UKC

Commiserations and sympathy extended to all affected.

In reply to Big Ger:
Just woken up to this.... words fail me.

In reply to Indy:

Just been reading a report on Le Monde website and found myself thinking "what's next?" France has been on high alert for months but its almost impossible to stop something like this without stopping normal, everyday life.

In reply to Big Germ

Horrific. Reports are stating 80 dead.

In reply to Ridge:

Now 84.

Devastatingly simple and completely unstoppable without cordoning off every public gathering. Dual French/Tunisian national.

Terrorism? And what message is yet again being sent to France?

Just horrible.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Grim indeed. Just off the phone with my sister who splits her time between Nice and the UK. She'd been at that very spot with her daughter just 10 minutes earlier - a lucky escape.

In reply to Big Ger:

Le Pen will be rubbing her hands in glee.

In reply to lummox:

I don't think that's an appropriate comment.

In reply to Big Ger:

Some absolutely horrendous footage on Social Media.

Awful

In reply to Big Ger:

It's almost too horrendous to contemplate. Caught the headlines on the radio this morning, started to visualise in my head what happened and had to turn the radio off. Don't want to look at the news this morning

Horrific.

In reply to EddInaBox:

For the benefit of whoever disliked my post, let me explain why I think the comment was unhelpful: It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with and criticise Marine le Pen for her political rhetoric and the policies she espouses. But stating (unfairly) that she will take pleasure from the deaths of her compatriots (and probably a few non French nationals) vilifies and dehumanises her, it is the route to tribalism and turning every disagreement into an "us versus them" fight. I think it better to talk with people we don't agree with and work things out to our mutual benefit rather than inflaming a situation with insults and aggression.

In reply to EddInaBox:

A "them versus us" attitude in France is exactly what Daesh want. Provoke the extreme right wing element and divide the country.

In reply to Big Ger:
This awaits investigation but I can't believe blockers ( linked concrete blocks or vehicles) were not installed.
Any major event in UK they would, day one security assessment stuff.

Might be a rational explanation but someone may be in major trouble for overlooking simple preventative measure come the inevitable enqury.
Driving through a crowd should figure in any early risk assesment.

In reply to EddInaBox:


I don't think sitting down with a cup of tea and some biscuits with these people would be very productive with these people, and if you think that holding talks with them would be productive then sadly you are deluded in the extreme.


RIP to all those innocent people who lost their lives.

In reply to drunken monkey:


Sorry to break it to you but south east France has been a stronghold for FN/Le Penn for decades, there already is a 'them' and 'us' school of thought. I have lived down there and subsequently visit the place regularly, the conversations I have with friends there and the views aired would probably draw a sharp intake of breath on this forum and back in London where I currently reside, it is a completely different climate, people are fed up, this is the fourth terrorist attack on France in recent times. To put it bluntly locals feel that they have seen this sh*t coming over the past decades, there have been a LOT of people warning and advocating that they were not following the right path and that they should make a u-turn with regards to certain policies such as immigration. They were branded as nazis. Now the nazis are 'far right', sadly the term has been used so much to describe any party or person with a robust view on immigration it has almost lost any meaning.

"On y est jusqu'au cou", as they say in Toulon and Marseille

In reply to drunken monkey:

The vocal far right wing and the nut job islamic terrorists have both been a reality in France for a long time, Daesh is just an blip on the timeline.

D

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The same message as is being sent to all civilised, tolerant, Western societies. The paradox of tolerance :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

If you allow large, self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist, the number of incidents of mass violence by the members of this death cult will grow perpetually, as will the feeble and cowardly attempts to appease the unappeasable. That the bandit chief thought he heard voices and imagined those voices came from God is no reason whatever to protect this poisonous nihilistic ideology.

France has the highest proportion of its population muslim in Europe, it has also had the greatest number of incidents of extreme Islamic terrorist violence.

In reply to mwr72:


I was talking about Marine Le Pen and by extension supporters of the Front National, if you're extending the principle to the various affiliated Islamic Fundamentalist groups fighting around the world and inciting terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere, then it doesn't seem that bombing the shit out of them is being particularly productive either. With the added disadvantage that millions of civilians are being killed injured and displaced by the activities of both 'sides' and without channels of communication and meaningful engagement with those civilians they very often blame 'us'.

