Can we do more than light candles?


The vigil in Manchester last night was undeniably moving.  The assurances that we will stand together, we will not let terrorism win, love is stronger than hate, and so on, were resonant.  And yet … and yet … that is what we always do.  Politicians jostle to repeat the same platitudes.  Maybe the threat level is heightened for a week or two.  We debate the percentage of the anti-radicalisation budget that goes to the government’s disputed “Prevent” strategy.  Then the dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.  Until the next time.

Allison Pearson summed up the point beautifully: “Even before their bodies were cold, the great and the good were crowding on to the airwaves to murmur their self-soothing mantras about hope being stronger than fear, strong, vibrant communities, keep calm and carry on, businesses as usual.  How dare they? They insult the dead, who deserve the country to be outraged and anguished on their behalf. How can we be calm when our children are considered a legitimate target for mass murder?”

One theme to emerge is that the bomber was a loner, representing no one.  Responding to a Tweet saying that integration has not worked, Tim Montgomerie wrote “It largely has.  99.9% of Muslims are good neighbours”.  I responded by re-Tweeting some Pew research indicating that in the UK, 24% of Muslims and 35% of young Muslims express some sympathy for suicide bombing.  Rather more than the 0.1% implied by Tim.  My Bête Noire Professor Michael Merrifield responded with an alternative study showing that only 4% of British Muslims sympathise with extremists.  But as I pointed out, even if Merrifield’s figures are right, at 4% it’s still forty times Tim’s estimate.

Peter Whittle on Twitter quoted Mayor Andy Burnham “The bomber represents no one but himself”.  I responded “The bomber (so far as we can judge) represents a large and determined terrorist death cult which is a threat to all of us”.  Of course not all Muslims (nor even a majority of Muslims) are terrorists.  But we face a large and well-resourced terrorist organisation which claims to represent Islam, and is steeped in a highly conservative and paranoid interpretation of the faith.  To pretend that we can deal with the terrorism without responding to the distortion of the religion is fanciful and naïve.

The idea that the bomber was a maverick loner is further undermined by a Telegraph headline “South side of city (Manchester) is a breeding ground for Jihad”.  It sounds more like Molenbeek, the notorious jihadist suburb of Brussels which harboured the Paris bombers than a suburb of the City of Manchester, standing together to face down the terror threat.  It is clear that UK security services are anticipating further attacks.

I noted an interesting comment from Brendan Cox, husband of the murdered MP Jo Cox.  He suggests that the only alternatives are (A) to turn the other cheek; or (B) “To build internment camps and hold the billion Muslims on the planet responsible for the actions of a few”.  Admittedly he does suggest some other measures, but they are all rather vague generalities like “building stronger communities”.  Haven’t we been trying to do that through all the years of multiculturalism?

I suggest that there are things we can do.  For a start, we should set aside the ECHR and deport foreign nationals whom we realistically suspect of jihadism.  Second, we should deny entry and withdraw passports from British citizens who seek to return from jihad (yes, there are legal problems, but we face an emergency).  We should identify imams who preach jihad, and deport them (or if British, detain them – incitement to violence is a crime).  We should close mosques that give a platform to hate preachers.

Then schools.  It is evident that some Muslim schools are hotbeds of Wahhabism and anti-Western values.  They should be closed.  I’ve struggled for a long time with the apparent discrimination of closing Muslim schools but not other faith schools.  But it seems that only in Muslim schools (or some Muslim schools) are anti-Western values systematically promoted, and when we are faced with Islamic terrorism, there is every justification for closing them.

We should ban the burka.  You cannot be integrated into Western society with your face covered.  And if you aren’t prepared to be part of Western society, you shouldn’t be here.

Finally, perhaps the most radical point.  As a broadly libertarian politician, I am hugely reluctant even to type the word “internment”, but I am coming around to the view that the threat we face – the children slaughtered in Manchester – is on such a scale that we have to think the unthinkable.  No, Mr. Brendan Cox, we do not want to build internment camps for the world’s billion Muslims.  But we need at least to consider internment for the 3000 or so jihadist suspects on our streets.  We are horrified that the Manchester bomber was “known to the police” yet still allowed to go to Libya, to return, and to carry out his atrocity. Yet we have to recognise that it is impossible for the security forces to monitor 3000 people.

I was relieved to find I was not alone in what some may consider an extreme view.  I re-Tweeted Arron Banks this morning: “We should intern people on the terrorist watch and properly investigate them”.  I will not say at this time that we should necessarily do so.  But I believe it is time to have the debate.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Can we do more than light candles?

  1. falcons1988 says:

    I have a proposal that might just work, every time I post it on social media it gains quite a bit of traction.

    There is an ancient constitutional clause within Magna Carta, Article 48 (Whilst the clause has been repealed from statute there is 800 years of case-law, a fluid unwritten constitution and the possibility of it being reissued….), that gives us a legal and moral framework in which to proceed.

    “All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.” – See more at:

    Whilst this was certainly written for the time, I think it can be applied to modernity when it comes to dealing with Islam. Were the servants referred to in the clause captured muslims from crusade? The interesting subtext to the clause is the requirement of investigation or enquiry.

    I think, in line with our constitution, we should put the Islamic doctrine in the supreme court. “Can the general principle of the Islamic ideology be considered evil and contradictory to our values of liberty?”

    Dealing with Islamic fundamentalism, requires confronting the ideology is Islam and Muhammad itself. Now this causes all sorts of problems with Human Rights Laws and everything else. If we put the doctrine in court, with a fully televised ‘debate’ that is fair and open to intense scrutiny, in an ordered fashion, we are creating conditions in which to proceed that is legal, fair and moral. We also inform the public, we cut through the lies, force the muslim community to act. We could promise refuge for apostates and the so-called peaceful community. It would give the legal right to shut down mosques without breaching human rights laws.

    There will be those who want it aired because they will fear the result, fear the truth. Whatever we do has to be done in an orderly fashion, it has to be done properly and truthfully.

    That is my two pennies worth. Let me know what you think and does this idea have potential?

    • It’s a bit like the idea of prosecuting Privy Council Members for treason, being in breach of their oath. Great in principle, but I don’t see any court in the land reaching the right decision. Nice idea, though. Thank you.

      • falcons1988 says:

        Really focus of my argument is attacking the ideology rather than the muslims. What the muslims do will be up to them and how we work with them etc…

        There have been a number interesting cases in recent years where the likes of Tommy Robinson (whether he was in court on those charges recently I am not sure) have been acquitted of islamaphobic hate crimes by simply referring to Islamic theology. Would a court in the land reach the right decision… who knows? but if the wording of the question is correct, and we get our ducks in order and get the right people, it can be done. There are more holes in Islamic theology than there is in a swiss cheese on an American firing range. Some of the stuff in the Quran is pure evil, and cannot be argued for.

    • vanorman2016 says:

      Great idea. Bring back our Rule of Law, with the Magna-Carta strictly adhered to. If our government, politicians, the EU and Muslims with the strict Islamic ideology don’t like it or our way of life, well they know where the door is. It opened in and it also opens out. As for our politicians, the greedy, grasping cowardly ones can be voted out.

  2. catalanbrian says:

    Just the sort of nonsense that I would expect from Kippers and their supporters.

    • David says:

      And your solution is?

      • George MorIey says:

        As catweazle666 says: You have no soIution but just make an absurd and insuIting comment .
        ie. My comment has nothing to do with my views on the killings in Manchester. The vileness rests entirely under your stone.
        Pathetic, unnecessary and typicaI but foIIowing your usuaI driveI.

      • catalanbrian says:

        There is not one solution, but part of a solution would be for people such as those on this blog to cease their racist and xenophobic behaviour.

    • catweazle666 says:

      How typical of you that you can only conceive of the deaths of 22 innocents including an eight year old child as ammunition to insult someone whose politics you disagree with, Brian.

      You are truly an utterly vile individual.

      • catalanbrian says:

        I think that you will find that, once you have cleaned the spittle from your spectacles, you will realise that I was responding to Mr Helmer’s statement, a statement with which I disagree. My comment has nothing to do with my views on the killings in Manchester. The vileness rests entirely under your stone.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “you will realise that I was responding to Mr Helmer’s statement”

        Yes, precisely.

        Thank you for so clearly proving my point.

        Not only vile, but despicable and stupid to boot.

    • vanorman2016 says:

      The only sane thing to do is Close our borders Now. All known terrorists must be deported immediately and this should include the hate preachers and their followers. Integrate into our ways, culture and language or go back to your beloved countries and fight for it. Stop taking the cowards way out and blaming us, the people, for all your woes. Many politicians are not helping us, and believe it or not, they are not helping you either by covering up the truth. This only creates more problems and more cover-ups, a vicious circle.

  3. R I HICKS says:

    Some common sense at last and some practical suggestions. Isn’t it clear now, with new passports being dished out by the EU at a frightening rate, that we MUST stop the insane ‘Freedom of Movement’ madness RIGHT NOW.

    Can’t wait to hear what bright ideas The Life of Brian has in Spain.

  4. Dung says:

    The terror threat in the UK comes from only one section of the community and that is Muslims.
    This statement should not cause offence to Muslims because it is simply a statement of fact. Under the present circumstances it is not possible for a government to be seen to be protecting the population without doing a single thing to protect them from the threat from the Muslim community. Based on what we have seen so far it is easy for a previously peaceful Muslim to be converted into a Jihadi murderer but it is much harder to convert a white or black British citizen who has not already taken up the Muslim faith. In my opinion it is unsafe to allow Muslim immigrants into the UK, particularly from the conflict areas in the Middle East.

    • R I HICKS says:

      Muslims are permanently offended about something Dung, who cares anymore? And vast numbers of white liberals are also offended on their behalf. A shame there isn’t somewhere distant that they can all go and live together, it would be fun to watch.

    • catalanbrian says:

      In my opinion it is unsafe for British governments to bomb and invade countries in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter. Until this ceases the UK will not be safe from terror attacks.

      • Dung says:

        You may well be right for a change however whatever the cause of the threat it is still the responsibility of our government to protect us from that threat (even more so if they caused it themselves).

      • vanorman2016 says:

        At least catalanbrian is right about most people not being concerned with the hatred created for ourselves and we blaming others. The West should never have interfered in the culture and way of life in the many Eastern countries. The West bombed, devastated and slaughtered many innocent people to gain their natural resources. However, half the blame must also rest with the leaders of said countries who wanted their country devastated so they may then take over. Also Saudi isn’t exactly innocent. They buy the Western arms to slaughter those in the Eastern countries merely for their own reasons of gain.

  5. Harry Royle says:

    Roger, I agree with you 100%. The time has come to bring the issue out from “under the carpet” and debate it calmly but seriously. I was never more disappointed in our current leader than when, just yesterday, he emailed us all to tell us that (a) we would not be cowed into changing our way of life, and (b) that in common with all other parties UKIP would stop campaigning for 24 hours “out of respect”. As your sensible article states, quoting the words of Allison Pearce, “How dare they? They insult the dead, who deserve the country to be outraged and anguished on their behalf.”

  6. Shieldsman says:

    Roger, you bring up the point that Salman Abedi was known to the police, so why was he free to carry out his suicide bombing. Would it not be more sensible to limit his human rights than to see so many people dead.
    Politicians jostling to repeat the same platitudes achieves nothing, and does not prevent it happening again.
    For how long will the Army be deployed?

    • catweazle666 says:

      “so why was he free to carry out his suicide bombing”

      Because the relevant authorities are more concerned about being accused of Islamophobia than of having to explain away a dozen or twenty children blown to pieces?

      It is time they were disabused of that notion.

  7. catweazle666 says:

    There is substantial precedent for controlling non-Cof E religion in Great Britain based on the Act of Settlement of 1701. It was in 2013 that the ban on a Roman Catholic marrying into he Royal succession was removed in 2013, for example.

    For a start, all the 3,000+ individuals currently on the terrorist watch list must be taken out of circulation. In many cases it would be difficult to expel them and in any case there would be the risk of them secretly returning.

    Next, the preaching of hate in mosques and madrassas must be regulated, all hate preachers expelled or interned, all sermons and teaching to be carried out in English based on an approved English language translation of the Koran.

    The politically correct theory that the human right of Islamists extends to plotting and executing terrorist atrocities to blow dozens of children to bits is somehow necessary for “community cohesion” cannot be permitted to restrict our abilities to take action against the significant percentage – be it 4% to 25% – of Muslims who wish to harm our citizens in the cause of imposing the Global Caliphate.

    Any Muslim who cannot abide by the civilised twenty-first rules of civilised behaviour is not welcome in British society, it is as simple as that.

    • falcons1988 says:

      An approved English translation of the Quran? This has nothing to with translation or interpretation. Theologically, this has a number of issues in itself because of how the religion is structured. The Quran states it is the eternal, perfect unchanged word of Allah (it isn’t) and the book that makes things clear. So to go down the route of trying having an approved English version will still contain verses like “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them!” For that to be removed changes means changing the words of Allah? In Islam the unforgivable sin, shirk, is putting yourself on a level or above Allah. Changing the Quran would be a shirk. Those who do it would be condemned to death, for hypocrisy and apostasy at the very least.

      • catweazle666 says:

        ” This has nothing to with translation or interpretation”

        That is not the point.

        It is necessary that all teaching in mosques, madrassas take place in English so it can be monitored by non-Muslim inspectors. So all material must be in English too.

      • falcons1988 says:

        Must be in English is fine, that could work, certainly from an evidence gathering perspective. Whether it is in English or Arabic, it doesn’t alter the message of the Quran.

  8. KennieD says:

    A journo with the courage to say it like it is:
    In the same magazine, the Spectator, a bloke called Will Heaven asks, “should armed soldiers be on our streets?”
    I say “NO” because I do not think they are there for our security. They are there because the politically correct illiberal ‘elites’ are feared that the true democratic British people are getting fed up and may start taking to the streets in protest.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “They are there because the politically correct illiberal ‘elites’ are feared that the true democratic British people are getting fed up and may start taking to the streets in protest.”


      One wonders how many mosques are on their patrol routes.

  9. Rosie says:

    Well done, Roger. I am sure you are saying what a lot of us are thinking – including us. We interned Germans during the war; we interned known IRA sympathizers; we are in an emergency situation and something needs to be done. Anyone who does not condemn these outrages is inherently supporting them.

    • KennieD says:

      Rosie: “we interned known IRA sympathizers;”
      Except for Jerry Corbyn and his sidekick now acting as Shadow Chancellor.

  10. John Burnett says:

    Well said Rosie and a thank you Roger for, as usual, inviting serious thought rather than political platitudes. No commentator or politician appears to have addressed the problem intelligently and until they do it will persist. Everyone’s reality is a lens that focusses their free attention (the attention is left over after we have met our essential needs) and this ‘reality field’ is maintained by reality anchor points created by experience, agreement with others, or some fictitious mendacity. If this problem is to be solved we have to undertake deep research into these reality anchor points AND THEN EXPOSE THEM TO PUBLIC VIEW for sensible discussion. “It’s in the book will not do” because “The Book” then becomes suspect. If we do not set an example for the rest of the world these atrocities will persist as good men stand idle.

  11. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Do you remember Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax ? One was excited with a bit of paper with Adolph’s signature on it. The other was very keen on appeasement. Both had to give way to a man with leadership ability, but with a country utterly unprepared to engage in general war.
    Is this going to repeat ? We have so called leaders today, and right on the moment, they all start to say the same platitudes about this vile mass murder. Come next week it will be back to election fighting, and a blind eye will be turned upon a very real problem for this Nation.
    Our MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have done a great job against Jihad Groups, but individuals that are out of their tree, pose a very different problem, yet most of these misfits are known to the authorities, and have the freedom to do mass murder. Since our Police are short on numbers, would it not be an idea for our Armed Forces, to be subjected to Police training, and with that considerable addition to Police numbers, bring in those possible murderers that are known about ?
    I don’t propose that this is the total answer, but some real action has to be taken. How many more Manchester mass murders are we prepared to tolerate, or are we happy for Chamberlain / Halifax once more to be seen to rule in our green and pleasant land ?

  12. Jane Davies says:

    Personally I’m sick and tired with the usual hand wringing, sad faces and the public verbal platitudes expressed by the PM and the members of the government. I’m sick and tired of seeing candlelit shrines and hearing prayers sent to another bloody god…… because after all this has died down and gone away NOTHING CHANGES then it happens again and all of the above swings into action AGAIN and on and on it goes.  It is the job of the government of the day to protect the people AT ALL COSTS. I suspect we will hear ONCE AGAIN that this bomber “was known to police” and yet ONCE AGAIN this vile ‘known to the police’ person has succeeded in murdering innocents all in the name of some god. If these creatures are ‘known to the police’ then why are they even free to walk the streets. I don’t care if they are British born, they are NOT British if their values are not the same, just get rid of them, we don’t want them, send them to the land of their ancestors or at the very least send them to muslim countries so they can live with their own kind.  Put laws in place that they can never return to the UK. I don’t care about their human rights just get them off the streets, throw them into camps then sort out which countries to send them to. Time now for the government to stop all this PC nonsense, people are dying whilst politicians are too afraid of causing offense. Grow a backbone, man up, enough is enough and all the clichés you can think of, just do it to protect the people from these madmen..
    As for soldiers on the streets…..this will achieve nothing and is just a smokescreen to make it look like the PM is getting tough, what a laugh that must be for the scum who invade UK cities in there campaign for murdering everyone. Their miserable version of Islam denies them any joy in life which is why they target venues where regular normal folk gather to do just that.
    Genuine Brits will be 100% behind the PM who does the right thing and this is way overdue, just get it done……NOW.

  13. Mike FitzGerald says:

    Islam is not a religion. It is a mix of violent expansionist politics (jihad), repugnant Sharia law and an oppressive cult of submission. It should not be awarded the protection of a religion at all. Actions speak louder that words and by their repeated murder of our men, women and children this group has set themselves apart from others. No group has the right to use our laws,taxes and civilisation against us. No group has the right to rights without responsibility. No group has the right to crime without punishment. It is not our responsibility to sort the good from the bad, it is theirs. Their presence in our country is a privilege not a right.

    Globally Islam is a major problem. It is a direct threat to our safety and security and has no claim to trump the human rights of our own people. We cannot stand with and against Islam. Standing with it means submission and our own Islamification. Only standing together against it gives us a future of freedom and security. It is time the people of the UK were given a voice on the matter as our successive goverments have actively driven the immigration of muslims into this country against the will.of the people.

    • R I HICKS says:

      I was just reading that without seeing who wrote it and I was thinking, wow, he’s nailed it, then I saw it was the brilliant Mike Fitzgerald. Top man. Concise. Bravo.

    • catalanbrian says:

      It is attitudes such as yours that are the root cause of the problem. Sadly they are all too prevalent.

      • R I HICKS says:

        You are a complete idiot. The root cause is Islam.

      • catalanbrian says:

        You are of course free to hold your misguided and foolish opinion.

      • falcons1988 says:

        There is a wonderful thing called the brain. It allows to understand a flow of information. If you follow this link David Wood will teach you all you need to know about Islam.

      • Mike FitzGerald says:

        So, in short, your view is that if I disagree with the rape and murder of my own people in my own country against our own laws, and on our taxes, I have the wrong view and am the cause of such atrocities. Good luck with getting that idea accepted.
        May I suggest, it is the policy of encouraged immigration, denial, appeasement and submission to the extreme end of this ideology that is the one half of the problem? With the other being the core principe of violent Jihad, murder, genocide, rape, enslavement and the evil manipulation of poor, illeducated people whose chances of peaceful personal advancement have been blocked by their islamic system for 1,400 years.
        I am sure your open support of their terrorist atrocities will be welcomed by the murderers. However, as an apologist kaffir, remember you are worthless to them and can be killed without it being a crime in their islamic view.

      • catalanbrian says:

        It is very easy for you to put our argument based on bigotry and hatred, but you have not made any proposal as to how things can be changed. Segregation, which you seem to favour, has not and will not work. Welcoming immigrant people into society so that they feel part of it and not outsiders is a way forward, but I don’t expect you to be capable of understanding that. I would point out that I am not, as you allege, a supporter of terrorist, or any other violence, for that matter.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “It is very easy for you to put our argument based on bigotry and hatred”

        The biggest hate-filled bigot on this blog is you Brian, by a huge margin.

      • So, Catalan Brian, your position is “blame the victim”. Perhaps you think that the 22 who died in Manchester were complicit in operating the detonator? You remind me of the Daily Telegraph’s old satirical column “Peter Simple”, with its trendy psychologist Dr. Heinz Kiosk. His catch phrase: “We are all guilty”. Plus ça change.

      • catalanbrian says:

        That is a pretty warped interpretation of what I have said. My point, which I thought was abundantly clear, is that to blame all people of the Islamic faith for the actions of this one individual (and his co-conspirators if any), which is what people on here seem to want, is a major error that creates separation and resentment. I do blame successive British (and other) governments for their actions in the Middle East and North Africa for creating the conditions in which terrorists thrive. If you were to check the number the of Islamist terrorist incidents occurring in the UK you will find that prior to the invasion of Iraq there were none, that is NONE (the first was an attack on the Israeli Embassy in 1994) They have all occurred since we interfered in other people’s business by invading their countries and by killing countless numbers of their people, children included, by bombing or shooting. It is worth noting that the total number of such terrorist incidents in the UK is tiny (check it), and actions proposed by you and your followers are inappropriately excessive.

    • John Burnett says:

      It is our responsibility to sort the good from the bad

      • An old lefty technique. Set up a false version of your opponents’ position, then demolish it. No one is saying that all muslims are terrorists. But nonetheless a large and well organised and funded terrorist organisation, capable of widespread atrocities, claims Islam as its philosophy and justification, and seems to be serious about its warped interpretation of the faith. You cannot understand ISIS without the Islamic connection. And the terrorists, far from being “loners”, enjoy the tacit support of a significant minority. South Manchester described as “a hotbed of Jihad”.

  14. John Burnett says:

    The cause of the problem is the Quran and the realities it proposes, not those who follow it. They are people like us, no more idiotic than the man on a Clapham omnibus. It is the realities of the Quran that must be examined in depth and exposed to open discussion. Open discussion is the only socially acceptable way forward that does not do violence to our own culture.

  15. Dung says:


    You appear not yet to have discovered that there are many people, groups, political parties with whom you can not reason and should you need proof just look in the mirror.

    • catalanbrian says:

      Oh I have discovered that. Most people on this blog fit into that category. None of you look outside the bubble of hatred that you have created for yourselves. All of you are only capable of blaming someone else for the problems that yo have created.

  16. Dung says:

    How about you and I discuss this without insults and see if you can change my opinions about you?

    • Dung says:

      cantalabrian what makes you think I live in a bubble of hatred?

      • catweazle666 says:

        He judges everyone else by his own standards, clearly.

        He lives in one, therefore he is incapable of imagining that not everyone else does likewise.

  17. KennieD says:

    ” If you were to check the number the of Islamist terrorist incidents occurring in the UK you will find that prior to the invasion of Iraq there were none, that is NONE (the first was an attack on the Israeli Embassy in 1994)”
    1994, now, that would be round about the period when Political Correctness and the lefty-lib “let’s not offend anybody” began to grow and really take hold in UK. The time when Major had his “bastards” in the cabinet and the Blair creature was preparing to lie his way to notoriety and fortune.

    • catalanbrian says:

      And what has that to do with the price of fish?

      • Dung says:


        The bomber in Manchester and his father supported the Lybian Islamic Fighting Group which opposed Gaddafi, we played a small part in helping the Lybians remove Gaddafi. Now Lybian Islamic people are interfering in British affairs by killing innocent children in the UK and you think we should not be angry or try to retaliate? You seem to operate with double standards.

      • MIKE MAUNDER says:

        We have been here before Brian. How does the price of fish get into this conversation ?

    • catweazle666 says:

      Oh dear, Brian making stuff up again?
      There also the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher from within the Libyan embassy on 17 April 1984, the Iranian Embassy siege from 30 April to 5 May 1980.
      Then on 3 August 1989 a man using the alias Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh accidentally blew himself up along with two floors of a central London hotel while preparing a bomb intended to kill Salman Rushdie.
      On 26 July 1994 a bomb outside the Israeli embassy in London killed 14.
      Then there was the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 0n 21 dDecember 1998 that killed inhabitants of the town of Lockerbie when the 747 crashed on the town.
      It is perhaps worth mentioning that Gadaffi was very active in supplying the PIRA with weapons and explosives and that the PLO trained PIRA operatives in all aspects of terror in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.
      So once poor sad Brian shows himself to be either uninformed or mendacious, perhaps both.
      Typical to see him using the death of children to attempt to score political points, naturallly.

      • foxbarn says:

        Interesting points Catweazle. As far as the Life of Brian is concerned, I don’t bother responding anymore, he’s an idiot, it’s like trying to have a conversation with a 5 year old.

      • catalanbrian says:

        You blnkered fool. None of these, apart from, perhaps the incidents leading up to the Libyan Embassy incident, were terrorist incidents intended to harm the British public. The Israeli embassy bomb was aimed at the Israeli Embassy and killed no-one. The Rushdie bomb was to be an attack on Rushdie, not on the general population. The Pan Am bomb was an attack on the USA, not on the UK.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “You blnkered fool. None of these, apart from, perhaps the incidents leading up to the Libyan Embassy incident, were terrorist incidents intended to harm the British public.”

        “Incidents…” Um, yes, I see…

        243 dead passengers, 16 dead crew and 11 killed in their homes on the ground only counts as an incident in your book…

        A bit of collateral damage such as the 11 killed on the ground at Lockerbie doesn’t count because the atrocity oh, sorry, INCIDENT was aimed at Americans whose lives don’t matter anyway in your reality, right?

        And those kids in Manchester had it coming because Blair invaded Iraq, I see.

        So that’s all OK then…

        Glad we’ve got that settled.

        Jolly good, carry on…

        Oh, and just as a matter of interest, say I was driving my car and “accidentally” mowed down and killed a bus queue of schoolchildren because I wasn’t paying attention, sending text messages on my mobile phone, perhaps.

        Because I didn’t actually intend to kill them, like the terrorists who planted the bomb on Pan Am 103 didn’t actually intend to kill the 11 victims in Lockerbie – some of whom were children, you wouldn’t consider me responsible for their deaths, is that how it works in Brian World?

      • catalanbrian says:

        You poisonous dwarf. If you can only make points (or attempt to do so) by twisting what I have stated there is no point. End.

      • Dung says:


        If you have a brain then it is in urgent need of repair. You have just attempted to justify the deaths of innocent people by stating that those people were not specifically targeted? If you take action which results in the deaths of non combatant innocent people then you are responsible for those deaths. Strange as it may seem to you our government cares about the safety of all people within the UK, you attack them and you attack the UK.

      • catalanbrian says:

        You poisonous fool. Under no circumstances have I attempted to justify the deaths of anyone. Furthermore I was not supporting the terrorist action and never will do. I oppose terrorism in all its forms and that includes terrorising innocent people by bombing and shooting them.

      • Dung says:

        So Brian what was the meaning of this statement that you made:
        None of these, apart from, perhaps the incidents leading up to the Libyan Embassy incident, were terrorist incidents intended to harm the British public?

      • catalanbrian says:

        I think that my words are clear enough. If you are too dim to understand plain English, that I am afraid is your problem.

      • Dung says:

        So according to saint Brian an attempt to blow up Salman Rushdie (well an attempt to make the bomb) is not a terrorist event?
        An attempt to kill people in or around the Israeli embassy in London is not a terrorist event??
        And bringing down a 747 full of innocent people was not a terrorist event?
        Why dont you go find a blog more suited to your pathetic moral values Brian?

      • catalanbrian says:

        You twat. you are deliberately twisting matters. End.

      • Dung says:

        Brian please enlighten me as to what I have twisted, I would feel very bad if I had wronged you ^.^

  18. Richard111 says:

    I’m not that familiar with the laws of Islam, but I understand once you accept their doctrine you CANNOT leave. It’s an automatic death sentence and the perpetrator is not guilty of any crime, in the laws of Islam that is. I believe the term is ‘fatwa’. I have read that if any Muslim fails to carry out instruction from the Imam he will have fatwa imposed and his wife and children are also at risk.
    I believe this is Sharia law. Muslims are trying to impose this law here in the UK.

  19. Derek says:

    I agree that now is the time for a serious debate on practical steps to deal with these islamist sympathisers. Apparently there are over 20,000 people being watched. One thing we could do, short of internment is to fit them with an electronic tag and ban them from certain places.

  20. Richard111 says:

    Interesting to note how some comments here reflect the opinions of one Jeremy Corbyn.

  21. Jane Davies says:

    Here in Canada we never hear anything that JC has to say so I can honestly say my comment is my own!

  22. Richard111 says:

    Quite so Jane. Your comment would have JC frothing in his whiskers. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s