Scully Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Is wearing the burkha an act that is in pursuit of freedom of expression? It may well be if the wearer truly has the mental and physical independence to make that choice. Is preaching death to all non believers an act of freedom of expression? Not really when that freedom does tend to impinge on the freedom of those who would wish to both live and not believe. I don't think everyone should dress and think like me, but the freedoms are there for all. You can't have on the one hand the freedom from prosecution to preach hate and intolerance from a medieval book and yet on the other hand refuse the freedom of cartoonists to express themselves. As for integration, well yes, take your pick - not speaking English, insisting that Western customs and practices must be subservient to a particular religious text that has the last word on everything, wanting to stone a woman for wearing a short skirt or roll your daughter up in a carpet and set fire to her for bringing shame on the family etc. Obviously there's a sliding scale from radical to moderate but we are told the radicals are in the minority and yet all the anti terror legislation is aimed at affecting the majority. As I said, I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and there's easier and more direct way at getting at those who should be targeted. I think the real test for whether a person, culture or religion is integrated and at one with this Country is whether it is not just tolerant but peaceful; you may not like or wish to tolerate certain people, cultures or religions but you don't have to physically harm them. Excellent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Is wearing the burkha an act that is in pursuit of freedom of expression? It may well be if the wearer truly has the mental and physical independence to make that choice. Is preaching death to all non believers an act of freedom of expression? Not really when that freedom does tend to impinge on the freedom of those who would wish to both live and not believe. I don't think everyone should dress and think like me, but the freedoms are there for all. You can't have on the one hand the freedom from prosecution to preach hate and intolerance from a medieval book and yet on the other hand refuse the freedom of cartoonists to express themselves. As for integration, well yes, take your pick - not speaking English, insisting that Western customs and practices must be subservient to a particular religious text that has the last word on everything, wanting to stone a woman for wearing a short skirt or roll your daughter up in a carpet and set fire to her for bringing shame on the family etc. Obviously there's a sliding scale from radical to moderate but we are told the radicals are in the minority and yet all the anti terror legislation is aimed at affecting the majority. As I said, I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and there's easier and more direct way at getting at those who should be targeted. I think the real test for whether a person, culture or religion is integrated and at one with this Country is whether it is not just tolerant but peaceful; you may not like or wish to tolerate certain people, cultures or religions but you don't have to physically harm them. Very luke warm. Not at all convincing, just the usual stuff that bears little relation to reality or real numbers. Either you have freedom of expression and deeds (not harming and killing obviously) or you don't. You do like Islam being insulted so it's freedom of expression but don't like Burkas (I don't either) so it's wrong. Funny how everything you do is good and everything they do can be categorised as bad and interpreted as negative. So in your experience the majority don't speak English, roll their carpet up with their shamed daughters in blah blah, of course not but it doesn't stop you or others from glibly pronouncing that they don't integrate even though it clearly only applies to a tiny tiny few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Has CCTV resulted in a reduction in crime or simply a higher number of arrests and convictions, or even a boon to sales of hoodies and snoods? I'm assuming the 'instances' you refer to which 'resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras' took place after the crime, which from a victims point of view is perhaps a little too late? well yes, all the arrests were after the crime as even in this day and age we can't arrest people before the crime, who knows how many crimes have not been committed because the cameras were there and i'm sure all victims are happier if the criminal is caught Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Very luke warm. Not at all convincing, just the usual stuff that bears little relation to reality or real numbers. Either you have freedom of expression and deeds (not harming and killing obviously) or you don't. You do like Islam being insulted so it's freedom of expression but don't like Burkas (I don't either) so it's wrong. Funny how everything you do is good and everything they do can be categorised as bad and interpreted as negative. So in your experience the majority don't speak English, roll their carpet up with their shamed daughters in blah blah, of course not but it doesn't stop you or others from glibly pronouncing that they don't integrate even though it clearly only applies to a tiny tiny few. Eh? That's not in my post. You are projecting, for whatever reason. I'll leave it there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Thought this article from a few days ago sort of nailed it somewhat. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Thought this article from a few days ago sort of nailed it somewhat. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html That is very good, more leaders here and elsewhere should act like him. It really is that simple, tell them to naff off and leave the rest to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 well yes, all the arrests were after the crime as even in this day and age we can't arrest people before the crime, This is my point exactly; the cameras haven't made any difference to the numbers of crimes, or in fact prevented the crime from happening. Even though I don't agree with calls for more stringent legislation regarding the prevention of terrorism, at least it has been proved that the gathering of intelligence can make a difference in preventing crime. Isn't there comprehensive CCTV coverage of those terrorists wandering around that shopping mall in Nairobi a couple of years ago, shooting shoppers with AK 47's ? Didn't do the victims much good there. CCTV is a con in the respect it was introduced in a cynical ploy by those in authority to lead the gullible into believing they are safer as a result of the Government 'doing something' in the fight against crime. We have CCTV at both ends of our market square, designed to look like street lamps, introduced via first page news in our local parish newsletters. Both cameras have been full of rain water for years. who knows how many crimes have not been committed because the cameras were there Exactly, who knows? and i'm sure all victims are happier if the criminal is caught Really? I'm not so sure the dead ones could be described as happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye18 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I hate cctv cameras