ‘racist’. Or culturally imperialists. Or rude. Or judgemental.

      So their failure is blamed on 'society’. Or better still ‘white’ racism.

      However inelegantly Rod Liddle addresses these inconvenient truths, he is right.

    55. Reza — on 7th December, 2009 at 2:18 AM  

      “What Liddle Rod is actually implying is that people of different races can't live together.”

      No he isn't.

      He does often point out that some groups have defective cultures.

      And he implies that people of different cultures can't necessarily live together.

      He argues that a multicultural society (not a multi-ethnic society) is doomed to fail.

      And all the evidence demonstrates that he is right.

    56. johng — on 7th December, 2009 at 5:55 AM  

      I think playing games with racism including tricking people into thinking he is saying black people are filth, merits being sacked.

    57. Federico Lister — on 8th December, 2009 at 3:16 PM  

      7% of the population of England & Wales is Roman Catholic - 20% of the prison population is Catholic. Maybe we should restart burning them at the stake?

    58. Federico Lister — on 8th December, 2009 at 3:19 PM  

      @Reza The UK is multicultural. That is an irreversible fact. So really your argument are pointless one way or another.

    59. Federico Lister — on 8th December, 2009 at 3:19 PM  

      Liddle is a total piece of ****. Crapped all over his wife and kid and then crapped all over the 23 year old girl he shacked-up with.

      It's no surprise he's assiduously ingratiating himself with his new masters.
      Edit/Delete Message

    60. douglas clark — on 8th December, 2009 at 4:57 PM  

      johng,

      Agreed.

    61. camilla — on 16th December, 2009 at 10:43 PM  

      the majority of violence crimes are commited by non-whites

    62. camilla — on 16th December, 2009 at 10:49 PM  

      70 % of prisoners in France are muslims

    63. camilla — on 16th December, 2009 at 10:50 PM  

      envy?

    64. MiriamBinder — on 16th December, 2009 at 11:20 PM  

      @ Camilla:

      “the majority of violence crimes are commited by non-whites”

      Evidence or is it merely pure supposition?

      “70 % of prisoners in France are muslims”

      78% of prisoners in England are non Muslim … your point?

      “envy?”

      By what? By whom? Of what? Of whom?

    65. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 17th December, 2009 at 2:34 AM  

      What does multiculturalism mean anyway?
      We have always called ourselves a melting pot -
      It seems from reading this blog for the last 5 years …. multiculture means people of another culture can be in the UK and be part of 2 worlds.
      going back and forth or something.
      I'm not sure how that “works”.
      Especialy when the natives have no way to express their own culture for fear of offence to others and nothing to “escape” into.

    66. MiriamBinder — on 17th December, 2009 at 3:32 AM  

      “What does multiculturalism mean anyway?”

      Well, I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. Essentially it means no more then what it has always meant - various cultures. In effect what it means is that various cultures coexist without one given culture being encouraged to supplement or over-ride another; in essence giving validation to other points of view, life choices, rites and rituals; provided they do not impact, unsolicited, on others who haven't, haven't made, haven't chosen to exercise the same points of view, life choices, rites and rituals. Further providing that they do not run contrary to the Law of the Land.

      In fact multiculturalism has always been part and parcel of communal life ever since people started to live in close proximity to others; depending on whether you are taking a macro- or micro-view. However lets look at it on a less historical basis. For instance; the concept of the North-South divide though primarily economic is to a certain extent also cultural. The difference between New Year celebrations in the UK and Scotland's Hogmanay is cultural. We can go deeper then that and look at the (sub)cultural difference between folk music aficionados and habitual Rave attendees … how about drinkers and non-drinkers …

      In essence it is really not all that different except for … ah yes, of course … the (shock horror) 'Alien' aspect; the notion of 'other'.

      I am not really sure what you mean with your claim regarding … and I quote: ” … when the natives have no way to express their own culture for fear of offence to others and nothing to “escape” into.”. I look around me and I see young girls dressed in next to nothing walking the streets quite openly without fear of being beaten by the religious police for being immodestly dressed. I see young men and women going in and out of bars, pubs and clubs, mingling quite freely without being hauled off to face the wrath of an imam. I see people rushing to and fro buying Christmas trees, sending Christmas cards, selling Christmas baubles from market stalls. I have attended Morris dancing performances, I have watched a St George Day Parade. I have even seen a lonely BNP activist wander the local neighbourhood trying to drum up support for his party unmolested … unattended true but unmolested certainly.

      It works quite naturally and quite normally the way society has always worked if left to its own devices. It is only when people start whipping up fear of the 'other' that problems occur and in the main the problems are brought about through ignorance, intolerance and yes, it has to be said … insecurity. I would however suggest that insecurity regarding ones' own cultural standing should not be translated to intolerance towards the 'other'.

    67. Trofim_Vissarionovich — on 17th December, 2009 at 6:20 AM  

      So, am I right in thinking that “the other” is someone/some group who is singled out and demonized simply for what they are?

    68. MiriamBinder — on 17th December, 2009 at 1:40 PM  

      That is one way of viewing it … Another is simply (an) individual/s who does not subscribe to the same creed, viewed as different.

    69. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 17th December, 2009 at 7:33 PM  

      Thank you for the answer.
      I can not pretend to know what it's like to be British …. I only look in from outside and have been watching this debate over multiculturalism forever. Like I said we have labled our system a “melting pot”, canada calls theirs a “mosaic” - you can look into what each tried to represent, it's very interesting. all have both critics and supporters. I do have to say though I feel alot of your examples are more representitive as diversity, or preferences than actual culure. Doesn't just to state cultures as various seperate everyone into groups as “others” ? and quoting you …
      “various cultures coexist without one given culture being encouraged to supplement or over-ride another”
      At what point does it start to get tricky? If you remove race and just see culture … demographics are getting a bit off - with “white ” populations falling to around 60% in some major cities like London and Birmingham and that figure includes white immagrants …. like I said I don't mean to use “white” as a culture … but I don't know how else to express it … It just makes me try to understand the fear held by some of being over ridden depending on where they live, and taking into account some other things I have read - no matter what my personal detatched opinion is.
      And on a large scale if 88% of the population country wise ..is still British …
      Why is there such a need for stuff like this?

      http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-consti...

      and where do you draw a line? Do you have to at some point with the various cultures?
      If there is Muslim Parliment and towns brodcasting the call to prayer - violent or non violent are they still “invasions” on the indigeous culture ?
      This was a good look at multicultualism from the inside …
      http://www.euro-islam.info/2009/09/07/seen-and-...

      maybe multiculturalism is more like a bridge to something, that might be good :)

    70. camilla — on 17th December, 2009 at 11:13 PM  

      “envy?” was adressed to Federico Lister, Miriam

      “78% of prisoners in England are non Muslim … your point?”

      I am not so sure about this figure… wait until it will be a half-muslim country or even one-third-muslim country… oh, I know it still will mean nothing even if 90% of prisoners will be muslims…

      Miriam are you muslim yourself?

    71. camilla — on 17th December, 2009 at 11:23 PM  

      recently Norway decided to deport 30 iraqi refuges - first since 1993 - they managed to piss off even patient and tolerant Norwegians. 30 committed 90(!) crimes.
      it's for you, Miriam

    72. MiriamBinder — on 18th December, 2009 at 12:06 AM  

      The Queen of Fiddlesticks, I am going to respond now to Camilla not because I am ignoring your post but because I had typed out almost a complete response (it seemed like reams at the time ;) ) only to have my very old cat try to squeeze past the computer and the wall and disconnected it from the electricity network … I've recently moved and things are still rather ad hoc here) … I will respond but it will take a little while longer.

      As for Camilla, responding to you is quick and requiring little prior cogitation. If 'envy' was merely an off-the-cuff response … so be it.

      As for the fact that 78% of the British prison population being non-Muslim; this figure was taken from a HO summary of statistical data regarding prison population. I am still trying to figure out what you are actually saying with your reference to the Muslim prisoner percentage in France. I know what I think you are trying to insinuate but I do not want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. It would be much preferable if you actually explained yourself. Just like with your following post regarding the deportation of 30 Iraqi refugees who, after having committed 90 crimes which you so kindly offer me.
      Are you asking should they be deported? The answer is certainly BTW. Or are you merely in the habit of throwing garbage about? In short Camilla, it would be highly conducive to any discussion if it is actually based on something other then single word posts or unbalanced claims without reference or elucidation.

