More bombs in London ...

[JamesSmith]

More bombs in London, doesn’t look as serious as 7/7.

Personally I am disgusted our MPs are having all the time off until October. When something such as this happens, twice, we need the laws, acts and required legislation worked on fully and implemented as quickly as possible.

Don’t rush it, but come on get to work and let’s get it sorted. We need to be tougher on the people in sighting violence. No one is suggesting kicking out or denying entry to such people is a silver bullet, but it will go someway to reassuring people and The Sun won't have these editorials all the time Re: people banned everywhere in the World except the UK.

[Brian Turner]

The BBC reports that it's simply detonators - hard to tell if its not some copycat fool just trying to cause problems, or whether it's a real and proper attempt at a bombing that didn't go quite right.

Either way, you're right about the MP's holidaying until October - probably a good time to come home now.

EDIT: Uh, oh - BBC now reports it was a proper bombing attempt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4705117.stm

Seems to have gone wrong because they didn't want to commit suicide bombings...

[jazz77]

this bombings gives a scare out of me...well who doesn't? but it saddens me the most. poor people who were affected by this tragic incedent...

[Des Brambley]

Originally Posted by JamesSmith

Personally I am disgusted our MPs are having all the time off until October. When something such as this happens, twice, we need the laws, acts and required legislation worked on fully and implemented as quickly as possible.

Not sure if you know how government works, but the MP's have gone back to their constituencies to work on and for their behalf. Whilst some of them will be talking some leave, most will work through.

As for new laws, no, we don't need any new, knee-jerk, reactionary laws, we have enough of them on the statute books already. If there are to be new criminal laws (and therefore new criminals), they should take time to be considered fully and debated properly.

The trouble with giving more power to the Police in relation to incitement, is that it is a gray area. The more power a government has, the less power the people have to over throw it if it become a malignant government. Currently we are looking at a ban on protesting outside of parliment - a first in English history. This is claimed to be in the name of security, but I have a feeling it is to make them unassailable. To stand-up and say 'we should take our protest to Governent, because they are abusing us', could, in the near future be taken as incitement. They have already moved the goal posts on the term 'Terrorist', what is to stop them broadening the scope of the term 'incitement'

We have a government that is taking away our basic rights, in the name of 'protection'. Rights which have been fought for, with millions of lives being laid-down over the centuries, in defence of this realm, and against malignant, corrupt Monarchs and Governances. If this state become totalitarian, in the name of 'freedom', should we celebrate that 'victory', or mourn the loss of the bravery, defiance and slight mistrust the British have, traditionally, had for politicians and Governent?

[JamesSmith]

Originally Posted by Des Brambley

Not sure if you know how government works, but the MP's have gone back to their constituencies to work on and for their behalf. Whilst some of them will be talking some leave, most will work through.

As for new laws, no, we don't need any new, knee-jerk, reactionary laws, we have enough of them on the statute books already. If there are to be new criminal laws (and therefore new criminals), they should take time to be considered fully and debated properly.

The trouble with giving more power to the Police in relation to incitement, is that it is a gray area. The more power a government has, the less power the people have to over throw it if it become a malignant government. Currently we are looking at a ban on protesting outside of parliment - a first in English history. This is claimed to be in the name of security, but I have a feeling it is to make them unassailable. To stand-up and say 'we should take our protest to Governent, because they are abusing us', could, in the near future be taken as incitement. They have already moved the goal posts on the term 'Terrorist', what is to stop them broadening the scope of the term 'incitement'

We have a government that is taking away our basic rights, in the name of 'protection'. Rights which have been fought for, with millions of lives being laid-down over the centuries, in defence of this realm, and against malignant, corrupt Monarchs and Governances. If this state become totalitarian, in the name of 'freedom', should we celebrate that 'victory', or mourn the loss of the bravery, defiance and slight mistrust the British have, traditionally, had for politicians and Governent?

It would reassure the public a great deal if we can see our elected MPs debating it in public. Yes we see Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy going in and out of number 10, but we need a real debate about this to prevent any new laws being, as you and the media describe it: "knee-jerk, reactionary laws".

I don’t see this as a grey area. If someone says "Lets kill all these infidels, jihad is the way of God", or words to that affect, they should be removed from preaching again, in public or private. Lock them up and ensure any communications he or she has to the outside World do not include further incitement.

In our current society, there are alot of rules, it seems, that more than often go against the majority. The current interruption of laws tends to give more rights to one portion of society than another. Typically in the work place or in community centres.

I'll give one example, a woman my parents know worked in a community centre in a part of Luton with a high Muslim / Asian / Mixed race population. A man came in and refused to be served by this woman (Woman White, Man Asian) because of her colour. She took this up to her managers who swept the whole thing under the carpet. As I recall, no action at all was taken against the man. Apparently she “misunderstood” the man.

If this was the other way round, a woman went into a shop and refused to be served by an Asian, the incredible backlash by the Asian community and the ramifications on this woman and her job are unthinkable.

There is a growing feeling of injustice in every day life. A report recently said racial tension has never been so high in areas with a mixed raced population. Its obvious to see why, you have Islamic clerics on the streets preaching hatred and it takes months to do anything about it. You have people preaching hatred and banned in every country bar the UK, we let these people in.

If these people want to live here and take all the advantages of our society then they need to start giving and not in the way of death and destruction. They need to stop incitement or be locked up. Condemn attacks and try damn hard to ensure every other Muslim isn’t recruited into doing attacks.

[Des Brambley]

Originally Posted by JamesSmith

It would reassure the public a great deal if we can see our elected MPs debating it in public. Yes we see Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy going in and out of number 10, but we need a real debate about this to prevent any new laws being, as you and the media describe it: "knee-jerk, reactionary laws".

I don’t see this as a grey area. If someone says "Lets kill all these infidels, jihad is the way of God", or words to that affect, they should be removed from preaching again, in public or private. Lock them up and ensure any communications he or she has to the outside World do not include further incitement.

In our current society, there are alot of rules, it seems, that more than often go against the majority. The current interruption of laws tends to give more rights to one portion of society than another. Typically in the work place or in community centres.

I'll give one example, a woman my parents know worked in a community centre in a part of Luton with a high Muslim / Asian / Mixed race population. A man came in and refused to be served by this woman (Woman White, Man Asian) because of her colour. She took this up to her managers who swept the whole thing under the carpet. As I recall, no action at all was taken against the man. Apparently she “misunderstood” the man.

If this was the other way round, a woman went into a shop and refused to be served by an Asian, the incredible backlash by the Asian community and the ramifications on this woman and her job are unthinkable.

There is a growing feeling of injustice in every day life. A report recently said racial tension has never been so high in areas with a mixed raced population. Its obvious to see why, you have Islamic clerics on the streets preaching hatred and it takes months to do anything about it. You have people preaching hatred and banned in every country bar the UK, we let these people in.

If these people want to live here and take all the advantages of our society then they need to start giving and not in the way of death and destruction. They need to stop incitement or be locked up. Condemn attacks and try damn hard to ensure every other Muslim isn’t recruited into doing attacks.

In relation to Imams whom preach hatred and death, and whom seek to spread a corrupted version of the word jihad; yes, they do need to be challenged legally, and have their liberty removed, should it be proved that they are encouraging attacks against the public.

However, of the 2.8% of the entire population, whom are Muslims living in this country, only a very few will agree with the policy suicide bombers and a holy war against the way of life in the country within which they live. Most are peace loving, as are most of 71.8% whom are Christian, the 1.0% whom are Hindus, the 0.6% whom are Skihs, the 0.5% whom are Jewish, the 0.3 whom are Buddhists, and the 0.3%, like myself, whom make up the smaller religions out-there.

Coming, as I do, from a long line of 'Pagans', I feel great resentment towards the Christian dominance in what was a good 'pagan' country, until the Christians burned and tortured the path out of the people to enable their world view to take presidence...