and often flip them the finger.especially the ones at work. Edited January 16, 2015 by deadeye18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) well yes, all the arrests were after the crime as even in this day and age we can't arrest people before the crime, This is my point exactly; the cameras haven't made any difference to the numbers of crimes, or in fact prevented the crime from happening. Even though I don't agree with calls for more stringent legislation regarding the prevention of terrorism, at least it has been proved that the gathering of intelligence can make a difference in preventing crime. Isn't there comprehensive CCTV coverage of those terrorists wandering around that shopping mall in Nairobi a couple of years ago, shooting shoppers with AK 47's ? Didn't do the victims much good there. CCTV is a con in the respect it was introduced in a cynical ploy by those in authority to lead the gullible into believing they are safer as a result of the Government 'doing something' in the fight against crime. We have CCTV at both ends of our market square, designed to look like street lamps, introduced via first page news in our local parish newsletters. Both cameras have been full of rain water for years. who knows how many crimes have not been committed because the cameras were there Exactly, who knows? and i'm sure all victims are happier if the criminal is caught Really? I'm not so sure the dead ones could be described as happy. I repeat you cant arrest someone for a crime they havnt committed yet, no one knows how many crimes are, or are not committed because there are cameras, victims are happier when the criminal is caught, the families and friends of victims are happier when the criminal is caught, as far as I'm concerned the only people who have a problem with cameras are criminals, lets hope if someone nicks your car its on camera and the toerag is known to the police and they are able to knock on his door and infringe on his liberty or not i will leave it there Edited January 16, 2015 by islandgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 I wonder if those that disagree with monitoring also disagreed with the CCTV when it was introduced in this country, I can think of several instances that have resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras and dont have a problem with them Do you have a lot of CCTV in the Western Isles then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 I repeat you cant arrest someone for a crime they havnt committed yet, no one knows how many crimes are, or are not committed because there are cameras, victims are happier when the criminal is caught, the families and friends of victims are happier when the criminal is caught, as far as I'm concerned the only people who have a problem with cameras are criminals, lets hope if someone nicks your car its on camera and the toerag is known to the police and they are able to knock on his door and infringe on his liberty or not i will leave it there Ah well. Can't say I didn't try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 The problem with 'anti terror' legislation is it's very soon used for other purposes and for other reasons. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bbc-uses-ripa-terrorism-laws-to-catch-tv-licence-fee-dodgers-in-northern-ireland-30911647.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 Yes, and the cameras are now coming out again, because they have been found not to be cost effective - they don't reduce crime, or provide evidence which stands up in court. See BBC news website today for the article. I'm not sure I really understand this point, you can't get better evidence than something being captured on film. cctv has given police loads of lines of enquiry for serious crimes when there has been nothing to go on as well as the minor things and everything in between. There's hardly enough police left to even do the basics properly any more, let alone having the numbers of staff needed to watch every random member of public go about their business. Even if not reducing crime there is no way on earth anyone can say they don't increase the likelihood of catching a suspect/offender and surely that's the next best thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosd Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 I wonder how many "anti CCTV" folks have cameras put up around their own homes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm not sure I really understand this point, you can't get better evidence than something being captured on film. cctv has given police loads of lines of enquiry for serious crimes when there has been nothing to go on as well as the minor things and everything in between. There's hardly enough police left to even do the basics properly any more, let alone having the numbers of staff needed to watch every random member of public go about their business. Even if not reducing crime there is no way on earth anyone can say they don't increase the likelihood of catching a suspect/offender and surely that's the next best thing? I think it means that the criminals have modified their behaviour by doing things like wearing hoodies and baseball caps togeather to make facial recognition more difficult. Its still useful though, how many times do you see footage released by police in relation to incidents? Lots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in referring to that post to be honest, but never mind. to be honest if forgotten now, doubt it was an earth shattering revelation anyway Edited January 17, 2015 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 I wonder how many plots have been foiled by people sending e mails along the lines of Hi Ahmed O have the ××mb do you have the AKs ? If so let's start to attack target x at 11.00am.See you there mate. A bit like the ridiculous cards you fill out on the plane just before you land in the States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wascal Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 profiled you via your occasional pigeon watch rant KW Yes he's signed it so have I when I worked on the complex. Nothings been divulged that isn't n the public domain. I had to have a security check when carrying out a high level defence contract a few years ago.. I had several interviews and an in depth profile analysis... I cant tell you what they already knew about me and my affairs but it was rather an eye opener.. To this day I just don't know where they got some of the personal information from without talking to my immediate family. B) The vetting interviews are always fun ! I like the question "have you overthrown or attempted to overthrow any goverment?" I replied "of course I have !" Don't you remember - you sent me to Iraq to do a bit of "regime change" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Have you commited " Moral Turpitude" was the one that got me. Had to google it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Personally I dont have a problem as I have nothing to hide and as all of us on here that have SGC and FACs there is probably more known about us than most people. The problem that I do have though is that the terrorists are, are in this case, Muslims.....I am not, so why not introduce more powers to obtain information on the imigrants that hate us and are causing the problem.....not on the people that are the victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.