An angry young man

That's Nick Clegg - apparently.

Nick Clegg is angry with Gordon Brown. Nick Clegg is angry with the Labour Party and the Tory Party.

Good! It's about time one of the party leaders got a bit of fire in his belly. So what's got that nice Nick all hot under the collar?

Is it the way that successive Labour and Tory governments have destroyed the British economy?

No.

Is it the destruction and dismantling of our manufacturing and industrial sector?

No.

Is it the dire education systems which fails more and more young people leaving them barely able to read or write and incapable of holding down a proper job?

No.

Is it the way Tories and Labour have committed our armed forces to more and more overseas operations while systemically cutting their equipment and resources?

No.

Is it the way successive Tory and Labour governments have sold more and more of our sovereignty to the European Union?

Of course not.

Is it the way our town and city centres become virtual war zones every Friday and Saturday night as drunken louts rampage through the streets?

No.

Is it the way the police have switched from protecting the law abiding majority to using them as a means of raising extra revenue?

No.

Is it the fact that the police and criminal justice system have given up on trying to deal with the massive levels of crime in favour of "managing" the statistics?

No

What bothers Nick is nothing to do with British people - he's worried about the way we treat immigrants.

Yep - there are a thousand reasons why Nick could be angry for the sake of the British nation and the British people, but all he really cares about are foreigners and sod the British.

And people are going to vote for this idiot?

This is what they really think of you

A lifelong Labour supporter questions the Prime Minister on immigration and he is as nice as pie to her face - but as soon as he thinks he can't be heard anymore he refers to the woman as "bigoted".

The media have jumped on this and the Prime Minister is described as "dismayed" and "apologetic". I've no doubt he is dismayed and apologetic - at being caught out, not for calling the woman a "bigot"

Gordon Brown may have been the one caught out, but don't think for a minute that he is the only one who thinks like this. Far from it - it is the default position of all progressives and that includes those in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party - they all genuinely believe that anyone who opposes immigration is a racist bigot motivated by hatred of other nations and peoples rather than a love of their own country and people.

If anyone seriously believes that Gordon Brown - or any other progressive liberal - has genuinely changed their mind about those who criticise immigration then they are a complete fool. He really does believe the woman to be a bigot.

This is the reality of progressive liberals - they say one thing to your face and another thing entirely when they think they are out of earshot and back in their cosy circle of elitists. It's why they stage manage "public" meetings so closely and take such pains to cancel dissent.

Politics used to be an open and free exchange of views and opinions - both within the political parties and in public, but the rise of progressive liberalism has changed this. Nobody is allowed to question their real motives or their real intentions - and to do so will result in the person being subjected that person to personal abuse.

We've seen in the past how these political parties are prepared to dig out any dirt they can find on people who criticise them. We've seen the way they handle dissent in their own parties - throwing people out of conference meetings and using the police to threaten and frighten them.

This is the world of progressive liberal politics - authoritarian, illiberal and vicious.

And that applies to ALL progressive liberals - and that is all we have.

Compare and contrast

The Foreign Office, BBC and liberal establishment are up in arms about the use of forged British passports by alleged Israeli secret agents to carry out the assassination of a senior Hamas official.

Funny how they are so upset about that, but considerably less concerned by the number of Moslems with legitimate British passports caught attempting to carry out indiscriminate mass murder.

It's a funny old world.

Race, tolerance and immigration

Some New Labour insider has apparently blurted out that unrestricted immigration and open borders are neither unintended or regrettable, but were in fact a deliberate attempt by the left to flood Britain with foreign faces and ethnic minorities with the intention of forcing their disastrous policy of multiculturalism on the native population.

The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?

Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.

The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.

One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?

Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.

Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.

The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.

However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?

You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.

The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!

We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?

Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.

We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.

Rumble in "The Jungle"

So the French are planning to close down the makeshift camp where immigrants gather before launching their attempt to come to the land of milk and honey - or, rather, housing and benefits - England. How very thoughtful of them.

It's also rather considerate of them not to bulldoze the camp during the month of Ramadan as most of the camps occupants are Moslem - predominantly Afghan from what I understand. Although it does strike me as a bit silly to give them all advance warning of the fact that they are to be rounded up and deported - but hey, what do I know. I'm sure it has nothing to do with France wanting to be seen to do something about the problem rather than actually dealing with it.

But I've got an idea.

You see, it may have escaped their attention in France, but NATO is currently engaged in operations in Afghanistan - including reconstruction work (for some reason). So why not just round up all these immigrants, fly them back to Afghanistan and put them up in a makeshift camp there while their asylum claims are processed (and refused). While they are there they can be put to work - paid of course, we don't do slave labour - making the camp more comfortable and permanent with a water and power supply. Over the course of time, these camps will evolve businesses - shops, restaurants and so on - which will offer employment and pay.