In reply to Big Ger:

Awful. Had dinner on the prom last friday, next to the Negresco. Must have been utterly terrifying.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


So, we colonized Northern Africa, pillaged it, massacred a few people when they wanted us out, kept interfering with their politics for decades and still do, keep ruining their countries by supporting dictators (remember Ben Ali? What about Bouteflika or Mohammed VI?) that make their citizens' lives miserable. Some of these people move to our country in search of a better life because we've left and maintained a mess in their country. They're unwelcome and are faced with racist comments and behaviours day in day out. Then we wonder why they won't adapt and are willing to embrace certain ideologies. Makes sense.

*Insert random French phrase that no nonFrench speakers will understand to show that I speak French and therefore am knowledgeable about French politics*

In reply to Adrien:
Ah yes, it's all 'the wests fault', wondered when the first apologist would climb out the woodwork.

In reply to Simon4:




How do you explain Muslim countries within the Middle East providing sanctuary from persecution for Jews in past centuries, then?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

not disagreeing with you - my point is that they (Daesh) are deliberately playing on this fact.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Remember Libya?

In reply to Simon4:

The line I like to use is, that for a toleration society to continue to exist it cannot afford to tolerate the intolerant.

Ideologies such as those which are fundamentally intolerant of those who don't subscribe and women generally should never be allowed to infect and spread through developed societies. Doing so is akin to a body inviting cancer cells in as it doesn't like to judge, doing so leads to it spreading and ultimately destroying that body.

All sounds pretty reasonable so far, but of cause when you stick the label "religion" onto something suddenly it's their unquestionable right to practice and preach this intolerance and of course all those bad bits are just metaphors and not taken literally.

The problem now though is it's arguably too late, all I can offer as a solution is to stop any further imports of those who are sympathetic to such ideologies and educate the crap out of everyone already here deemed at risk of being swayed by it. Ghetto's need to be dispersed and more cultural assimilation needs to take place. Difference creates conflict, cultures need to harmonise.

In reply to C£ Chullain:

I don't see anyone apologising for it, but some context never hurt anybody.

Edit - Classic: 2 dislikes so far from people against context.

In reply to Simon4:

Has it been confirmed that this was a terrorist attack, or that it had any links with islamic groups ? Likely it was but remember how the Madrid attack was first associated with the Basques.

In reply to Simon4:



How on earth is it 'allowed'. As far as I know if you're an extremist of this kind in France, and found out, you'll be arrested.

Anyway it's completely self defeating to try to put one evil face on this. We always try to find a meaning, a reason for those attacks, projecting our own grievances, but the reality is, there may be no meaning.



Very simple-minded spurious correlation. Maybe you need to realise that not all Muslims are the same people. We can agree that their religion like most others religion, is utter shite, but people believing utter shite is not a new thing.

In reply to Doug:
I can't see very many similarities between any Muslims I've known and the guy in the truck to be honest, but I'm sure Simon will try and draw some to help demonise them.

Muslim or Islamist? To some on here they're all the same, and stating as such on these forums seems to go unchallenged more than it used to.

It sucks.

In reply to Simon4:

Wow Simon4, You pop up with another poisonous post full of rubbish! I bet you will not post again on this thread. The reason we in the UK do not have this level of terrorism is not because we have less Muslims. It's more likely that we are better at integrating other cultures than France is and we are less racist. Muslim communities in the UK are much less marginalized and better integrated then in France.

"self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist, the number of incidents of mass violence by the members of this death cult will grow perpetually"

You are a nightmare!

In reply to doz generale:


He won't be happy until we all indulge ourselves in a vigorous bout of ethnic cleansing... Maybe we could start with him?

In reply to Cú Chullain:


We're up to our necks in it?

In reply to doz generale:



He certainly is.

In reply to galpinos:


Yep, the 'it' being high levels of migration, or specifically high levels of Islamic migration. I know this view will go down like a cup of cold sick on here and in other quarters but that is the view of an awful lot of people down in the Côte d'Azur so please don't shoot the messenger.

In reply to C£ Chullain:
Yes, I'm an apologist, there's nothing I like more than seeing my fellow countrywomen and men being run over by a truck and killed in the dozens.

