QuoteSerious question...is it known if the London Mayor's parents are first cousins? I understand that many of the Pakistani immigrant children in England are in that situation? Up to 90%??!!
It's pretty distasteful alright, but the Tories and their backers in the media have always preferred to focus on the personal rather than policies, because their policies aren't in most people's interests. Nasty politics.Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Serious question...is it known if the London Mayor's parents are first cousins? I understand that many of the Pakistani immigrant children in England are in that situation? Up to 90%??!!
I sadly have to agree with this piece. Where's Diane Abott's brilliance when you need her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rotect-us.html
Have you read somewhere that Khan's parents were first cousins or are you just asking if they were? I'm not aware that they were, nor can I find any reference to such being the case, so I would say it's unlikely.
And where did you get the 90 per cent figure? Generally, the figure for the percentage of Pakistani immigrants in the UK who marry a first cousin is said to be around 55 per cent.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 07/06/2017 at 6:50 PM.
Molotov cocktail thrown into restaurant in Paris suburb tonight.
Katie Hopkins? Seriously?!
She's like Ann Coulter, not PC but you can't deny how often she is right. She always ends up right. And the more she is right the more often she gets fired for saying the un-PC truths. Which is ultimately counter productive to society. She also makes me laugh for being so self depreciating at times ( "I look like a tampon with knobs" was a recent quip)...a personality trait you rarely, if ever, see on the pompous, over educated limousine left.
They take themselves SO seriously. Coulter is really genuinely funny at times too. Contrast that with people like Dan Rather and the like. He "resigned" in shame for making up that story about Bush but is still out there spewing nonsense pretending to be an elder statesman. That's what I love about news anchors. They get paid to read off a teleprompter. None of them write anything they say. So anyone who can read can do their job. It's so silly.
Caveat: One time Rather showed up for work with a black eye. He claimed a "deranged maniac" came up to him out of nowhere and shouted "What's the frequency Kenneth" and punched him in the face. REM wrote a song about it. He was terrible at lying.
Ann Coulter is a hypocrite who purports to stand up for free speech and the expression of unpopular, impolitic or "un-PC" views. She'll have us believe she loathes "political correctness" for its supposed chilling effect on expression. In reality, she only believes in "free expression" so long as that expression falls within the realm of what she deems to be acceptable, tolerable or politically correct. See her exceptionally illiberal and vindictive outrage in reaction to Colin Kaepernick's US anthem stance, for example. She professes to stand up for the marginalised; only problem is that, in her warped conception of reality, she inexplicably thinks some mythical "silent majority" represent society's marginalised rather than those who are actually on society's periphery.
She was taking herself very seriously in relation to Kaepernick (presumably because his stance threatened the political and cultural fabric of the privileged bubble she inhabits), but I guess, on many other matters, she enjoys the luxury of not having to take things as seriously as those who don't share the same level of privilege as she does or as those who are at the butt of her prejudice and who suffer discrimination or ill treatment as a result of it. Life tends to be a bit more serious for those who find themselves closer to rock bottom. I'm sure Coulter has a lot less to be worrying about from her lofty perch. She has the luxury to self-deprecate, to dispense with serious critical thinking and can peddle her nonsense opinions without fear. Whilst others suffer the consequences of her nasty bile, she gets book deals.
Katie Hopkins is little more than a professional troll who evidently craves attention in order to satisfy some deep urge or need to feel relevant and empowered. Besides entirely lacking any sense of dignity, she presents simplistic and lazy "solutions" to complex social issues (as part of her "telling it as it is" schtick) that appear superficially attractive to people because they play on their primal fears and insecurities.
Poor people who've been experiencing a squeeze on their wallets due to the neoliberal programme of austerity are particularly vulnerable to her "charms". Instead of holding power to account and calling out the real reasons for poverty, inequality, crime and social unrest, the likes of Hopkins instead focus their contemptible energies on convincing the poor, unemployed, miseducated and disenfranchised that some "smelly", "animalistic" or "threatening" group of even poorer people on the social rung below them - immigrants (who also conveniently happen to look a bit different from them) - are why they're so poor and are why they're experiencing a relative diminishing in social status as the gulf between Britain's poorest and Britain's richest widens exponentially.
Check out this interview of Hopkins by the BBC's Andrew Neil:
Personally, I find Neil to be a bit of a churlish tw*t at times, but he does at least do a good job in exposing the contradictions, incoherence and ultimate vacuity of Hopkins' nonsense. She "always ends up right"? I don't think so. Neil runs rings around her.
