blonde poker forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7935679.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7935679.stm)

already on the whinge thread!!!

It should be allowed.  That's what the soldiers were fighting for.

As Voltaire said:  "I detest yourviews, but am prepared to die for your right to express them."

what? after serving their country they should come home to that ???????????????

u r joking right?

I think it's distasteful, and that they're wrong.  But you said "it shouldn't be allowed."  I was disagreeing with that.

the protests shouldnt be allowed.


are you saying the protest should be allowed?

Yes.  What are you saying?

Are you saying it shouldn't?

fight fight fight

I would also say that you have the right to protest at their protest. 

I am saying that no fecking way should the protests be allowed.

these men have gone through a hell of a time out there and should not have to put up with that shite when they are on a homecoming march.

protests are fine but time and place..

Like it or not, we live in a free country, a democracy & things like protests are allowed!!

+1

What do u want cia, a country that does not allow freedom of speech

So what do you suggest.  We suppress people's right to peaceful protest if they disagree with your point of view?

So a compromise would be, a protest should be allowed. But not at that point in time?

Like I said, their protest is distasteful and an insult to the soldiers.  But there are lots of things I find distasteful, and lots of things I do that others might find distasteful.  

Who decides when?  In 2056?  Next Tuesday?  Suppression of the freedom of speech is the suppression of the freedom of speech.  I don't think you can put a timescale on it.

not at all

but i dont approve of this bollox when its just planned to incite and provoke just like it has like i said at that time

There's no atmosphere at football games without some away fans.

I have a committee that could do the job.

not quite the same thing though

What if the home team have just come back from a tricky european away tie?

Very few DO approve, but "approve", & "should not be allowed" are very different things.

Heaven help us if we are not allowed to air our views, as distasteful as they may be.

Time and place though surely

it was the perfect time and place for the protesters if they wanted publicity. 

It's a shame it happened at all, the soldiers had a tough time but were sent there by politicians, they are the ones who should bear the brunt of the anger. I can't see how it's right, however, to disallow the protest. As it happens, it's worse in the States, I understand, they have protests when bringing the dead back.

doesn't strike me as the best idea ever to have a parade of soldiers returning from a conflict that the public were so against and which saw such huge protests as the soldiers left

well looks like im on me own again on this 1 no surprise gg wp

thats whats good about this country, nobody has to agree with anybody else

Nobody is out to get you or cut you down.  Honest.  My brother is in the US Marines and I think it's sweet that you feel so strongly in favour of soldiers.  However, that's the reason the Lads and Ladies in the forces go through what they do...so even the wankers have a say.  Freedom of speech is a good thing, but sometimes it bites.

you arent alone ian, plenty in luton felt the same believe me and protested very heavily against the protesters

And if we want to protest, we can. And if we don't agree with the protest, we can disagree.

You can't suppress peoples views!

We all think our Armed Services deserve all the support we can gve them, but if folks don't, they are entitled to say. The protest, of course, was not against the soldiers as such, but aginst the Government for getting involved, at the behest of the USA.

TBH that's one thing I'm beyond sick of hearing...'We were there but it wasn't out fault.  USA made us.'  BS if ya ask me.  The UK is full of elected officials too.  They took the stance they felt necessary and the UK public weren't thrilled about it any more than a good many of the US public were thrilled with their own government.

/end rant

The soldiers should have been allowed to turn their guns on them imo

Obscene - without a doubt

To die for - Not so much

I think you should be more 'outraged' at what is happening in Guantanamo bay rather than soldiers having their feelings hurt.

Torture > Feelings imo

You have the right to get peeved about what you want though.

hasnt guantanamo bay been closed? whats going on there now then ffs?

Great idea to parade soldiers through Luton..

they were local soldiers, bedfordshire regiment

I know. But it's LUTON.

No, torture.

so just cos its a volatile area it shouldnt be allowed?

In fact the US has more torture carried out by proxy on other countries' soil than it carries out at Guantanomo.  Obama's move to close it is a step forward, but it's a very small step on a very long road.

FYP

The greatest Post Flushy has ever made - word-perfect, from my perspective.

I've never attended a public protest in my entire life, but I'd seriously consider doing so (if I thought public protests achieved anything, but they do not) Protesting against G-Bay.

I'm afraid the obsceneties of the G-Bay story will slowly unravel, the torture which we (UK) knew of, but turned a blind eye to, & when the horrors unfold, the net result wil be a huge increase in anti-Western feelings. Then we will have a huge bill to pay, & eveyone will wish the torture, to which most seem apathetic, never happened.

Guantanamo isn't the be all and end all of the US's policy on torture.

Have a read of this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nairn01262009.html

No no, it should be allowed. But  it was not "advisable", all things considered.

We are getting crossed lines between what should be allowed, what we do or don't agree with, & what is "sensible". They are different things.

Parading homecoming Soldiers, just back from Irag, through Luton, is sheer provocation. But, 100%, it SHOULD be "allowed".

GIQ rules.

Out of sight,out of mind

Don't wish to go on my own little rant here but recent media stories about a certain someone has really pissed me off,yeah it's a shame that someone's dying but ffs someones dying in africa every fukn couple seconds so I ain't going to insult there hardship by feeling sorry for one person who i don't know.Oh well guess i couldn't help it.

Everyone seems to be forgetting to end their posts with the word "FACT" in upper case, therefore rendering their opinions less valid. FACT.

!