      I am still waiting for your evidence regarding your claim that “the majority of violence crimes are commited by non-whites” … take your time if you like. I am a very patient person ;-)

    73. Pobeda — on 18th December, 2009 at 1:31 AM  

      Facts are such awfully uncomfortable things, aren't they?

      Fifty years ago it was the RC Irish and persons-of-RC-Irish-descent who were overrepresented in the UK prison system.

      Despite the ongoing best efforts of criminals-of-RC-Irish-descent in places like Glasgow and Liverpool, the Hibernian star has visibly waned in recent years; it is persons-of-SubSaharan-African-decent who are disproportionately overrepresented in UK prisons, just as they are overrepresented in the prison sytems of the USA, Canada, France, Holland and Belgium.

      Muslims are three times overrepresented in the UK prison system. In La Belle France those greedy Muslims have grabbed fully 50% of the prison bunk space.

      As anyone might have guessed, Jews and Chinese and Sikhs just AREN'T trying when it comes to criminality; they occupy far fewer cell spaces than their numbers in the population warrant.

      In the USA, Japanese-Americans have the highest rate of completing high school [even ahead of Jews and Armenians] and the lowest incidence of imprisonment. Obviously they're clever and cunning criminals, to escape detection and conviction and imprisonment so deftly!

    74. Pobeda — on 18th December, 2009 at 1:39 AM  

      Would johng be happier with the term “subhuman filth” or what?

      Until fairly recently it was thought that other primates were ethically better than us what call ourselves *homo sapiens sapiens*, with our flechette weaponry and our mobile gas champers and our nerve gas, but in the last couple of decades it's been established that there are deliquent chimpanzee families which grab other chimpanzees' offspring and devour them [behaviour unlikely to be encountered even on the nastiest council estates of Merseyside] and that their are gorilla gangs which establish territorial boundaries and ambush interlopers and kill them.

    75. camilla — on 18th December, 2009 at 1:54 AM  

      miriam

      1.they (Iraqi refugees) should definitely be deported. It's not a question for me.their refugee status is no excuse for their barbaric behaviour. I can't use the word “pigs” because i don't want to offend pigs. How can you explain their open and deliberate ignoring the law? the only answer I see - kafir's law is no law for them, kafir's life property and so on means nothiing for them

      2. the majority of violent crimes are commited by muslims and non-whites - it's so in my country. everyone knows it but you know what happens if it would be declared officially. in many European countries it's the same.

      3. I'm not insinuating, I'm saying it directly - muslims are inclined to violence (especially to violence against non-muslims), there is nothing peaceful about islam. so say what you want to say about me - I have no reason to change my mind. otherwise why religious minorirties are permanently discriminated and persecuted in muslim countries? muslims are trying to persecute non-muslims even in your country - open your eyes! - after all that was done for them.

      even secular humanist should keep in mind that the muslims are not people who would treat you as you treat them. It's childish to expect that. they will treat you as their religion tells them to. and you can be infinitely kind to them

    76. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 18th December, 2009 at 2:34 AM  

      hehe miriam :) I hate when that happens (with the cat)

      I do think what was said about insecurities has alot to do with what you are discussing in regaurds to crime. I can't remember the exact number of unemployment precentages.
      But work and esteme go hand and hand don't you think?

    77. MiriamBinder — on 18th December, 2009 at 3:22 AM  

      As we both appear to agree that these 30 refugees should certainly be deported, if they have indeed committed the number of crimes you claim they have, I really do not see much point in wasting anymore time on them.

      Evidence is a link to an independent source. A reiteration of an unverifiable claim does not alter the status of the claim.

      Some Muslims are certainly inclined to violence as are some Jews, some Christians, some Athiests, vegetarians, cyclists, football players and - well take your pick of any group of human beings really … I've even read about a militant Buddhist monk or two. I still fail to see why the fact that some individuals are inclined to violence should cause me to regard all individuals as inclined to violence.
      Please do not bother trying to explain as I am almost 100% sure that it will only involve reiteration of previously queried claims. Circular debates are so very tiresome ;-)

      Quite frankly Camilla the majority of Muslims I have had dealings with are people who have treated me with immense courtesy. Would that be because I treated them with common civility and humanity? Maybe and maybe that would have been their initial response regardless.

    78. MiriamBinder — on 18th December, 2009 at 9:24 PM  

      “Thank you for the answer.
      I can not pretend to know what it's like to be British …. I only look in from outside and have been watching this debate over multiculturalism forever. Like I said we have labled our system a “melting pot”, canada calls theirs a “mosaic” - you can look into what each tried to represent, it's very interesting. all have both critics and supporters. I do have to say though I feel alot of your examples are more representitive as diversity, or preferences than actual culure. Doesn't just to state cultures as various seperate everyone into groups as “others” ? and quoting you …
      “various cultures coexist without one given culture being encouraged to supplement or over-ride another”
      At what point does it start to get tricky? If you remove race and just see culture … demographics are getting a bit off - with “white ” populations falling to around 60% in some major cities like London and Birmingham and that figure includes white immagrants …. like I said I don't mean to use “white” as a culture … but I don't know how else to express it … It just makes me try to understand the fear held by some of being over ridden depending on where they live, and taking into account some other things I have read - no matter what my personal detatched opinion is.
      And on a large scale if 88% of the population country wise ..is still British …
      Why is there such a need for stuff like this?

      http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-consti…

      and where do you draw a line? Do you have to at some point with the various cultures?
      If there is Muslim Parliment and towns brodcasting the call to prayer - violent or non violent are they still “invasions” on the indigeous culture ?
      This was a good look at multicultualism from the inside …
      http://www.euro-islam.info/2009/09/07/seen-and-…

      maybe multiculturalism is more like a bridge to something, that might be good :)

      Okay Queen, second try … I spent yesterday setting up the workstation as I got taken aback at losing the post (and I was snowed in anyway ;-) )
      I don’t suppose it matters much what being British is but rather whether there is a sense of belonging. Nor does it matter what the phenomenon of coexistence and assimilation is called. The process itself is as old as the hills and has been a part of human communal life since the very first day an ancestor of humanity walked up a hill and came across another ancestor s/he hadn’t grown up with. Labelling it ‘melting pot’ (with reference to that golden oldie by Blue Mink (1969) written by Cook and Greenaway) or ‘mosaic’ says a lot more about the modern need to label everything then it says about the process itself.
      As for it getting tricky? Why should it get tricky? You mention ‘indigenous culture’ but in all honesty it is, at best, but a synchronic snapshot. Even those individuals who have lived in … oh let’s say Dingley Dell for arguments’ sake, for the past umpteen hundreds of years engage in totally different pursuits then their ancestors did, view life differently from their ancestors, have different expectations and aspirations … in fact their very concept of what being residents of Dingley Dell entails and means is totally different from the concept their grandparents, great grandparents and great-great-great … blah blah bladdity blah grandparents had.
      As for your link to the headline “Harman will ban Christmas, bishops warn” … nice emotive headline BTW but when you read the actual content you will see it is full of supposition; it COULD lead not will … and what else do we read?
      “It could also force religious groups to take on gay staff; a measure that was derided by senior clergy who fear the new law would reduce the power of the Church and 'dilute' its moral message.”
      And that really is the main issue as far as the not entirely unbiased bishops are concerned. It is the reduction of power of the church and the potential dilution of its moral message; abortion, contraception, same sex couples, homosexuals and, to a lesser extent possibly, lesbians … The list is endless. Aside from which the seasonal warning that Christmas is banned has become almost traditional over the past few years.

      As for where we draw the line … drawing the line under anything to do with human interaction is tantamount to sounding the death knell on it. Life needs change in order to continue being; be that culture, traditional or otherwise, be that language, be that human existence, be that art, music … anything that is forcibly stopped in its track eventually withers and dies. On the other hand organic change, gradual and over time, given time, will find its way and changes that are found not to be conducive to it will fade away to become a thing of the past just as work-houses did and the poor-law of Dickens’ time. And if that means that eventually Britain will end up with a Muslim parliament – something extremely unlikely but I take it you mean a parliament where the majority of MPs are Muslim (even if only by 1) then that is democracy…

