Originally Posted by senojekips

I don't agree with everything that Del Boy is saying, but I can certainly see where he is coming from.

You must look at all of the problem not merely this latest issue. Many groups within Britain have been pointing out the likelihood of events such as the recent bombings happening for a long time.

People get angry when they point out the obvious, only to be ignored, time and time again. What you are seeing is a backlash against the Muslim community as a result of the Government's continued inaction and refusal to listen to the people.

As for the couple of comments about America being the most tolerant country in the world, I merely ask, "What planet have you been on since 9/11"?

senojekips - please read my preceding post. In this instance i am just pointing out a few home truths about this man, and making the point that Muslim's are not being demonised. We are exceptionally tolerant here.
Cheers.

What I was disagreeing with was the statement that Muslims have not been demonised in Britain.

Maybe not as a matter of official policy, but there is no denying that the British people look at the Muslims in England somewhat askance, and I feel it is with good reason, especially in view of recent happenings.

I guess I'm as tolerant as most, and I still realise that there are Muslims out there who are disappointed at the way things are going. Unfortunately there is a degree of self preservation in all human beings that will make them very wary of Muslims, or for that matter any groups that are perceived to be different. Especially if they as a minority want to change our culture.

Call it Racism, Hatred, call it what you like, but it is an inbuilt part of all human beings.

senojekips. understand i was not arguing with your point, just giving as much information as I could.

Yes, of course people will look askance at the moment. Yes, human nature, and again, at the moment, with some reason. But understand that we still, to this day, have Muslim groups here, who are pleased to call, for example, for Jews to be killed wherever they appear. This does not endear them to us. Now, we all realise that the whole Muslim population acts in this way, but they do admit to ,generally speaking, supporting the aims and ambitions of the cultural aspect of these people. The long term aims of both moderates and hard-liners is Islamification. Believe me, all those who wish to live here and join our culture are welcome, with open arms. We do have Muslim heroes here , you know.

I do regret it when if I appear to to weigh heavily against Muslims, it is actually not so. It is just a question of the messenger getting shot for sounding the alert. I have frequent applause for them whenever it is due on these issues. I watched a documentary from the Paris suburbs recently, that was horrendous. Exactly the same sentiments as those I quoted here.

Incidentally, other racial groups here do not have the same problems, Hindus do not present problems, even with the cultural differences.

Cheers.

Revealed: Red Ken Livingstone's triumvirate of terror

Who really runs London
by Lester Haines
They are barely visible and occupy a twilight world of political chicanery, but the power they wield impacts on the life of every Londoner. They are the Mayor's Praetorian Guard, his Murder Incorporated, his Metropolitan Mafia, his Salaried Stasi, his Opera-loving Ogpu whose unswerving loyalty and unquestioning and fanatical devotion to their leader underpins Livingstone's black reign of fear.
Their devotion must be particularly comforting to Livingstone, who as pariah Mayor has few friends to enforce his own particular brand of democracy. Indeed, Red Ken's grandiosely-titled chief of staff, Simon Fletcher, recently declared that he would "not take a piss" without his boss's permission, and that policy directors Redmond O'Neill and John Ross had sworn a blood oath at a midnight torchlit rally to defend their leader's satanic regime to the last for a salary of around £60,000 per annum plus pension and health benefits.
Indeed, it was Fletcher who recently flew to his master's side after it was revealed that the Mayor had attacked his pregnant partner with a chainsaw, deftly handling aggressive press enquiries and personally punching out the lights of a paparazzi hit squad from The Daily Mail.
It might be imagined that such above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty commitment would earn the admiration of those at City Hall. Not so. This so-called "triumvirate of terror" has attracted nothing but opprobrium from those amazed at their bloody rise to power.
Indeed, all three are graduates from the university of extreme left-wing politics. John Ross, now 55, once declared to a meeting of the Student Union that he would "cut off the head of any capitalist and then piss in the stump". Although he later discovered fine wine and opera, it is known that he and Fletcher and O'Neill were all active in a group called "Red Bandana" in the early 1970s, a paramilitary organisation concerned mostly with openly aggressive leafleting in the Dalston area of London.
Although a number of atrocities is attributed to the group — including painting a moustache on a statue of Winston Churchill, and calling Mrs Thatcher a cun*t — any attempt to probe further into its history meets a wall of fearful silence.
But Ross's personal vision of a working-class uprising goes even deeper. Terrifyingly, in 1969, while working as a home economics lecturer at Enfield Polytechnic, he icily told an amazed cookery class that "to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs".
Nowadays he restricts his culinary activities to sampling the best that London's eateries have to offer. In this he is joined by Redmond O'Neill, 48, the "third man" of Red Ken's unelected inner circle. Redmond's secret life encompasses an enthusiasm for Irish republicanism, and indeed all things Irish — especially Guinness, which he consumes in vast quantities in his oak-panelled office while receiving members of the Real IRA who have been flown to London at the ratepayers' expense.
The facts are these: The whole of London is run by unelected Red agitators whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent women and children. We must ask ourselves: How low has democracy sunk that demonstrably Marxist-Leninist fanatics can exert a fatal stranglehold on our beloved capital while honest and hard-working mayoral candidates are languishing in open prisons on trumped-up charges of perjury? We say this: Red Ken must go, he must go now and he must not come back.

Guess who's coming to dinner with Red Ken?

The Venezuelan President aligns himself with dictators, human rights abusers and notorious narcoterrorists


The answer is none other than Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, who readily antagonises and hurls insults at the leaders of other nations, including Tony Blair, whom he called an “ally of Hitler”. Next week London will have the dubious honour of a visit by Señor Chávez, hosted by none other than its mayor, Ken Livingstone.
Emboldened by a huge windfall of petrodollars due to climbing oil prices, Señor Chávez has no shortage of international cheerleaders. He has become the voice and leader of the resentful of our world. From Argentina to the offices of the Greater London Authority, almost every person bearing a grudge against capitalism, free markets, democracy and the rule of law support his “revolution”.
Once an island of stability in a region ravaged by coups d’état and dictatorships, Venezuela under President Chávez has become the source of instability in Latin America. The Chávez administation has, for instance, a cosy relationship with the FARC, the Colombian narcoterrorist group. When Rodrigo Granda, its leader, was captured in 2004 by bounty hunters on the streets of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, Señor Chávez’s irrational reaction was telling. He suspended relations with Colombia, Venezuela’s second-largest trading partner, claiming that the Colombians had violated national sovereignty. Granda not only had been living in Venezuela and been given citizenship, but his wife and stepdaughter were allowed into the country in 2002 thanks to orders from the Minister of Interior and Justice.
Senor Chávez, commanding billions from PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, interferes in the domestic politics of neighbouring countries, supporting all sorts of radical movements across Latin America. He put his weight behind Evo Morales, Bolivia’s recently elected populist and anti-business President. He is doing the same in Nicaragua, supporting Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista President; and in Peru he is publicly backing Ollanta Humala, a populist former army officer. The Peruvian Government has loudly complained to the Organisation of American States (OAS) about Señor Chávez’s interference.


Nonetheless the constant stream of insults uttered from Caracas is popular with many Venezuelans, as are his so-called misiones or social missions. It would be futile to claim that the medics he has introduced to the barrios or the subsidised shops in the poorest areas have not had a positive impact on the disenfranchised. But the facts are that after nearly eight years in power, crime, unemployment, corruption and poverty, the four issues that Señor Chávez promised to tackle, are on the increase.
But the mounting failures of his Government are not perceived by most Venezuelans to be of his making. They are seen as the fault of his ministers, whom he often berates in his many television appearances for the entertainment of his grassroot supporters. His virtually non-stop presence on TV helps to explain why he still commands a level of support that certainly does not correspond with the mediocre performance of his administration.
Nonetheless Hugo Chávez remains the poster boy of the world’s Left. His misiones, while commendable, shroud a raft of anti-democratic actions. In spite of his military background few people outside Venezuela seem to be aware of the militaristic nature of his regime. Señor Chávez, though democratically elected in 1998, has appointed more than 80 military officers to his Government. The most recent case is the appointment of Colonel Francisco Arias Cárdenas, a comrade in the failed coup of 1992, as Venezuela’s new representative to the UN.
Under Señor Chávez, Venezuela has ceased to be a real democracy: it now exists instead in the murky twilight world between democracy and dictatorship, where there is still a free press and a nod to holding elections. But the opposition parties pulled out of the elections to the legislative assembly last December on discovering that the electronic voting system had been rigged; an allegation that OAS and EU observers confirmed. All 165 members of the assembly are now Chavistas.
In contradiction to the Constitution, he appointed 12 supporters to the supreme court to give him a majority among the judges. He has done away with any resemblance of accountability or separation of powers. The confiscation of private property or the shredding of contracts are now routine occurrences, decided unilaterally and without consultation by the President.
His cheerleaders claim that Señor Chávez is a “social democrat”, while conveniently brushing aside that he supports and aligns himself with some of the world’s worst dictators and human rights abusers. This “democrat” is hell-bent on inducing war in a country that hasn’t seen armed conflicts in more than a century. This “democrat” uses the State as an apparatus of persecution against his political opponents. This “ democrat” does not allow free and transparent elections. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report that the rights of Venezuelans are under chronic and systematic abuse.
It saddens me that some British public figures applaud a visit by President Chávez. Less than a year ago, London was struck by terrorist bombings — yet its mayor is welcoming a man who befriend s and supports terrorists.

In what was the first article published? Im curious, because that portrays ken as satanic........

It's Red Ken... I dont expect any thing better than this from that commie

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

In what was the first article published? Im curious, because that portrays ken as satanic........

The first article is obviously a skit, not to be taken seriously, satire. But it demonstrates how Livingstone is percieved.

On the other hand, the Times article is the real thing. His image generally is of a very dangerous clown.

Enough of him,I'm off to enjoy myself.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

The first article is obviously a skit, not to be taken seriously, satire. But it demonstrates how Livingstone is percieved.

On the other hand, the Times article is the real thing. His image generally is of a very dangerous clown.

Enough of him,I'm off to enjoy myself.

Perceived by his opposition perhaps but then I don't think anyone expected him to be loved by the opposition the problem with your argument is that he has been elected to his position on more than one occasion which would indicate that the majority does not share your opinion.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Perceived by his opposition perhaps but then I don't think anyone expected him to be loved by the opposition the problem with your argument is that he has been elected to his position on more than one occasion which would indicate that the majority does not share your opinion.

Not quite MontyB - his own side rejected him and in fact threw him out of the Labour Party for standing. He stood therefore as an Independent. He was elected first to twist Tony Blair's tail and embarrass Labour. It could be said that his opposition put him in place.

It suits a great many here, who are completely disillusioned by our politicians to keep a maverick disaster in position to continue to embarrass his side.

My view is not based on any personal political bias - I would have voted the same way first time round and for the same reasons. By the second vote I would thought 'joke over'.

Unfortunately for London, England, and Britain, the joke is not over yet.

You would be incorrect in concluding that my view is narrowly held or party politically biased. I don't go there, and furthermore I don't see that providing information on this subject comprises 'my argument'. On this issue you can always, as I previously said, do your own research. You have not opposition from me, be my guest.