I don't see what's wrong with putting things into perspective, these tragedies don't happen in a vacuum. Blaming them purely on immigration (which - ironically - you were part of - thanks for driving estate prices up by the way, thus preventing honest, hard-working French people from becoming homeowners) is completely misguided.



"It" could also refer to the swarms of Brits polishing Buoux or Font seeing as they're not extremely popular among local climbers, so perhaps we should do something about that too?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Having lived in France I'd say they have big issues with integration of the immigrants from north African ex-colonies and not just on the Cote d'Azur....

In reply to galpinos:
If you don't get integration you end up with alienation, which makes it easy for people to succumb to radicalisation, because people can feel in search of a direction and identity. In the UK at least, I gather it's not the first people to have arrived who end up being radicalised, but a later generation. They don't have the concrete identity which their parents brought over from their home country, which leaves the psychologically vulnerable ones more open to being preyed upon by those who tend to do the radicalisation, but who never do anything themselves in terms of putting themselves at risk. I've read that there's two distinct psychologies involved. That certainly applies to those who recruit suicide bombers and the suicide bombers themselves.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


Is that the case for France?

I didn't think immigration was that high? Most of these were home grown terrorists who have been there for generations.

The uneasiness has been there for years, the riots etc, it's more than just immigration, even if that is a factor. It's integration, alienation, social mobility.

In reply to Timmd:

I think we've got to stop with trying to find a reason, or a meaning, or a "profile" for these type of attacks.
Some of them are committed by violent criminalw who radicalised, some have mental issues, other political grievances, some are well integrated, from middle class families, with good education.
Whether it's Andres Berveik, or a guy shooting down white cops, or a depressed pilot crashing his plane, or a guy driving a lorry through a crowd, there are as many different reasons for these acts of madness.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Yeah, the Orlando attack here is attributed to ISIS, I thought he had no ties, but was more likely an ill person struggling with sexuality. It's almost like sometimes these extreme groups are just a convenient excuse, like with the Jo Cox killing.

In reply to RomTheBear:
At the same time, though, there is/can be some kind of logic or pattern - too, in terms of how well integrated somebody is and what psychological quirks they have. For understandable reasons, it's an area people have studied carefully. It stands to reason that people who feel more a part of a society, are less likely to carry out an attack upon it.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Yes, with him having attended the club in the past, and been brought up with a father who was strongly critical of homosexuality, and seeming to have been brought up with the belief that it was 'a sin', it does seem likely that he was quite psychologically disturbed. I read something about what he was fairly likely to have been experiencing, but I forget what it was called/described as.

In reply to Big Ger:

Courtesy of a friend of a friend on facebook...

"
I didn’t write this after Paris. I didn’t write this after Istanbul Airport. I didn’t write this after Baghdad the first time, second or third time this year (It’s a grim privilege, but a privilege nevertheless, to be able to refer to a terrorist attack in your home town and not have people ask “which one?”). But I’m writing it now, after Nice, because my first two instinctive emotional responses when I heard about the attacks on the radio this morning were horror (because there were kids there you sadistic f*cks, and you knew it, you did that on purpose), and then fear.

“God,” I thought. “Another one. It just keeps happening. It seems like it’s all the time at the moment.”

I’m a risk analyst. That’s my job. I use numbers to understand what we ought to be afraid of, and how afraid we should be. So here are some numbers:

In France, in the last two years, there have been 8 attacks for which responsibility was claimed by Islamic Extremist Terrorists, killing a total of 247 people. There are 66,000,000 people in France. At the current level of activity, their odds of being killed in a terrorist attack in a given year are less than two ten-thousandths of one per cent. That’s 27 times lower than their odds of dying in a car accident.

Even if the current level of attacks continues for 80 years (which would be unprecedented), a child born today in France would have only one percent of a one percent chance of being killed in one.

In Turkey, the probability is lower. 194 people killed in attacks since the start of 2015, with a population of 80,000,000 gives each one of them a roughly one ten-thousandth of one percent chance of being killed in one, in any given year.

In Iraq, the numbers are much worse. Iraq, of course, is in enmeshed in the horror of a full-on civil war in which tens of thousands have lost their lives, so this kind of analysis is both trickier and seems a little moot. But still, we have to recognize that there have been at least 13 terror attacks in Iraq on civilian populations since the start of 2015, killing more than 650 people. Even away from the front-line of the civil war, ISIS’s victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. Even in Iraq though, your odds of being caught in one of these attacks are less than one in a hundred thousand.