Wow, with respect, but that sentence sums up what is wrong with society as a whole in these times ... Don't parade British Soldiers who have just returned from a tour of duty in a war zone through British streets in case you upset people ... while you are at it, please don't wave the union flag either, we wouldnt want to upset some poor sensitive souls.

Bullshit, British men and women are doing a job of work in very difficult circumstances, putting their lives at risk daily for less money than a call centre worker ... Parade them around the streets of every fkin town and city in the country imo.

And those that protest should be made to leave their cosy homes with central heating and 42" plasma TV's and spend 1 month on tour with the regiment and see what they do.

You added that after i ranted .... Changes the whole tone of the post ... sigh :)

Premature retaliation.

excellent post kev

I did not change it after you ranted - your "rant" was 20 minutes subsequent. My Post ALWAYS said "it should be allowed".

My views in this thread have been consistent throughout & everyone is trying the emotional "oh, you can't say that, they are our brave Soldiers".

Which completely misses the, & my, point.

The OP says it should not be allowed. He is wrong. The Law says so, decent people say so, democracy says so, society says so. That's not to say we all agree.

For those struggling, yes, I have 100% respect for our brave servicemen & women. And zero for the idiot Politicians who sent them to war in Iraq.

The Soldiers who Paraded in Luton won't be fussed. They had far worse than insults lobbed at them in Iraq.

I don't believe you have read my Post properly.

Our Soldiers are great, I agree with you 100%, & never said otherwise, but you are implying the contrary.

It's provocative, & not sensible. But it should be allowed. That was the OP's question, & that is my answer.

I'm struggling to se how saying "it should be allowed" (that's the Law), gets put down as a lack of gratitude to our Armed Services.

yes they did but not by people who live on british soil and whose rent is more often than not paid for by the soldiers taxes!

Conveniently omitting the start of my Post, which said "no no, it should be allowed"?

yes they did but not by people who live on british soil and whose rent is more often than not paid for by the soldiers taxes!

Quoted for posterity. That's a purler!

Same thing happened to my Uncle after Vietnam. Regardless of what people may or may not think of the War or governments actions we should support those that put their lifes on the line.

public sector workers do not pay income tax

DUCY? :)

Yes, we should.

Our Servicemen defend our Country, fight for peace, & the right to free speech. 

Which makes the views of several Posters somewhat Heller-esque.

glad u like  ;D

is this correct?

I don't recall saying I liked it - but it did have my eyes rolling.

but why claim it is" sheer provacation" when the soldiers are paraded in luton?

your a funny guy tony a real funny guy

I find it sad though the right of freedom of speech doesnt always work both ways

excatly just like rascism doesnt work both ways

They should be able to march where they like anyone who thinks it's acceptable for this kind of treatment in their own country is wrong I don't care what area it's in. The squaddies had every right to smash shit out of protesters.

The only reason they protest is to inflame tensions between countries, religions. They want attention and people to start calling for Muslims to leave this country. The protestors would be rubbing their hands with glee at some of the replys to this thread and the overreactions.

yes but tikay who keeps telling us its the right of someone who lives in a free country sees it as "sheer provacation" to march in luton.

that statement is wrong.

now i will retire from this thread before due to "sheer provacation" i am banned  ;)

i bet if there was a march through Luton by the locals and some white british people protested they would all be classed as racists and all be arrested or beaten by the other locals, but there would be outrage at how the whites had acted.

1) It should be allowed.

2) It's provocative.

Please explain why those two views are not compatible.

Lol, who are public sector workers paid by, who collects income tax.

QED.

They still pay it.

Apart from anything else there's quite a small section of public sector workers who collect income tax - and even they still pay it.

EDIT: is that not like saying if you get 100% rakeback you don't pay rake ???

thank you jon i thought i was going mad, my partner works in the public sector but still pays tax, thought she was missing out here somehow lol

1963  Civil Rights March on Washington

Civil disobedience movements in the US, India and South Africa

'Solidarity' protests and strikes in Poland 1980

The 'Peaceful Revolution' in East Germany in 1989

I could go on...


None of these protests achieved anything?

How would it be viewed on armistice day in whitehall if there was a protest by neo-nazi's/radical Muslims and any other radical political group, would the protest be allowed? no i don't think so.

or if there was a remembrance day for the Holocaust victims and the same groups wanted to protest that it didn't happen would that be allowed to go on again i don't think so.

But with freedom of speech they should be allowed inflammatory or not

FWIW I said in my OP that these type of protests shouldn't be allowed as they are just inflammatory and a bit of common sense prevailing wouldn't be a bad thing IMO but we are in a country where free speech IS allowed and i accept that and have never tried to stop it... but it is rightly or wrongly my opinion

like i said previously right time right place,

I remember recently  a thread was removed regarding Jade goody and also 1 that I started (did i do wrong?) but surely these were being used as a tool of freedom of speech as well?????? although being a current emotive subject that the mods decided was not in the best interest of the "forum " they were removed....

Conceded entirely, though the examples you quite are rarities.

But to protest about a retrospective matter - people were tortured, won't change that, though, it's prob fair to say, may stop it happening again.

But yes, point conceded.

Off to get me some Protest Banners now. Just gotta find the right thing to protest about first. ;)

Err.....they were NOT removed - either of them - because they were "emotive"!

can you explain the difference to me between a soldier getting a payslip from the government saying

we have paid you 2K and taken back 500

and

we have paid you 1500

it's just smoke and mirrors isn't it?

You have the right to freedom of speech, but you cannot demand that someone provides a platform for you to express it.

How many people protested?  How long were they there for?  If the media hadn't given them coverage would any of us have been aware of their protest, and would we be debating it now?  Why did the media focus so much on this?  Why aren't there more stories of bravery of our soldiers, how about the achievements and the positive things that have come about through the presence of the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq?  Why don't we hear these things in the news?

Like the fact Ross Kemp doesn't try to act any more.

Army pays

Inland Revenue takes.

Different budgets.

They're not that rare, I chose the most successful and highest profile protests to make a point, but there have been many more.

In this country the Poll tax was defeated by public protest in 1990, and even protests that do not achieve their aim so successfully raise public consciousness and make repetitions of injustice more unlikely.

i said the subject was emotive..

Yes, I know. And I said that was NOT the reason they were removed.

I think kinboshi is spot on.

There seems an agenda in the news media in this country to stir up racial tensions wherever possible.




I find it sad though that the freedom of speech doesn't always work both ways.

This implies that there are only two ways to see things, our way and their way.
It's us and them is it?
Bit reductive is it not?

There were protests on armistice day, there are every year.
The newspapers don't tend to cover them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158970/BNP-shot-uses-POLISH-Spitfire-anti-immigration-campaign.html

There's a lot of irony in that article, the fact it's in the Mail is a huge part of it.

right me of i am wrong but isnt it a british plane piloted by poles?

I think that's been highlighted in the comments, but it doesn't really change the story.

It just emphasises the fact that journalists aren't that bright a bunch either.

this is something i think we can all agree on

but then again

its not us and them at all.
I just happen to think the right of freedom of speech can become a grey area on some subject matters
 

The word both implies there are only two points of view.

its better than one point of view

Not if that one is correct.

Sandy

I'm completely lost now tbh.

http://maps.google.co.uk/

A second point of view.

www.multimap.com

Why do you need a second point of view when the other was correct?


Craig

Agree Kev
 
Infact Jack Nicholson said it best in a few Good men.

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

It turned out well for Jack in that one...

Your not wrong.

He did make a very valid point though.  Some of us may not like what is done or how things are accomplished BUT if you enjoy the freedom these young men and women provide & you did sod all to help or change the way It was done, don't complain after the fact.

Pick up a gun and guard your post or stop fucking giving the forces grief.

He was trying to justify the manslaughter of one of own men...

Sure did. Plenty of cash and no doubt a higher fee for the next film.

Sandy

bugger was just about to post that Jacks monologue wasn't the best example to use. The officers he was criticising were, in effect, protecting the other ranks facing the same fate as Santiago.

i know, but it does not make the point any less valid in this instance,

You want freedom / national protection against terrorists [ ]

You want to change the way your freedom / country is defended [ ]

You want to complain about the way your freedom / country is protected and have done sod all to help and contribute other than enjoy that which is protected  [ x ]

computing .......................................................................



Pick up a gun and help or keep your trap shut




Its that simple as i see it, and that the way i see Jacks argument in the movie, I you want change that's fine, but do more than complain, go experience , understand and change from within.

You can't protect peoples rights and freedoms by denying them rights and freedoms.

If you think the armed forces out in Iraq were sent to protect our freedom then you're very much mistaken.

Afghanistan has more of a valid argument for protecting Britons from harm, but still, it's hardly D-Day.

By that token, anything the milatary do is ok. If they burn down, rape and pillage 100 villages/day, we can still say nothing.

Only options are to shut up, or pick up a gun and join in the gang bang?

So if you're a doctor saving lives - you still have no right to say anything - and to gain this right you have to go and kill people?

I never said deny anyone anything, I said if you want to complain then do it in the right way with the right experience and working knowledge of what is REALLY going on.

I for one am against the current conflicts in the middle east, would i campaign or tell people not to fight the conflict in a certain way?  would I protest against someone doing their job and a service for their country?  No because i don't know whats happened over there, i never lived it, I am tainted by the news media and i don't have a complete understanding of all the facts. i.e. who's being tortured for whatever to save xx many lives.

Let look at this from a different angle,

Parking wardens issue tickets like sweets at a funfare, I have yet to see anyone picketing town and city halls to put a stop to them and they are detested nationally!


These men and women put their lives at risk fighting a war in a far off land for a pittance and they come home to abuse?  Sorry, i think the people protesting should look at who they should direct their attentions to. Also I wonder how many of the people protesting has a credible understanding of what exactly was going on over there that gives them the justification to protest against someone doing their job.


Imagine going to work as a poker pro and as you power up the computer when suddenly 100 anti Gambling activists started hurling abuse and protesting outside your house.

You would tell them to STFU and get a life.

No i'd shit myself and move house

rotflmfao

I can't remember seeing a victory parade by traffic wardens celebrating their return home from dishing out tickets to errant drivers. If there were, there might be protests.

I once went on a victory parade to the offy after winning a $20 rebuy.

There were no protests.

Blimey.  Glad I went shopping today.  And I hate shopping!

Yes, but that was not the question. The queston in the OP was should these protests be allowed!

The fact that some of us believe that it's our right to protest, & have free speech, does not mean, & never did, that we are not as grateful & respectful to our Armed Forces as we should be, & as you are.

I'm not sure why so many are struggling with those two views. They are not incompatible, not at all. They sit quite comfortably, side by side, in my mind.

Being fair though Tony, I believe ( i could be wrong ) that protesting does indeed have a time and place.  Although I cant see what the protest was about, Did they not want the soldiers home?  if not send them back for another tour.... so when they come home they get abuse for following orders.

Like i said a few posts back they should have redirected that protest to where it would serve a purpose.

The regiment that just came home were taking verbal abuse from what i could see, All that's happend here is the wrong people got the brunt of a groups views.

As for protests, I think yeah go for it, but organise it, don't do it when I am in traffic and please keep the noise down this is supposed to be a civilised country, shouting only hurts people ears.

Tony,

I have been watching this thread as you'd expect, and had a mind not to entertain it with comment. There are many valid points from all who have posted and I have no gripes with any other than your "provocation" comment.

You sir, have insulted the troops more than any with this despicable comment.

A wee bit of background for you.

All Infantry Regiments are linked to their recruiting areas, the areas that have provided men & boys to serve within these Regiments for hundredes of years. 2 Royal Anglian (The Poachers) are recruited largely from this area and as such have been awarded the freedom of various Boroughs/Cities/Towns, one of which is Luton.

Part of this honour of the freedom of the burghs (which would have been bestowed on the Regiment many years ago) is that the Regiment can march freely through the town.

All Regiments do this from time to time and excercise their right to march through these burghs/cities who have graciously bestowed this honour on them.

They do this in order to thank the local people/family/friends for their support when on operations. Much of this support comes from others who, like many of us, are against certain operations.

So to say that their march through their home town which was a thank you to all who have supported them is "provocative" I truly find beyond belief.

"Lets not thank the majority because the minority may be offended" what utter tosh.

Geo

I think that's fair comment Geo, but the comment was not "insulting", because, by definition, insults have to be intended, & they are not insults unless they are. You can interpret my words however you wish, but it won't change the meaning.
And you well know it was not my intention to insult our Troops.

The OP stated a "FACT" that protests should not be allowed. That is not a fact at all. Protests ARE allowed.

We might not like them - I certainly did not like this one - but we can't change facts just because we disapprove of them.

Ban OP imo :D

Thanks for that Geo. Educational.
My, how the world has changed

Can I protest against that?

Of cause, Blonde is free

So is Willy

Oi get back to work answering ya pms

Your PM's are sooooooooooooo boring .... anyway, Floppy has taught me how to ignore people  ;nana;

ban on tikay imo  ;D ;)

Tikay's post was sheer provocation, but it should be allowed.

sorry my bad. i thought you were blondecardroom manager . ;nana;

Vicious rumour mate ... I am cardroom mangler :)

Is this not something of a storm in a teacup ?

The newspapers would make it appear that there was some kinda mass demo but in truth it was a tiny number of people who were protesting - it is possible that they had family members in Afghanistan or Iraq that had been killed - maybe not but it's possible.

I honestly don't really know what we are doing in Afghanistan ..or Iraq. I do know a by-product of our presence is many innocent deaths - if some people feel they want to protest that, I think that's entirely fair and reasonably moral too - there isn't only one side to this imo.

Writing "Anglian Soldiers go to Hell" on placards isnt entirely fair and reasonably moral imo

True - but our army has it's share of psychopaths who revel in arcade game like butchery - not entirely moral or heroic either

MI5/MI6 at their very best.

[ ] I think you're wrong
[ ] I also think that the media doesn't have its own agenda

[  ] The media aren't manipulated by spooks and securiocrats.

'Tis true, but they also have their own agenda on top of that.

ohh ffs, lets hand out tinfoil hats

Wp Byron another level succesfully pulled off.

Edit: Lol delteaments to make my post non-sensical.

Forgot about this thread, good read.

Anyone who has served is obviously going to find it hard to be subjective in this debate, in the same way that anyone who has had a family member or friend killed by the army is going to find it hard.

British people should be allowed to protest against British troops if they think that the British Army has committed what amount to war crimes (and i don't think anyone deny's that things have gone on that shouldn't have) i personally would rather see the eradication of this sort of element from the Army rather than have a go at those who bring it to national attention.

I am far too lazy an apathetic to go to a protest/parade but with regards to the invasion forces in Iraq i would more likely protest at the army than stand by and wave flags as it walks by.

Maybe just maybe these protestors got their date and place wrong and were in FACT wishing to protest against the Double Glazing Company that fitted their windows

 ;marks;

Tony i have never said that protests should not be allowed.I said that this protest shouldn't be allowed with a view to supporting our troops instead of having them put up with the vile tirade of abuse as they did,

As i said a time and place but we do live in a democracy and i DO accept that the protest went ahead with the support of the police and that there wasnt anything illegal with the protest

 maybe I am wrong in my view and that wouldnt be a 1st but it is my view and you have yours and we are all entilted to them.
Agreed i used the word FACT in the OP but this was just for impact more than anything else.

Err.......that kinda changes your position then!

You said "they should not be allowed - FACT".

Which was my whole basis for debating.

So you are saying they should be allowed, yes?

I was in Luton last night, & this Protest was on everyone's lips.

Luton, for those who are not familiar, is very much a multi-racial area, with a high concentration of Italians, Asians, & East Europeans.

It was pretty sickening to hear all the ""these bloody people come here, la de da" sort of comments at the Table, while the Lithuanian Dealer just sat there, Dealing, but taking it all in. Ugh.

Can't you let a man quietly surrender his principles with a little dignity Tikay?

sheesh, got to dance around in victory huh

Racist fukwits no more no less.

No,

 i am saying they should not be allowed,(the protest against the troops when returning from a tour and marching through their hometown to a tirade of abuse)

Of course protests and demonstrations are a fundamental principle of the modern world but this incident was not IMO right time right place

what  i am saying that in my opinion this type of demo shouldn't be allowed but understand that the way the law is that there isn't anything i can do to change it.

hope this clarifies

CIA - you're in a hole.

Dig up.

I agree it was dreadful, the abuse the Servicemen got.

But Protesting is allowed, it's part of our way of life, & by their very natrure, Protests tend to be hostile. You don't get much "ra ra, well done chaps" at Protests. That's reserved for Rallies.

The troops done good, we all recognize that.

The Protesters had what they saw was good reason to protest - it was their Countries which had been invaded, & they have reason to feel aggrieved.

That juxtaposition is never going to be a tea-party.

We need to see both sides of these things. Seeing both sides, & agreeing with both sides, are different things.

isnt this just a form of protest to? it was ok for the soldiers to be abused in the name of protest but the people sitting at the table discussing it in front of a lithunian dealer isnt allowed and makes them racist fuckwits?

no saying i agree with either just playing devils advocaat

Somebody put the mods on high alert  ;D ;boldie;

Sandy

I am sitting on my hands ... and going out at 4pm.

I f i stay in and type im gonna get a twatting with the ban stick :D

be careful, we won't be issuing too many Warninks

to do that i would have to ask for a spade then i would be accused of being racist


just fill it in with concrete

wasnt also british soldiers that were being abused so have not the brits at your poker table last night the right to feel aggrieved?

it isnt there country no more, they choose to live here nobody makes them.

 ;hattip;  lol

lol very good please excuse my awful spelling but you know what i mean

Good idea - comments like that should be Verpoorten on here.

The Protesters had what they saw was good reason to protest - it was their Countries which had been invaded, & they have reason to feel aggrieved.


[/quote]

I thought this was their Country?

Brilliant!

I thought this was their Country?
[/quote]

It is.

Trying desperately not to get involved with this thread, but have now failed

It is.

Trying desperately not to get involved with this thread, but have now failed
[/quote]

so was there own troops they were abusing not there own country being invaded?  ive got a headache lol

Racism is illegal, thank God.

these bloody people come here, la de da"

that is not a racist comment, no more so than some of the banners the protesters were holding at the protest or the abuse they were openly screaming at the soldiers

People can protest as much as they want tbh, but making comments about 'our country' and 'them living here' only highlights those that are both uneducated on the matter and have a racist slant to their nature. At least we know where people stand when they come out with shite. It's the silent ones we should be carful of :)

Also saying it in a poker room full of turds who think the same is not really putting your neck out there is it. Maybe they felt like bonding.

It is.

Trying desperately not to get involved with this thread, but have now failed
[/quote]

blame the old codger for protesting at my view

shit ageism there is  that illegal?

I must have a blind spot, because I fail to see why that comment would cause angst.

If your Country  - or Mother Country, if we wish to be pedantic - was invaded, you'd have reason to feel aggrieved.

That's not to say I agree, or disagree, like, or disliike, or they are right, or wrong, it's just a statement of fact.

I thought this was their Country?
[/quote]

I would presume they would have family living in such countries that our soldiers are fighting a war against for oil where there have been uncountable innocent victims.IMHO of course

PS Obviously not saying that it's the soldiers fault,they just go were they're told

were you there?do u know what was said or just guessing?

Wow, brilliant!

i was in luton at the time of the protest and can assure you the "shit" coming out of the protesters mouths were far worse than anything tikay may have heard at the table last night.

but thats ok they were protesting

reverse racism at its best

I thought it was obvious that you'd draw comment and indeed that has happened.

Can you imagine if Arnie Schwarzenegger referred to Austria as his country at a political rally ?

Sandy

There's not much oil in Afghanistan

not many saloons in the uk but you still wear a cowboy hat ;-)

Freedom of speech has long since past under the Labour goverment, only recentley the Dutch Mp Geert Wilders who produced a short film on Islam was denied entry to the country. His film may be controversial but if hes banned from even getting past customs how come its ok for those idiots in Luton.

"Wilders branded the British Government “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe” after he flew in to Heathrow yesterday and was promptly put on the first plane back."

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician [the UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch]. I am a democrat. I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech. They are more Chamberlain than Churchill," said Wilders."

"The MP had been invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film at the House of Lords by Lord Pearson. The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid, and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead regardless."

Now a certain Lord Ahmed has been quoted as saying these protests in Luton were fine...O RLY when it suits you obv!

"A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Wilders’ opinions with him."

"Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place last Thursday was cancelled. But after several hours of discussions on freedom of speech the event was placed back on."

"Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistan press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”

So no the protests in Luton were not ok!

Sorry Sandy, I really do have a blind spot here, & I can't see the Arnie analogy, either.

Excelent!

Great thread.

Again here is some more freedom of speech this time by the Australian prime minister:

'Immigrants not Australians must learn to adapt take it or leave it. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'.

'We speak mainly English, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is our country, our land, and our lifestyle, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then leave. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Good speech imo!

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a US politician and his nationality American. He spent his 1st 21 years in Austria (where he was born). US politicians are sworn in to office and to gain citizenship you sign up to certain criteria. One if these is :- 9.  Are attached to, and can support, the principles of the U.S. Constitution and can swear allegiance to the United States.

If he said i'm Austrian he'd probably have to give up being a politician and may have problems staying in the country.


I'll just have to let you remain in doubt over the 1st point as i don't want to indulge in the debate of rights and wrongs as it's not going to change anyones opinion as per virtually all forum "debates" i've seen on the internet don't.

Sandy

[  ] This is a speech made by the Australian Prime Minister

[ x ] This is a rant by some right wing American guy that has been poorly revised (ask yourself wtf is an Australian going on about flags and pledges for?) and wrongly attributed to Kevin Rudd all over the internet where people are a little too quick to believe everything they read.

Do you find this as equally offensive Tony?

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45552000/jpg/_45552853_parade2_226.jpg)

I certainly do.

Quality  rotflmfao

[ x ]

http://nz.messages.yahoo.com/nz-news/nz-top-stories/56124/

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/3/40587_space.html

Ofcourse its fine to condemn people who are protesting against something you feel pas ionate about. Discussing those small minority of people who did protest and condemning for their actions is natural and IMO justified.

What's not fine is making sweeping statements regarding immigrants, its irrelevant.

The way to make those protesters look incredibly stupid is to look at the situation for what it was, a handful of people who were directing their protests in a misguided way (is it really a shock that some Muslims in this country don't agree with the recent invasions?!).

BNP most probably shipped them down there to create a mass hysterical across the country and derail any adult debate about immigration there might have been.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/howard-muslim-speech.shtml

Australian.

Sandy

[  ] credible sources, they are just people who fell for it too.

I've added something to my earlier post...


[ x ] This is a rant by some right wing American guy that has been poorly revised (ask yourself wtf is an Australian going on about flags and pledges for?) and wrongly attributed to Kevin Rudd all over the internet where people are a little too quick to believe everything they read.

[ ] Surprised Sledge posted.

How's your Polish tenants BTW? :P

Hmmm, maybe...ok what about the freedom of speech for the Dutch Mp that was a joke, because a Muslim Lord threatened to get 10,000 people together!

Polish tennants are great! hes put a new fence up! but I did'nt see any Polish with vile messages in Luton? the Polish/Chinese etc have integrated into society very well, but there always seems to be the "minority" of Muslims bent on causing attacks and trouble.

Yep sadly I agree.

Yes, I certainly do, it's dreadful. I don't recall suggesting otherwise, either.

The debate was that Protests should not be allowed. Whether we like them or not, they are.

Because I can see both sides of a debate, that does not mean I agree with both, one, or neither. But you are never going to solve a problem, or coherently argue & debate, unless you can see both sides. Note "see", not "agree with".

OMG!

It really scares me that folks fall for this sort of (hoax) nonsense so easily.

There's none so blind.......

Dont believe all you read....

I also dont remember you suggesting otherwise or where I may have implied you did.
Of cause you have to "see" both sides but not agree with them. I also see both sides
By asking your opinion  on something (placard) I was merely asking that,
apologies for any confusion which may have occured

However by displaying placards stating " ANGLIAN SOLDIERS GO TO HELL" is being far more provocative than exercising the right to freedom of speech/ peaceful protest imo

Can't even spell Anglican properly - send 'em 'ome

eh?

This is the kind of comment that makes this debate so ridiculous. What minority of muslims are we talking about ? The 21 or 22 protestors, the one with the go to hell placard. The ones you don't like in your street because they don't integrate into our society ?

I don't think the Polish and Chinese have integrated very well at all. I haven't seen gangs of Polish chavs terrorising whole estates, making already miserable lives even more miserable. On the whole the polish people I've met don't run round town centres on Saturday nights turning areas into drunken no-go zones unless you want to take your shirt off, flash your tits, vomit everywhere and have a good scrap. This seems to be the preserve of mainly white, English people who are 'getting on it'.

I don't see many Polish people sitting around sucking up all the possible benefits available without any intention of ever doing a fair days work for a fair days pay.

I think they have a long way to go to integrate properly into our 'society' imo

I wish people just had the gumption to openly declare themselves prejudiced towards certain religions, races or colours - at least it's a position with some integrity

This is a sarcastic "racist" comment in itself.

This man talks sense.

some people do tbh, quite a few people on this forum have often stated their dislike for the Scots on several occasions, its accepted and we move on.

I had to laugh at the guy put in prison for 3 years for throwing a shoe at George Bush and yet these protesters rights in Luton are protected by the Police.  :D

Firstly I'd like to make clear I found the protest distasteful, I respect the job our armed service do and I thank them for doing it. I don't always agree with the politics behind some campaigns but the guys who serve in the forces deserve much better than they got yesterday. That said I am glad that I live in a country where it is safe to express views which are not shared by the majority, and where there is the freedom to openly speak out against the policies of the government of the day.

Now to another argument as to why it should be allowed which no one seems to have considered. I would argue that this sort of protest is useful to the security services. This small group have made their views known to the nation, they may or may not be genuine hardliners, they may or may not be a real threat to our nation's security, they may or may not move in circles where they encounter people who are a threat. Considering the may or may nots that I've just mentioned I'd be a bit surprised if the security services didn't at least check them out now.

[ ] Threads with FACT in the title usually pass off without incident

[ ] They needed this protest to ringfence/identify the movers and shakers

The cops, MI5/MI6, special branch etc etc have people deep in these organisations, similar to the way they do in Ireland with Republican and Loyalist organisations and the way they do on the mainland with hard left socialist and right wing extremists.  They give them so much rope, and god forbid they actually facilitate killings, operations etc to keep their operatives water tight.

The shooting of the 2 soldiers othernight and the cop for example anyone here believe that the RIRA/CIRA were capable of carrying out this attack?

[ ] Coincidence that SAS were re-deployed to Ireland last week. 

So it was Britain(in the form of MI5/6/ Special branch etc etc) who shot their own soldiers and police constable in Northern Ireland?? to get it sparked again??

(http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg)

capable of what ? shooting two unarmed men outside an army barracks ? yes I would say that is easily capable.
also, where did you hear that the SAS have been "re-deployed" to Ireland ?

Is the 'objection' that there was a protest or that it was a protest by Muslims?

I don't think anyone wants to get "sparked again".  Its all about control.

lol, the sas never left Ireland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7927178.stm

So who do you reckon shot the British Soldiers???

[ ] Your wrong.

But lets indulge the thought that they did, when the watchtowers came down and many of the barracks were removed the SAS were supposed to say Slan Abhaile as well.

The Cokes and Contos IMO aren't capable of carrying out an efficient military operation. 

Just maybe, I'm a cynic but given the fact that there has been a lot of presure on the Government of late it comes as no surprise to me that their have been orchestrated events to deflect tensions elsewhere.

I think dissident republicans were certainly behind it but I would think they were supported by their handlers.  The organisation who have claimed responsibility for it probably have more touts, MI5 operatives than they do active volunteers.

As I said above maybe I'm just a bit cynical, but this sort of stuff ic copy book.

So in your opinion; ultimately Britain/ British Government were behind it??

I would think that this has a major bearing for some.   Some people I would suggest are patriotic to the extent that they see an attack like this on the British Army as an attack on the country.

I support the right of anyone to protest, but I think the protestors, the cops and those within the councils who grant permission for protests and counter protests have to be very careful on how the police these sort of things.

Geo said earlier on in his post that the regiment who marched through Luton were local and the march was a "thank you" to the people of the are who supported the troops when they were on duty.  The local authority, obviously allowed this parade to go ahead.  I think it was irresponsible to do so, given the current climate and the present make-up of that area.  As much as I opposed the war in Iraq I acknowledge that the soldiers are entitled to a show of appreciation, but I don't think this was the correct place to do it.

[ ] The special recconaisssance regiment are the SAS.

There have been many incidents in the past few years since the GFA, shootings at police and bomb attempts. These recent incidents are high profile because people have actually died and this cannot be kept low key as the various incidents over the last couple of years have been.

Geo

I'll leave it open for people to discuss.  But I believe that their are rogue elements at work.  How high that goes I dunno mate.

nice sidestep- its ok think I've got the Gist of it(your opinion) anyway!

but giving any credence to these wild claims is at worst unhelpful, and at best a downright attempt to muddy the waters.

this was no major military operation, this was a pretty cowardly attack on two unarmed men. two men who were trying to relax before being sent to afghanistam the following day. The people who did this were no heroic freedom fighters, but more like psychopathic killers. They deserve to be remembered alongside other psychopaths like Sutcliff, Manual and brady.

In effect it is a re-org of 14 int & security (the det)

http://www.eliteukforces.info/the-det/

Whilst trained to avoid direct contact, 14 Company members were highly skilled in close quarters combat (CQB). Members become experts at using pistols (usually browning high powers or Walter PPKs), sub machine guns such as HK MP5ks, carbines (HK53) and assault rifles (G3KA4). 14 company members were taught how to employ their weapons from within vehicles as part of anti-ambush drills. It was not uncommon for det operatives to have an extra pistol - often another browning hp with extended 20 round magazine - stowed within easy reach in their vehicles. A remington 870 shotgun was also hidden inside Det cars. The remington could be used to blast out the windscreens of their vehicles, allowing the operatives inside to fire their other weapons.

Geo

Screw em

I believe in freedom of speech but protests of this nature disgust me, these soliders where doing as ordered if anyone should be picketed or protested at it should be parliment or downing street not people who are following orders.

I said earlier what would happen if I protested at a muslim religious festival with a placard saying "all muslims go to hell do not pick up 200 virgins if you pass heaven, go directly to hell" what would peoples thoughts be? that I am a racist and a disgrace, ban me from blonde?.

If I did this I would be arrested for racism and trying to incite a riot or public disorder offence, it's just the uk's fucked up nanny state mind where the only people you are allowed to upset without having to pay a fine are white, hetro sexual and tax paying.

Agreed, except you can't, as there is an exclusion zone on protests around those areas, just in case it makes politicians feel a little uncomfortable (they use the excuse of "security", obviously total BS). So much for free speech :(.

Exactly!

How would that be racism?

virgins aint all that they are cracked up to be especially after the 1st time,if i'm going to heaven i'd want 200 women who knew what they were doing

Exactly, there's probably a good reason they're virgins as well.

by targeting a group of one religion ?

That's not racism.

is it not?

probably ugly and racist

Can someone elaborate on the 200 virgins thing please, I might be interested.

Obv I am out if you get 200 mother-in law's as part of the deal !

pmsl

and at yr age you'd need a tag team partner

Nope.  Racism is discrimination against someone (or group of people) based on their race, colour, or ethnicity.  Religion is not part of this as someone is born into their race/colour/ethnicity - religion is imposed or chosen.

learn something new each day..