I feel like I'm going slightly off topic here... We need laws to prevent the preaching of holy war, and we need to maintain our ability to muster against the forces of government and crown, should those bodies start to work against the good of the people. We can't have laws which blanket ban free speech. After all, who can say that the Islamic way of life isn't better than the watered downm Christianity that's on offer at the moment. Have you studied the qu'arn James?

[JamesSmith]

Originally Posted by Des Brambley

I feel like I'm going slightly off topic here... We need laws to prevent the preaching of holy war, and we need to maintain our ability to muster against the forces of government and crown, should those bodies start to work against the good of the people. We can't have laws which blanket ban free speech. After all, who can say that the Islamic way of life isn't better than the watered downm Christianity that's on offer at the moment. Have you studied the qu'arn James?

There are obviously going to be different interpretations of different regions. But it does seem the current interpretation of Islam on the spot light is one I want no part of.

I like the British way of life, overwhelmingly the British way of life is Christian way of life, I’m happy with that, its peaceful, for the most part and its common sense.

I have not studied the Qur'an, it is a topic I wouldn't mind taking up.

[Des Brambley]

In relation to the primarily Christian faith in this country, only 31% of the poll of 1004 people attended, over the 2002-2003 year, a regular Sunday Service. In the same period only 11% attended a regular weekday service. I can't find the figures relating to the average time spent per week attending church, but I am fairly sure that more people spend more time at Ikea and the other weekend superstores, 'spending' their hard-earned numeric exchange vouchers and binary numbers, than do comtemplating the Glory of God.

You said 'overwhelmingly the British way of life is Christian way of life', which Christian way of life? Catholic, Protestant, Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist or any of the other myriad forms it takes? Something to consider is that the Christian faith bases all of the festivals on 'pagan' dates and festivals, most of the old churches were built on 'pagan' sites. Even the bible has huge parts fo the texts discovered in the desert missing becasue they didn't concur with the concensus of the political sentiment of the monarch or governemnt at the time.

The book of Timothy which has the 'in the fractured rock, in the wooded glade, and in the place of stone and wood and moss, the church not built by man, this is where you will find me' line in it, is missing from the new testiment. Hundreds and thousands of people died building Catherdals to the Glory of God...

I want no part of the extremist view of any religion, nor do I want to live in a secular society that sees the planet as an infinite resource to fuel mans greed for 'things'

That's why I and many others live by the simple tenent of 'do what you will, harm ye none'

[JamesSmith]

Originally Posted by Des Brambley

In relation to the primarily Christian faith in this country, only 31% of the poll of 1004 people attended, over the 2002-2003 year, a regular Sunday Service. In the same period only 11% attended a regular weekday service. I can't find the figures relating to the average time spent per week attending church, but I am fairly sure that more people spend more time at Ikea and the other weekend superstores, 'spending' their hard-earned numeric exchange vouchers and binary numbers, than do comtemplating the Glory of God.

You said 'overwhelmingly the British way of life is Christian way of life', which Christian way of life? Catholic, Protestant, Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist or any of the other myriad forms it takes? Something to consider is that the Christian faith bases all of the festivals on 'pagan' dates and festivals, most of the old churches were built on 'pagan' sites. Even the bible has huge parts fo the texts discovered in the desert missing becasue they didn't concur with the concensus of the political sentiment of the monarch or governemnt at the time.

The book of Timothy which has the 'in the fractured rock, in the wooded glade, and in the place of stone and wood and moss, the church not built by man, this is where you will find me' line in it, is missing from the new testiment. Hundreds and thousands of people died building Catherdals to the Glory of God...

I want no part of the extremist view of any religion, nor do I want to live in a secular society that sees the planet as an infinite resource to fuel mans greed for 'things'

That's why I and many others live by the simple tenent of 'do what you will, harm ye none'

You obviously know your stuff, I'm not able to compete on that level.

Christian is abroad ranging term. I was probably more pointing towards the general common sense of the Ten Commandments. Your 'do what you will, harm ye none' describes it just as well.

[Des Brambley]

It's the only 'law' of the 'pagan' faiths...