Reducing these deaths to numbers and comparing them to traffic fatalities might seem callous. After all, a car crash doesn’t mean to kill anyone. These people were attacked, the targets of deliberate, violent intent, and that makes a difference. Moreover, none of this will be any comfort whatsoever to a mother in Nice whose child was murdered last night, nothing I can say would be. Before those grieving, I am left in dumbstruck, useless, sympathetic horror, as we all are.

But I think these numbers are important, for two reasons:

First: the reaction I had is exactly the reaction the perpetrators of these atrocities want. They rely on us feeling bombarded by the news. They want us to feel besieged. They want us to feel at risk. They want us afraid. It’s called terrorism after all. Understanding the limitations of their ability to hurt us helps, in some small way, to frustrate their aim.

Second: There is no reason, none whatsoever, to believe that ISIS and other terrorist groups are holding back. They are killing this many of us precisely because this is as many of us as they can kill. And the reason for that is straightforward: there aren’t very many of them. Despite all we hear about radicalisation and recruitment and schoolchildren travelling to Syria to train and fight with them, here, in our cities and our communities, their numbers pale in comparison to our own. They want us to believe they are widespread amongst the Muslim members of our communities, but they simply aren’t. If they were, they’d be killing a lot more of us.

These numbers stack the odds heavily in our favour, and the only way in which we can abandon that advantage is to make more terrorists. ISIS understand that, and that is very much what they are trying to make us do.

There is a phrase that we’re likely to hear over the next days and weeks, and it’s a phase that should scare the shit out of anyone who hears it: ‘Something must be done.’ It was uttered before the UK Parliament voted to join a bombing campaign in Syria. An act which achieved essentially nothing of any military value, as any worthwhile targets were already being hit by the Americans, but handily signed our name to the inevitable civilian casualties that ISIS use to recruit allies over here.

I’m not trying to tell anyone how to feel, especially not someone living in Baghdad through the middle of a civil war with the front line only a couple of hundred miles away. I have no idea what that’s like. I don’t have any right to legislate those feelings. All I can do, all my work trains me to do, is to provide some perspective on the facts that might change them.

We’re shocked, and afraid and angry, of course we are. That’s a human reaction to attacks like these, and shocked, afraid, angry people want to strike back, to punish those who hurt us and banish the helplessness we feel at being so randomly targeted. But if we do that — and this is tough to accept but that doesn’t make it any less true — as a matter of mathematics, we make things worse.

Sometimes all you can do that will actually help is tend the wounded, bury the dead, comfort the grieving, smile at your neighbour and do your best to live as you always have done. If you live in a country that’s been targeted like this, the terrorists are fighting a battle for your mind, don’t give it to them. Hopefully, in resisting them, the numbers help .

In reply to Roadrunner5:


The answer can be "both", that he was unbalanced and struggling with sexuality AND heavily influenced by Islamist ideology.

In reply to David Martin:


True, if about extremists willing and wanting to engage in "a martyrdom operation". Not true if we're talking about people who strongly sympathise with Islamist extremism but who don't want to get killed.

It is said that the IRA numbered only about 100 active members (available for terrorist operations) at any one time. But they had tens of thousands of sympathisers in the wider community, and that ensured a sufficient flow of recruits.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's something that I know has been discussed for years in the terrorism research community but in the specific case of the Orlando shooting, he actually seemed to understand very little about 'Islamist ideology' considering in the recent past he didn't seem to get the difference between Shia and Sunni radical groups. Nihilistic violence seems quite attractive to many young men of diverse backgrounds.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



That is too bold and too provocative a statement not to ask for some decent evidence. How do you know they have lots of supporters? To say lots of people "strongly sympathise" with the extremism is hugely controversial, and would be strongly refuted by the vast majority of the Muslim community. This is exactly the kind of statement that causes division and resentment from that community - the insinuation that lots of people support this kind of thing.

In reply to David Martin:

Great post, thanks.

In reply to David Martin:

Hope you dont mind but I've shared that

In reply to andyfallsoff:

There have been a number of high profile opinion polls taken in the UK and internationally over the years - they used to ask about support for AQ although that's yesterday's news now so no one seems interested anymore, so now they have to ask about IS. Some have found relatively high levels of passive support, but when this sort of stuff was my day job, I don't remember any of these surveys ever not being questioned in terms of methodology, sample size, or what the answers really meant etc.

Coel might be able to give you a recent survey he is relying on for his statements, but chances are someone will also be objecting to it for some reason.

In reply to TobyA:

If he had the sense of self loathing which can come from believing one is fundamentally flawed and wrong (unpicking the messages absorbed in society about being gay can be hard enough, without the burden of 'sin' being put on top of that by being religious too), I can start to guess how he mightn't have cared too much about being shot and killed by the police after him attacking the Orlando night club, or not have felt like he'd cared. If he'd absorbed since childhood from his Dad and religion that how he felt deep down was wrong, his personality may have felt fractured, I heard a psychologist put it in the layman's terms of him probably having experienced what would have felt like a fractured personality, and that he'd have been feeling a great amount of internal conflict. Poor sod - really.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


First, I made no claim along those lines. I didn't say that "lots of people strongly sympathise with the extremism". My point was refuting the logic of the previous post. You cannot draw conclusions about the number who "strongly support but don't want to die for the cause" from the numbers who strongly support and do want to die in a terrorist incident.

Second, a recent poll put the number of supporters of ISIS violence at 4% of British Muslims. Which doesn't sound much until you realise that it adds up to 100,000 people. But then you'd get about 4% agreeing with anything in a poll, so maybe it isn't reliable. A larger 15% had "some sympathy" with ISIS.

If you ask, more generally, about attitudes that would be regarded as extreme if held by anyone else**, then you get very high levels of extremism in the Islamic community. Large numbers want Sharia law to supersede British law. A majority want homosexuality to be illegal. Half think that gay people should not be school teachers. Many support blasphemy and apostasy being criminal offences. Only one third would report suspected terrorists to the police. 40% believe that a woman should always obey their husband. A third refuse to condemn the stoning of women for adultery.

[**And if you adopt a different standard for "extreme" views for Muslims than for others than you're in danger of what Maajid Nawaz calls the "bigotry of low expectations".]

In reply to Timmd:

There's a big difference though Tim in internalising all of that possible hostility, loathing, negativity that one may be exposed to when younger and setting out to murder in cold blood. I am a psychologist and may just be too old and tarred these days but I've never seen any reliable connection to those kind of experiences and heartless cold blooded murder...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


We don't know, he was a disturbed young male

In the US we get mass murders by disturbed young males on an almost weekly basis. We make more of them if we can attribute another cause, white extremism, Islamic terrorism..

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm not saying extremists aren't an issue at all but we have to tackle other social issues.

We've got a time bomb in the Uk with out Muslim prison population increasing.

I think any approach has to look at mental health, integration, criminal reforms and prisons and tackling hate preachers and further out ISIS.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

What poll was that?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The survey you totally misquote seems to be the latest 'Survation' telephone poll of 1003 British muslims.

The bit you refer to is:

"I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria£ 5%
"I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria£ 15%

It is a very vague sort of question which the respondents could have interpreted in a million ways, and doesn't really mean the respondents "support ISIS violence".

Interestingly though:

"When we polled the remainder of the British population in March, 4% of non-Muslims expressed a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria, and 9% expressed some sympath,

So what's the beef with that? 4% of non-muslim Brits support ISIS violence? 2 and a half million Brits supporting ISIS violence because, what? The queen? The tea with milk and no sugar? It can't be Islam, as they are non-muslims, and it can't be because it's a shitty badly worded poll that you misinterpreted to make it match your own personal views, so what is it then? Because of Corbyn is my guess, as we can;t really blame migrants for this one either...

http://survation.com/new-polling-of-british-muslims/

In reply to TobyA:


The main one I was using was the ICM poll in 2015. E.g. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That ICM poll says, from what i gathered from articles as the data is incomprehemsible for me, that 1% sympathize with "something" about terrorism (couldn't find the actual question), and 3 % have some sympathy, so not the numbers you stated above.

I couldn't find the results from the control group of non-muslims. If you find it i'd be interested to know what that is

In reply to Mr Lopez:
For those numbers I was quoting from the above survation survey, which (quoting them):

``A clear majority of British Muslims, 71%, say they have ``no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria''. 5% had ``a lot of sympathy'' and 15% had ``some sympathy''.''