And the 200 virgins was a play on monopoly, the true number of virgins promised to muslims in heaven never actual stated except they say you will get 80,000 servants and 72 wives.

20,000 Muslims received a circular urging them to take part in this protest. Only 20 actally did.

The difference between getting locked up in a nuthouse and being a well respected member of the community is the name of your imaginary friend.

If you call the Bob, Sally, Mary, Peter etc then you are a nutter but if you call them God, Allah etc then you are well respected ???????????

Isn't forgiveness supposed to be part of all major religions ? Guess that's why i think all religion is pants.

Sandy

Hail the gusset.

seems quite a reasonable chap to me

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23661857-details/I+want+to+see+flag+of+Allah+flying+over+Downing+St/article.do

lighten the mood 

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY

He said this “alternative morality” would mean “a pure Islamic state with Sharia law in Britain” and added: “Every woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a traditional burka and cover everything apart from her face and hands in public.”

LOL  :D

I'd be up for that.

Just to try it out for a few weekends like, see how it goes.

lolz at the name of the person writing that article, must have enjoyed that!

rotflmfao well spotted

Islam  ;noflopshomer;

I quite like this idea:

“In matters to do with the judicial system and the penal code, one male witness is sufficient to counter the testimony of two females. People who commit adultery would be stoned to death.”

His opinions on Christmas are interesting:

"Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas"

ORLY.

If moderate Muslims want to counter act all this negativity why dont they organise a march against all these "extremisits", have never seen one not even after 7/7.

If the moderates started to shout too loud on the march would they become extreme moderates?

ORLY?

And which Christian Churches don't promise hellfire and damnation for non-believers? Even those of other Christian sects?

Let those without sin etc.....

 ;boltpp;

Lord graciously hear us.

Interesting thread. Many of the views herein suggest the protests should be allowed whether you agree with them or not....cos that's why the soldiers are fighting. This is a silly view on a plethora of levels. In the first place that is not why the soldiers are fighting, that is merely how conflicts vs the Middle East are spun to the public...and thus that argument doesn't hold up past the 1st level imo. The fact is it's illegal to incite racial hatred in this country...so you don't have freedom of speech...you can't say what you want. That protest was guilty of inciting racial hatred vs British people and therefore it shouldn't have been be allowed.

I remember 82 year-old Walter Wolfgang, a Labour Party member for 57 years getting man-handled out of the Labour Party conference for heckling Jack Straw in 2005. Where was this guy's freedom to protest eh? So the politicians who are sending these guys to die allow extremist groups to spout bile at soldiers...but wont let an old guy heckle them. Using the defense of law is fragile because laws are made and changed by ministers often at their convenience.

Here's what's important. Imagine in the future our soldiers get so fecked off with risking their lives only to return home to abuse they quit the army in droves. When serious conflict arises who is going to defend us? Who? It's so easy to wallow in the pride of your liberal views when you live in a safe and protected country. But if that country becomes volatile what are you gonna want, safety or liberalism? The soldiers provide our safety and thus should be immune to our criticism. If fanatics want to protest then addressing politicians rather than soldiers is significantly more appropriate.

The politicians tell us there's a terror war going on. It's a dirty war. And as intelligent people we are free to manage our usually liberal views to counter the enemy. Saying abuse of our soldiers should be allowed on home turf is like going out into the carpark for a fight vs a guy who produces a knife...and refusing to deviate from Queensbury rules. Cos dem's the rules.

So put your dukes up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the English sense of fair play cometh. Bet he's brickin it.

Sir, I am overcome by the exuberance of your verbosity. Gets my award for the most ludic post on this thread - just the quoted line alone makes your entire position laughable imo.

Still, keep writing son, even a minky typing a million letters will eventually make sense

This refers to a soldier doing his duty in honourable fashion. You think soldiers performing their duty in honourable fashion should be slagged off? I don't. Criticise politicians for sending them all you want but please build a case for calling soldiers baby killers cos I want to hear it.

Again, I'm a massive bleeding heart liberal at the best of times...and I'm all for Freedom of speech and for the "people's right to protest"..but freedom of speech has it's limits.

You can't racially abuse people, it's against the law. You can't deny the holocaust, it's against the law.

Should you be able to criticise soldiers?...yes of course you should. Should you be able to insult innocent people who come back home from abroad? No of course not. Action should have been taken against the "protestors" for the verbal abuse hurled at the soldiers...not for protesting. There is a difference.

Should a Dutch MP have been allowed to enter England? of course he should when he just had a view point on Islam..oh whats that? freedom of speech is already dead under the Labour/nazi goverment...disgrace!

yes he should have been allowed in. He was invited by a bunch of MPs that were going to watch his movie (which IMO is a ridiculously bad piece of work and definitely racist but that's another matter) and he was going to "explain himself"..that would have been the time for a good debate and a clever guy could have exposed him for the opportunist racist that he really is. To turn him away after first inviting him is not on IMO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7947377.stm

This should get more media coverage than those protests in Luton

Pah, what a disgrace.  Was Steve McClaren in charge?

Nah, it was the Sunderland kit that did for them ;)

wow..just how shit is Basra if the locals don't mind wearing a Wigan strip?

Good to know Labour Mps are in charge....

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttz8-ucWhYc

lol @ taking him literally there

Sledge do u spend all your time trying to nit pick shit muslims have done wrong in this country?

Nah finished with them, moving onto Italians...tho I love pizza so its going to be tough.