    79. camilla — on 25th December, 2009 at 9:36 AM  

      |||Quite frankly Camilla the majority of Muslims I have had dealings with are people who have treated me with immense courtesy. Would that be because I treated them with common civility and humanity? Maybe and maybe that would have been their initial response regardless.|||

      nice answer, Miriam, top popular among muslim's defenders

      but the problem is - it has nothing to do with the truth

      so you mean all those events when muslims in islamic countries killed non-muslims, raped them, burned their houses - it just because the victims weren't nice to them? oh. I see, they are - the victims - to blame.

      so you say that the reason why muslim immigrants commit so many sexual crimes (more tham 60 percent in Norway for example) - it just because they weren't treated nicely?

      as I have already written, muslims will treat you just as their religion tells them to… and as actual political situation allows them…

      you can believe whatever you want but the history inexorably proves one fact - just as the muslims get the idea that they can cut infidels' throat and get away with it - they will do it. and they do it!

      violence against infidels is ok with muslims - when will you understand?I jus don't get it

    80. MiriamBinder — on 25th December, 2009 at 1:35 PM  

      “nice answer, Miriam, top popular among muslim's defenders”
      Muslim defenders? You are of course presuming that Muslims require defending. That is where we differ. I do not see the average Muslim as standing in need of defence as they have done nothing to stand accused of. Extremists on the other hand, whether Muslim, White Nationalist, Vegan, Animal Rights Activists or One Eyed Purple People Eater worshippers … I wouldn't dream of defending extremism in any shape, size or form.

      Human Rights abuses sadly occur all over the place, remember Extraordinary rendition … How about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay; or certain British soldiers in Basra in September 2003 - are you really expecting me to hold that all soldiers in The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment are beasts who routinely treat suspect inhumanely? As previously stated, just because some people act in a manner unacceptable at best and abhorrent at its worse, I refuse to assume that all people act like it.

      I think the issue isn't that there aren't any concerns but that polarisation is making it difficult to actually get to the real problem.

    81. camilla — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:44 PM  

      there is difference between those soldiers cases (though I don’t find them excusable) and muslims attitude to things that you just don’t want to see…

      it’s not just a matters of human right violation - yeah it happens everywhere.

      It’s culture, it’s actual policy, - to supress non-muslims, and it’s based on religion. I’m not asking why it happens - but why none protects them?

      have you lived in muslim countries, Miriam? not just been where as a tourist? Pakistan? Lybia? Iran? Syria? or at least Turkey?

      if the muslims are peaceful in general, when tell me - how many terrorists were extradited from muslim countries?

      I just recalled the lybians who actually … were greeting their terrorist Al-Megrahi as a national hero

      all that so called radicals (why “radicals” by the way? they just follow their religion carefully) do - is done with muslim masses approval

      ps I won’t tell to wake up and smell the coffee, don’t worry… you said, I had been living my life in fear, but you living your life with your head in the sand…

      It’s your choice, I don’t really need you to change your mind (actually as far as I remember it, it’s always you, who start polemics with me) but why attack people who don’t want to put on blinds? I mean not me (I don’t care) but people in real life

      Actually I apply to muslims the same criteria that you apply to BNP or EDL …

    82. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 7:38 PM  

      What criteria do I apply to the BNP or EDL Camilla or are you just throwing something in there hoping it will make you sound like someone worth listening to?

    83. bernard — on 3rd January, 2010 at 7:56 PM  

      “actually as far as I remember it, it’s always you, who start polemics with me”

      Well, Camilla, were you to fuck off this site and not come back, I don’t think anyone would pursue you and “start polemics” with you. Believe it or not no one cares enough to hunt you down at your house. But the fact is, I browse this site and if I read your comments I will respond to them until the moderators stop me. Who are you to whinge?

    84. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:43 PM  

      You can always tell when Camilla is getting flustered. Her English syntax takes a nose-dive ;)

      I’ve spent many years in the Middle East Camilla which is neither here nor there.

    85. Kamilla — on 7th January, 2010 at 5:01 AM  

      what country exactly Miriam?

      what criteria? actions, darling, behavior, not your muslim’ friends behavior but muslim behavior when they can freely express what they think of non-muslims…
      Governmental position on non-muslims in muslim countries?
      ok Miriam I give up, if you are stupid this is really forever)))

    86. MiriamBinder — on 7th January, 2010 at 8:25 AM  

      You give up Kamilla? I doubt it very much. You are far too taken with your narrow minded world view.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.