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It seems that survey was intentionaly misleading though. Clicking on the "view full tables" link the very first page coming up says it was comissioned by The Sun, and a quick google shows the paper used that survey pretty much in a similar vein and got a roasting for it.

The story from the guy who did the survey http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-conducted-the-muslim-poll-the-sun-jihadi-s...

And the slap The Sun got http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/ipso-sun-british-muslims-story-head...

In reply to David Martin:

Wonderful post from your friend. Thanks for sharing!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

one apparent difference between your and mr lopez's stats is that one is sympathy with young muslims leaving the UK to join fighters in syria, and the other one is do you have sympathy for terrorism. you might think some fighters in syria aren't terrorists, or have sympathy for young guys joining terrorist organisations, but have no sympathy for terrorism.

In reply to Donald82:

Apparently there's a coup going on in Turkey . . . hasn't the world got rather "interesting" (though desperately tragic as well) in the last month or so?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

i suppose it has. on a positive note. last time we had really big economic problems, the response of governments was rubbish and then we had a massive world war. this time the response of governments was rubbish but the chance of a massive war is teeny. progress.

In reply to Simon4:
....medieval dessert death cult...

A trifle unfortunate that typo... though at least it added a surreal slant to an otherwise distasteful rant.

In reply to Simon4:

Hi Si4,

I have five questions for you.

Is your name code for a code?

How should we compare and contrast Irish terrorism with the death cult terror happening in France?

How should we, Europe, react to this?

What are your thoughts on the post above regarding the vanishingly small chance of being killed by a terrorist?

What are your thoughts about branding all Muslims death cultists?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I thought the sexuality angle had been discounted?

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/authorities-no-evidence-orlando-sh...

In reply to Big Ger:

Is that the same as discounted?

In reply to Donald82:

Unless further evidence comes forward, yes.

In reply to Big Ger:

I don't think they know, his ex wife (yeah not reliable) and others came out saying otherwise and he had visited there lots.

But absence of proof isn't proof of absence. We just don't know.

Likewise direct links between many of these people and ISIS is weak.

But he was also a long term steroid user (your link and others). Both these killers have had mental health issues.

Likewise Jo Cox's killer.

I don't doubt the hate speech spouted is dangerous but that doesn't mean (which I'm sure you agree with in your line of work (as I understand it)) that we should not be increasing efforts to assist mental health programs.

In reply to Big Ger:


It really isn't..

That isn't how science works.

You provide evidence for or against.

In reply to Roadrunner5:








It's rather lovely to be in full agreement mate

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Why is he still on these forums anyway, surely his racists/abusive rants have no place here.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Can't agree with that sentiment, Rom. Others have challenged Simon on the content of his post. Much prefer that to suggestions that than his views be edited out of public discourse.

Religions, including their origins, political manifestations and impact on societies must be fair game for robust debate. If that crosses a line, as it will inevitably, then I think that should be met by challenging the views, not silencing them.

I would say the timing of such a debate is probably left for a while, this close to such events is probably not the best to get a useful exchange of views

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Well it depends, hate speech and inviting racial hatred is different matter and has nothing to do with reasonable debate, and that's a line he crossed many times on these forums, sometimes directed at specific posters and their origins as well.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Indeed it is. And can be dealt with by the full force of the law. If you really think that's what's on display here, then there are more important things you could do than reply to me about it.

FWIW, I don't think it is myself; on the contrary it appears to have stimulated a debate on another thread, with thought provoking contributions from a number of posters. (Though not from Simon- the drive by nature of his diatribes don't do him any favours). Shut down Simon, and views like his, and you reduce the space for such debate- but you don't make views like his, and ones much more unpleasant, go away.

Anyway, given that there is another thread debating this very issue, would seem appropriate to end the hijack of this one.

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Stimulated the debate ? Mostly people stating the obvious in response to his repetitive hate-filled rants.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Far from it- coel and Donald are saying very different things, for example, neither of their positions seems 'obviously' correct, and there is clearly a discussion to be had.

None of which should be interpreted as me supporting simon's position as articulated- my first post on this thread should make that clear. I don't accept that preventing such views being expressed is a helpful way forward, tthough.

Anyway, happy to continue this on the other channel, but will be later on,

Cheers

Gregor