Essentially, Hopkins' arguments are base appeals to prejudice and caricature. She's a bigot who scapegoats visible minorities and society's most vulnerable. She may appear to have guts, but, in reality, she's a coward who prefers to take the easy route of punching down rather than up. That she deflects attention away from those in power and away from those in whose favour society's wealth is disproportionately distributed is a convenient bonus for such people, or maybe that's part of the reason why they reward her with columns and air-time in the first place... Who knows?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 14/06/2017 at 12:51 PM.
French police believe this was a botched robbery: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...ktail-10606790
I once had my picture taken with REM. I often show people; That's me in the corner.
Danny here are some new stats on migrant crime:
https://heatst.com/world/report-sex-...e-in-one-year/
What's your point exactly?
If you're trying, once again, to portray sex crime as a "Muslim immigration problem" - which is the impression I'm getting - then see this post in the Brexit thread where I previously dealt with that grossly misleading depiction specifically: http://foot.ie/threads/213443-Brexit...=1#post1919675
That post was actually in reply to something dubious you yourself had posted then too, although, for whatever reason, you declined to respond to the points and questions I'd posed...
Can I also encourage you to read this piece about what happened in Cologne during the 2015-into-2016 New Year's Eve celebrations?: https://thebaffler.com/latest/cologn...uslim-refugees
As Abi Wilkinson points out, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee advocates often gallantly claim to enjoy confronting "the truth" and "difficult questions", so how about this one: Why don't you admit that many of the faults you appear to be ascribing to other cultures are equally a part of our own Western culture? If you want to have the debate and discuss difficult questions, let's not shy away from it.
Go away with your facts, Danny. I'm going to ignore this and bang on about immigrants some more and I suggest everybody else does too.
Uh...the article says the police didn't comment on the motive behind the attack.
As mentioned in the Mirror's article, French journalist Clément Lanot reported from the scene - with police, fire and emergency services present and standing next to him (see one of the numerous photos that he tweeted below) - that it was a botched robbery.
He tweeted that the fire was linked to a "braquage qui a mal tourné", which literally means a "hold-up/stick-up that went wrong".
News.com.au also reported that "a molotov cocktail [was] thrown among guests at a Paris restaurant, injuring 12, after staff foiled a robbery attempt".
The attempted robbery has been reported as a fact. I'd assumed then that that would have been the thinking of police too, considering they were clearly at the scene, even if they haven't publicly speculated as to the reason for the robbery. Perhaps my assumption was incorrect and police aren't sure if it was a robbery attempt. I don't think that's very likely based on what I've read about the incident, but, if so, maybe I should have been more circumspect and should have just said instead that the incident was thought by those at the scene, or at least by one journalist at the scene, to be a botched robbery.
Anyway, the important point is that there's been no suggestion that it was explicitly politically-motivated or related to extremist Islamism, which is what I thought you might have been implying by posting news of the incident in this thread. Indeed, News.com.au stated that "[h]eavily armed police were among the responders, but the attack was soon established not to be terror related".
Sounds like terrorism then alright. Sorry, as you were.
From what I've read, it wasn't a physical molotov cocktail - they walked in fired a tear gas canister then doused the bar in petrol before lighting it. There's reports of it being a botched robbery and also speculation it was a punishment attack by a local gang.As mentioned in the Mirror's article, French journalist Clément Lanot reported from the scene - with police, fire and emergency services present and standing next to him (see one of the numerous photos that he tweeted below) - that it was a botched robbery.
He tweeted that the fire was linked to a "braquage qui a mal tourné", which literally means a "hold-up/stick-up that went wrong".
News.com.au also reported that "a molotov cocktail [was] thrown among guests at a Paris restaurant, injuring 12, after staff foiled a robbery attempt".
The attempted robbery has been reported as a fact. I'd assumed then that that would have been the thinking of police too, considering they were clearly at the scene, even if they haven't publicly speculated as to the reason for the robbery. Perhaps my assumption was incorrect and police aren't sure if it was a robbery attempt. I don't think that's very likely based on what I've read about the incident, but, if so, maybe I should have been more circumspect and should have just said instead that the incident was thought by those at the scene, or at least by one journalist at the scene, to be a botched robbery.
Anyway, the important point is that there's been no suggestion that it was explicitly politically-motivated or related to extremist Islamism, which is what I thought you might have been implying by posting news of the incident in this thread. Indeed, News.com.au stated that "[h]eavily armed police were among the responders, but the attack was soon established not to be terror related".
No suspicions of terrorism expressed by anyone through. Except Americans, who always seem to know more than the rest of us.
You gonna take this sh*t from him LeTang ?
Don't even get me started on Limerickians...
There once was a woman named Alice
Who used a dynamite stick as a phallus.
They found her vagina
Up in North Carolina,
And the rest of poor Alice in Dallas.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks