h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

McKay, It would make it easier to disentangle your rants from what other people said if you actually used quote marks.

>> >>"I was under the impression that Blair was rather against it, even though it does seem to make sense."

>>"Oh we're going by what Mr Bliar says rather than what he does - here's a good one - "We will not introduce tuition fees and we intend to legislate to prevent them." Yes he's not called Bliar for nothing."

McKay, you were *talking* about what he *has* done.
(>>"Are you aware of the laws that *have* been enacted under Bliar ?")
You were wrong, and you don't have the grace to admit it, you just go off on a rant about what you think he might want to do.

(You)>> >> >>"Foreigners can be detained indefinately without trial."

(Me)>> >>"Has that been reintroduced after being stopped two years ago?"

(You) - erm Stopped two years ago - but how did the government react ? -"Commenting on the ruling, Mr Clarke said the government did not condone torture in any way, so the Law Lords' decision was "hypothetical".

I think you're getting two things rather muddled up there - the detention without trial did finish. It was replaced with Control Orders - *that's* how the government reacted.

Regarding the *separate* issue of the admissibility of evidence gained under torture, as I pointed out, the issue of admissibility was being argued for and against in various courts.
The government didn't legislate to allow evidence gained under torture to be admitted as evidence, and your claim:

>>"Evidence obtained under torture is now admissable in British courts - providing that no britons were involved in the torturing."

would seem to be entirely incorrect, though you naturally avoid admitting you were wrong.

>> ""We accept this judgment, which will have no bearing on the government's efforts to combat terrorism: we have always made clear that we do not intend to rely on or present evidence" ~ because we do not intend to bring these people to court. They remain locked up without trial - the Home Office offers the technicality that they can leave the country whjenever they want, so they are not locked up. The government then brought in the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism bill and re-enshrined their right to lock people up without trial by calling them 'Control Orders.'"

Who 'remains locked up without trial'?

As far as I can see, people aren't being locked up. Control Orders restrict people's activity, but don't involve locking them up unless they commit an offence by breaching the order.
At best, they might provide for a form of house arrest.
Of course, that doesn't stop people going on the run like:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2550598,00.html describes.

OK SWL I'll take the bait.

No the people who protested outside the theatre about the BNP membership of one of the dancers arent protesting about the things that get up your nose?

What's you point, if indeed as you rarely do actually have a point, or are you just having a knock against Mosques because the majority of their visitors are from immigrant families?

Is your point perhaps that the people arent protesting against the same things you might protest against. I dont care much for cats but I feed, keep and look after a dog, would that make it logical for cat lovers to suggest I dont like animals? Just why should people have to share your views to be taken seriously?

one love

I'm just curious that these anti-racists feel moved to demonstrate when someone's personal views are revealed but don't seem to give a stuff about others calling for murder and victimisation.

They seem to be a tad selective about which racism they object to.

You do well to say seem SWL.

It is entirely possible that they choose their tactics. Or that they just want to get on TV.

Do you know the people? I dont.

As a liberal Im against ALL racism no matter where it comes from. I was stood in the pub the other day talking with a BNP member I objected to a lot that he said, because of what he said not because of who was saying it. I dont go and wave placards outside of Nick Griffins house I was being selective. I slected on the grounds of what was practical for me to do.

Now you can protest about one member of a dance troupe and be very clear who and what your protest is aimed at.

If You waived placards outside a Mosque you'd probably bother lots of people who werent directly responsible for the thing your complaining about. So its probably a bad idea.

I dont go up to the local Catholic School to protest about paedophilic abuse by preists, doesnt mean Im in favour of it though.

one love

Well, I don't know why they don't know the people involved - they were quite clearly named and identified. The Imam at Green Lane Mosque, Abu Usamah for example.

Would you go up to a Catholic School and protest if the Headmaster was guilty of paedophillic abuse?

No he's done it already, what could I change?

If they refused to sack him I might protest to the governors but bothering unconnected people is a bit harsh.

Are these Immas still being backed by the Mosque?

Well, I haven't seen anything anywhere saying he's been made unwelcome.
(Genuinely, maybe he has but I haven't seen anything about it)

So, presumably he and the many others identified in the programme are continuing.

The reaction from the MCB was that Channel 4 was Islamaphobic.

You were wrong, and you don't have the grace to admit it, you just go off on a rant about what you think he might want to do.

No I wasn't wrong - this government enacted those laws - the factthat either The Lords, or the courts later forced them to be changed doesn't mean they weren't proposed.

Just because you want to wander around saying that this government is wonderful refer to any post that says otherwise as a rant is, frankly, of so little interest to me you wouldn't believe.

I hope you are happy in your socialist paradise.

>>"No I wasn't wrong - this government enacted those laws - the factthat either The Lords, or the courts later forced them to be changed doesn't mean they weren't proposed."

The fact that neither torture evidence nor phone-tap evidence have been legalised as evidence for trials *does* mean that laws to legalise them haven't been enacted (which seems to be the opposite of what you want to claim).

It is also a fact that Control Orders (not extending to locking people up) replaced the previous system which did allow for detention without a trial for foreigners who chose not to leave the country.
You seemed to be unaware of this fact, or choose to simply ignore it.

I don't know what your information sources are, but either they or your capacity to present information accurately seem to be seriously deficient, for whatever reason.

>>"Just because you want to wander around saying that this government is wonderful refer to any post that says otherwise as a rant is, frankly, of so little interest to me you wouldn't believe."

Just where (outside your little paranoid fantasies) have I *ever* said this government was wonderful?
Could you provide links, since your memory of facts does seem a bit, well, untrustworthy?

>>"I hope you are happy in your socialist paradise."

You *do* seem to have a rather extreme ("either with us or against us") view of the world - someone who dares to disputes your inaccurate presentation of facts must necessarily be some rabid socialist, rather than someone who just appreciates honest or well-founded arguments, or who disappreciates the opposite.

"Well, I haven't seen anything anywhere saying he's been made unwelcome.
(Genuinely, maybe he has but I haven't seen anything about it)

So, presumably he and the many others identified in the programme are continuing.



For someone who proffesses to spending so much time digging up the dirt on Islam and Muslims it is a departure for you to honestly admit you are just guessing.

So having seen NOTHING to suggest that the Mosques leades have not denied the people you mention access to preach you assume the worst case scenario. That's what civillised people call prejudice you know.




Qhat does the reaction of one unelected and unrepresentative group have to do with the facts? I think you have thrown this snippet in in the absence of any information about the Mosque in question this is the kind of diversinary chaff Im used to Della throwing up in the absence of facts or a coherent argument.

Are you finally finding your level?

one love

You've genuinely lost it.

There has been no announcement by any Mosque that any of the Imams will not be welcome in future as far as I am aware. Bear in mind the programme was aired on Monday, today is Friday prayer day.

So *you* have decided the MCB are unrepresentative now. That's big of you. According to their own website, Keith Vaz Mp, Mohammed Sarwar Mp, Lord Ahmed and Sir Iqbal Socranie, they represent the majority of British Muslims through a plethora of smaller groups. Still, *you* know better.

I also suggest you're being a little disingenuous for the purposes of being confrontational. For you to say that you wouldn't be concerned at the thought of a convicted paedophile being a headmaster of a school is breathtaking.

Instead of sitting trying to take potshots at me personally, examine your own motives in not feeling moved to protest about the hate-mongering and racism revealed in two of the most moderate and respected mosques in Britain.

<>

Doesn't look like it from here.

I cant be the Scottish schools because all of my friends from North of the Border can reaseon and read what is your excuse?

For not realising that not issuing a statement to say you have done something does not necessarily mean you have not done it. Or do find it necessary on your return from the toilet to tell anyone who will listen that you have indeed wiped your backside and washed your hands?


"I also suggest you're being a little disingenuous for the purposes of being confrontational. For you to say that you wouldn't be concerned at the thought of a convicted paedophile being a headmaster of a school is breathtaking.

Sorry but I said no such thing, never have and in all likelyhood never will. You asked:
"Would you go up to a Catholic School and protest if the Headmaster was guilty of paedophillic abuse?

Now Im presuming your using the English law definition of guilty here where its been proven in law (maybe your using some Sctttish version not knwn to me where one just guesses in line with a deeply held prejudice)

So...I said I wouldnt unless I found people were allowing it to still happen.

How you get from that to:
"you're being a little disingenuous for the purposes of being confrontational. For you to say that you wouldn't be concerned at the thought of a convicted paedophile being a headmaster of a school is breathtaking.

Isuggest you work on your comprehesion, in fact Ive suggested it before and still feel the same way. Being able to idetify words is an important skill but being able to understand them when they are put together insentences is incredibly important too.

To re-cap:

SWL - Would you go up to a Catholic School and protest if the Headmaster was guilty of paedophillic abuse?


Blickybadger - No he's done it already, what could I change?

Pretty academic anyway, since if he was guilty of abusing kids, he wouldn't be likely to stay a headmaster, *with* or *without* a chanting mob of people outside.

OK I'll get with your infantile use of the word guilty.

I would not protest. I would report it to the relevant authorities. If I knew for certain because Id happened to witness the abuse there wouldnt be anything left to report to the authorities.

Im not keen on mobbing people on hearsay evidence so Id be very unlikely to get involved with any mob.

Now ooutside of your nitpicking hypothetical situations no headmaster guilty (as defined and proven by the law) would not be allowed to continue as a headmaster so the answer is still no, Id see no point in demonstrating.

Savvy?

oops, I just saw a double negative in there...

Now outside of your nitpicking hypothetical situations *NO* headmaster guilty (as defined and proven by the law) would *NOT* be allowed to continue as a headmaster so the answer is still no, Id see no point in demonstrating.

Ignore the *NOT*.