If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How is shooting someone as opposed to locking them up going to save lives?
I'm with Austin Mitchell on this one- that is disgusting. Those people have more right to be here than the faceless cunts who deported them in handcuffs.
because some of these people wont ever be safe to releases into the public, so why waste money looking after, feeding, clothing somebody that just wants to harm you?
also what about escapes? prisions arnt 100%, what if one was to escape and paint a bomb in a school? or hospital?
You sure about that? What about former IRA members who are now committed to peace?
If its wrong for them to kill for their beliefs, why is it right for the state to do so?
The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind.
i dont think so, the point here is that fact if they dont like the UK, then leave.
and i think Briton has the right to say if you attack us using force, then we will use force
There are aspects of the UK I don't like. Should I leave too?
What do you mean by "Briton"? Do you mean our government?
Agree that this MP says the right things but surely if he is that pissed off and ashamed by the government chosen from within his political party then he shoyuld leave that party?
If he left the Labour party over this then I would have a lot of respect for they guy.......
Example 1: A group of 6 friends take advantage of a deal at a local tasty restaurant, "buy five dinners and the sixth is free". If it is the evidence of the behaviour of one of these "friends" that given "friend" not only detest the other 5 but are also only hanging around with them for cheap food it would be expected for the other 5 to start taking someone else out to lunch.
Example 2: A sports team where of the team one is a qualified physio and the other a doctor, the other members are just standard members of the public and any professional qualifications are irrelevant. If a given person joined that team, but only showed up to training when given person wanted the physio or doctor to check them out. It would not be unreasonable for the captain/coach/rest of the team to demand that given person either start training for real, or stop coming altogether.
Example 3: A given person moves to quebec in Canada. This given person make no attempt to learn french, it would not be unexpected or unreasonable that the other members of the community would eventually lose patience and said given person would be ostracised.
Now, if you will, scale this up to a country, without there being any definition of what it is to be british, (because essentially it doesn't actually matter) if any given person is disenchanted with what is the current culture of the united kingdom (whether given person was born here or not, no matter where their heritage is rooted) it is not unreasonable for other people living in the United Kingdom to question the motives of a current resident for whom the evidence of said person's behaviour is such that said person apparently hates almost everything about the UK. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that said person move to somewhere where the culture suits said person's personal ideals better.
I'm not defending Islamist terrorism btw, just expanding the terms of the debate a little.
What causes the problem specifically with islamic relations is that small minority who do nothing but say how much they hate everything about the UK but would still use the NHS if they were sick. Now I personally wouldn't begrudge anyone treatment, generally, there may be exceptions. But it does beg the question, if you hate it here so much, why do you stay?
This where you have a problem.
A large and populous country such as the Uk is so diverse that any attempt to talk about 'the culture of Britian' and 'what it means to be British' are utterly absurd.
I don't really see what the point of this debate is anyway, some people don't like what some other people do, its hardly anything new and there is nothing you can do about it.....
Because its comfy, because there is the NHS, because there is running water and electric, and they wont get tortured by the security services for speaking out....
No, not quite, see no-one is ever really part of a country, the country is made up of lots of little communities that approximate to having the same values.
But is that 'culture'?
Depends what you mean by a community. If you mean a geographical association then no, because certainly in urban areas most people would not count the people they live near as the same people they have social relations with in the main.
What you just said surely reinforces the opposite point though that you can have seperate islamic communities for example with their own values.....
Yes, but also
No, not really. The country is also made up of the state, parliament, the interests of capital, landed gentry etc.
Talking about the requires to be part of a community is different from that, as long as those arguements don't use this as simply cover for the previous arguement (not that I think that's what people are necessarily doing here). Whilst I personally don't believe the state should have any fucking right to tell someone what to believe or tell them how to dress or how to speak I can understand the arguement. I'd say that the possible benefits of having people swearing aligence to the flag each morning at school are more than outweighed by the dangers of forced submission to a countries leaders, as seen in the worst horrors in the history of humanity in the middle of the last century. But I can understand it's an issue people draw a line in the sand on and we certainly wouldn't consider it inhierently racist.
I also think people need to remember that the issues being discussed here are hugely emotive and difficult to express in ways that other's might not take the wrong way from what was intended.
In particular the use of the term Muslim is not acceptable short-hand for Muslim extremists. Adding one extra word makes a huge difference, and there is no time limit on posting a reply. It does a massive diservice to the Muslim community and to the poster themselves to simply type Muslim if they are actually talking about Muslim extremists.
The majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland are law abiding, peaceful and would never consider commiting a terrorist act. The majority of active IRA members during the troubles were also Catholics. I don't think anyone would accept a debate were people said because of the Canary Wharf bombings all Irish or all Catholics should fuck off out of the country. On the other hand, saying members and supporters of the IRA should leave would be a topic that could be debated, if not agreed to by all.
Most hooligans went to football matches, but I don't think people would accept the idea that we should just talk about 'football fans' in a debate on hooligans.
It may seem really irritating, it may seem like some of form of political correctness, but it isn't. It's about representing your views in a way that properly reflects how you feel, and it's worth spending that extra minute when debating around topics that are so heartfelt to consider what is being said, and to consider if what you've typed when read by someone else properly reflects your views.
So while there can be Muslim communities, and I respect that totally, those communities will overlap in some ways with other parts of society. Like keep fit classes, or if you always have the same hairdresser, or go to the same coffee place or something. It all overlaps in little ways.
Are you familiar with the term "cultural capital"?
The middle classes tend to have more influence over what is deemed to be "acceptable" or "worthwhile" culture. Whereas, for example, when looking at youth cultures or sub-cultures, working class and/or Afro-Carribean people tend to have more cultural capital, i.e. be seen as being more authentic. However, for these sub-cultures to cross-over into the mainstream, or "acceptable" culture, usually requires the intervention of the middle classes, in the guise of cultural commentators, critics, record executives, radio playlist controllers etc.
I've probably garbled that a bit, but there's plenty on the web about it. Cultural studies is a fascinating subject.
True, British "culture" today is a by-product of a general European wide consensus on matters of life, economy, state. Goes back to Westphalia.
The term British is so vague. English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish culture is much more easy to define.
Look at morris dancing, or Irish dancing. These things represent culture outside their governments and have been around through many forms of government.
Does anyone think it's wrong to be proud to be British?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital