Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are ordinary British people really being radicalised by Islam?

The west has become lazy and world affairs have become just another fiction channel they can watch on TV, some of it might be interesting but none of it will affect me. History apparently does not inform people these days and no surprise there since the media is constantly rewriting history or airbrushing it out.
Those books sound interesting df but I am still failing to get BH to accept that Islam is worthy of their consideration.
Strangely enough; Islam and CAGW have quite similar effects on our government ^.^
Government denies that there is any threat from either issue changes British Law to accommodate both.

Apr 13, 2015 at 4:15 PM | Registered CommenterDung


just to highlight the irony -

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it - Hardcover– 25 Oct 2006
author - by Mark Steyn

just Google "Mark Steyn v mann"

FWIW I do agree we to talk about Islam & our tolerance WRT how it may affect our nation, but as usual it's not PC outside the boozer (a dying talking shop as we know :-(

Apr 15, 2015 at 12:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterdfhunter

I made a small contribution to Mark Steyn's court case against Mann; well I mean if that is not a worthy cause then I do not know what is hehe.

Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM | Registered CommenterDung

On the main blog and within the 'Climatologists and Moral Choices' thread Richard Betts has commented on this discussion by stating that everything Big Yin says about me in here is correct. Much of what BYJ said was pathetic but he did not use bad language and is entitled to his opinion. However what does this say about Mr Betts?
In addition to the above Mr Betts stated "Godwin's Law Klaxon !!'

Very sorry but I had not heard of this before so I had to Google it.
"Godwin has argued that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it waters down the impact of any valid usage. In its purest sense, the rule has more to do with completely losing one's sense of proportion". Apparently a reference to Godwin's Law is meant to end all discussion because somebody has overstepped acceptable bounds.
Very sorry Mr Betts but I did not make any comparisons with Hitler except in the sense that once he had decided to do something then arguing with him was a total waste of time.

Apr 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Most of what I said is bang on the button, Dung.

There is a huge divide in the world today, shaping up to be the struggle of the next century, and it's not religious.

There are forces at work which want to take us back to a mediaeval faith-led society. This includes some of Islam, but also a huge swathe of Christianity. Some people cannot like with moral relativism, which is the main consequence of a secular society. They prefer the moral absolutes that a faith-driven legislature appears to give.

In the next 50 years we will be fighting to save the Enlightenment from those around us who want to drag us back into the dark ages. It has nothing to do with religion. In many ways, establishment science sees climate change scepticism as another front which to defend against the dark. This is the reason that science cannot be seen to fail, it is the sole beacon of the Enlightenment.

This is a momentous and frightening battlefield, during which we will be required to take sides and to take arms to defend secularism and science against the Huns and Vandals who want to bring down the walls of Rime.

Unfortunately, Dung, you reduce it to the diatribe of the moron who doesn't like Muslims.

Apr 20, 2015 at 9:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames


Every post you have made in this discussion has two things in common; not one of them has attempted to answer the question in the Discussion Title and everyone of them has insulted me personally.
Your last post was no more and no less insulting than any other and like the others it made no attempt to answer my question, would you like to give it a shot Mr Yin?

Your last post did however set new standards in other areas ^.^. There is a certain group of people who religiously follow a particular maxim but so far only Richard Drake on BH has espoused that maxim. You believe that one should never use one word when ten words will fit into the available space (to gain full marks you should also maximise the syllables per word count).
Even though you do score highly on that last maxim; you do not seem to have understood that you need to be at least a little familiar with the meaning of all the words that you use and also weigh up whether or not they are appropriate to the particular subject under discussion.
If I may take one tiny point first; would you care to point out where this moron indicated that he did not like Muslims? Considering how many Muslims there are; I think that task is probably outside the bounds of my memory.
Credit should be given though for introducing us to the the concept of Radical Christians coming to a town near you very soon ^.^
You exhibit prescience in predicting that the 'huge divide' will impact us in the next century; silly me, I thought it was already here!
We will all stand in awe at your discovery that the huge divide is about us being led back to a faith led society which includes Islam and a huge swathe of Christianity but is not religious.

We also learn that science is the sole beacon of the enlightenment and therefore can not be allowed to fail.

My overall assessment of your post; sanctimonious horseshit.

Thanks for the entertainment James.

Apr 20, 2015 at 8:52 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, I insult you because you are a moron.
Bring a moron, you think the insults are arbitrary and unjust, but they are not. You just don't understand them.

The reason I don't answer the original discussion heading is because it was a trite and transparent attempt to kick off a bigoted anti-Islamic rant. You are not interested in religious radicalisation, not one bit, nor African babies, or any other race you see as impinging on your sacred anglican way of life. You just want to rant at them, and this thread was your safe bolt-hole to do so.

The damage you are causing - and continue to cause - the rational sceptical case could be untold. Luckily, nobody is reading any more. The sympathy posts earlier in the thread were to help you get it out of your system, and if you didn't continually bump the thread in a Richard Drakean manner, it would have vanished without trace.

You are an idiot, Dung.

Apr 21, 2015 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

We have been here before with troublesome minorities who could not be trusted: Catholics, actually. And a fairly effective response to that for 150 years or so was the Catholic Disabilities Act. So lets have a Muslim Disabilities Act.

Apr 21, 2015 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

And more idiots come out when they smell blood.

Apr 21, 2015 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames


I am no student of religious history in the UK or anywhere else however your suggestion does not seem to make sense? The Disabilities act was, as far as I can understand it; part of the emancipation of the Roman Catholic Church and a removal of restrictions previously placed upon them.
There are no restrictions placed upon Muslims in the UK and in fact our government treats them unfairly only in the sense that they receive preferential treatment. In my humble opinion people of all religions who become British citizens should obey ALL our laws and should receive no special treatment.


Have a nice day.

Apr 21, 2015 at 1:03 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung A level history was long long ago and I might have got the wrong end of the stick, or mis-remembered as people do these days. Perhaps I am thinking of the Test Acts? Anyway the fact was following Glorious Rev, general feeling was that a lot of 17th C bloodiness could be laid at door of Papists, moreover they couldn't be trusted anyway (Ultra-montanism) so limitations were placed on them particularly in respect of public office - couldn't hold it, nor could hold queens commission etc etc etc. It seems to me Muslims have same nuisance factor now as Papists did then, so wrap them up in the Law to make them behave. After all they were not brought here as slaves and if they find it uncongenial they can always leave.

Apr 21, 2015 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill


Ok I sort of agree with you. However the Muslims we have in the UK are here to stay so we need to get on better with them but we can not do that until and unless those Muslims accept our laws our courts and our education system. Our Muslims must also realise that in the UK no religion has any part to play in government. Sadly the political parties are too busy trying to attract votes to actually explain to Muslims what is acceptable and what is not.

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Our Muslims must also realise that in the UK no religion has any part to play in government.

Really? You display your ignorance in many ways, Dung.

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Dung can't agree with your religion has no part to play in government assertion. It seems to me quite the opposite: religion - Christianity in particular - informs our government, our law, our state, intimately, at all levels. Of course we could decide that 1000 year experiment was a big fat mistake and de-Christianise the body politic, but that seems rather difficult. What might be better is to toughen up our Christian stance so, while we permit people to follow other faiths, we proclaim that those faiths cannot compare with or compete against Christianity. Again, those who find that uncongenial could seek their fortunes in any one of the remaining 178 countries in the world, could they not? Muslims have not arrived here out of love for us, have they; nor by our compelling them to come here. They have come here because at some point, at some level, it has seemed to them individually to be to their own advantage. The more they are hemmed in by our laws, the more they might see their advantage lies elsewhere.

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

Dung, congratulations. You've managed to find the one person who's more insane than you are.

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames


I apologise for whatever insults BYJ throws in your direction mate.

I know that the laws of our country are based in christianity and I totally believe that Christianity is a benevolent faith. I hope our government continues to be informed by Christian values. However that is very different from Christianity or Islam being an integral part of government, would you not agree?

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:53 PM | Registered CommenterDung

First they call us insane.....

Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

No I wouldn't. Christianity is an integral part of our government, like it or not. Islam is not, and any steps to let it in seem mad and unnecessary to me.

Apr 21, 2015 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

OK I think I am not communicating very well and that actually we do, agree. Do you agree that the church (any church) should not be a part of government?

Apr 21, 2015 at 5:08 PM | Registered CommenterDung

I know that quite a few BH people are at the very least considering voting UKIP at the election as I will be doing. In view of the general reaction to this thread you may need to think again.
This by Nigel Farage:
The crisis in the Mediterranean has shed light on the idea that there should be a common European migration and asylum policy that I believe poses a threat to our civilisation.
The EU has already agreed this policy and the UK will not be able to object within the EU.
The policy aims at 'sharing the burden' of saving the migrants fleeing from Africa by allowing them into our countries with no obvious filters able to remove threats like IS members.

Apr 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM | Registered CommenterDung

I am forced to resurrect this thread by the actions of Michelle Obama today.

I was quite enjoying her speech and was ready to praise her as someone who was giving an inspiring talk to an audience of children from poor backgrounds. Then I heard the word "headscarves", then I clocked the fact that this was happening in Tower Hamlets.
So now I ask; why did the First Lady of the United States choose to visit an Islamic school in a constituency that only a few weeks ago was run by a corrupt Islamic cabal?

Jun 16, 2015 at 4:54 PM | Registered CommenterDung