Many of those people will learn valuable skills which can then be applied to build new camps for more immigrants and before you know it you have a virtuous spiral. We could call these camps "new villages" and, as well as providing material support, our troops could offer security and safety. Once it becomes established that these "new villages" not only offer the opportunity to earn a decent living, but provide safety from the Taleban word will get around and everyone will want one. Hey, you could even go as far as moving whole villages out of Taleban areas into safe havens - thus depriving the Taleban of the vital resources of food and men.

Once that is done, you can squeeze the Taleban militarily until their starving, weary and demoralised troops decide to call it a day.

Far fetched? It worked great in Malaya.

Is there nothing we won't import?

The media made a bit of a song and dance over the news that the population of Britain has now breached the 61,000,000 mark. Laban over on UK Commentators notes that one such media hack is pleased that this has happened and is grateful to the wave of immigrants that have recently flooded into our nation.

"So the latest figures are a source of hope — showing that relatively fertile immigrants can, at least for a while, replenish the new generation of young people the country needs." *

What nobody seems to be mentioning, however, is that over the last 40 years we have, through abortion on demand, wiped out some 6,000,000 viable "young people" that the country is supposed to need - and that those young people would quite probably have gone on to have had children of their own by now.

In other words, we are now relying on imported kids due to the fact we can't be bothered to make our own.

* All this depends on swallowing the belief that the only way to achieve economic growth is by adding productive bodies. It's not a belief I share.

Frank Field must not become Speaker

There seems to be a groundswell of opinion that Frank Field would make the ideal choice to replace Michael Martin.

Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.

I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.

His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.

That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.

Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.

That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.

Criminals aren't victims

Trafficking survivors are not 'illegal immigrants' says Heather Harvey on The Grauniad.

Oh yes they are, says Stan. You've got to admire the sheer cheek of the liberal elite who threw open our borders to all and sundry then feign shock and disgust when unscrupulous organised gangs of foreign criminals take advantage of that to make a bit of cash.

It might not be right in every respect (which I'll come back to shortly) but this is a major and important report from Keith Vaz.

Actually, it's wrong in virtually every respect - as you'd expect from some one with the moral probity of Keith Vaz.

These include officials' insistence on viewing trafficking through an immigration lens, the creation of a flawed identification system that is dominated by the police and immigration authorities while keeping NGOs and other specialists at arm's length.

Who'd have thought we'd resort to using the proper instruments of the state for dealing with illegal activity and immigration rather than self-appointed and self-declared "specialists"? What next? Maybe we ought to let the RAC decide how to deal with motoring offenders.

Harvey's intention - and probably that of the loathsome Vaz - is to portray illegal immigrants as "victims" of crime, but these people are victims through their own choosing not because of circumstance. It's the same principle that we apply to drug users who choose to wreck their lives through their choice to do something illegal.

They aren't victims - they are criminals and the only correct thing to do is treat them as such.

Of course, all this ignores the one simple fact that if we maintained control of our borders and actually made a real effort to determine who is and is not allowed into this country then none of this would matter - there wouldn't be trafficking on any significant scale.

As with the drugs issue, the liberals are attempting to tackle the supply rather than the demand. It won't work - as soon as you close down one supplier another will take it's place. As long as there is a demand there will be supply. The correct thing to do is kill the demand and that means ending the reason why people come here - the ease of access and the generous benefits system.

I agree with Harvey that trafficking is a form of slavery, but it's entirely thanks to the likes of her and the rest of the liberal elite that we have a renewed form of slavery sweeping the world. The best thing she could do to stop is shut up, fuck off and leave us conservatives to deal with it.

Hey, it worked in the 19th century.

Multicultural cringing

Terrific piece from Ed Hussain in today's Times comment section about the state of mosques in Britain and how they are breeding extremism.

Almost all mosques are controlled by first-generation immigrant men, leaving most British Muslims - women and young people - out of the management structure.

By importing cheap imams from poor, intellectually deprived and theologically conservative places mosques put young Britons in the hands of men who do not have the linguistic or cultural backgrounds to deal with modern Britain. Little wonder, then, that many young Muslims turn to radical university Islamic societies, extremist websites, and Hamas-supporting groups in Britain for “religious guidance”.

Of the 27 or so Muslim seminaries or dar ul uloom in Britain, 25 come from the austere, Deobandi tradition - the preferred school of the Taleban. So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.

It's crazy that we're trying to defeat the Taliban in one country and happily allowing them to spread their message of intolerance and hatred in our own backyard, but given the cultural cringing created by the doctrine of multiculturalism it doesn't come as a surprise.

Hussain wonders how we are supposed to develop an "indigenous British Islam" under these circumstances and the only answer is that we can't. The longer we pursue this dangerous course of multiculturalism the harder it will be for British Moslems to develop their own brand of Islam which is more compatible with the ways of a liberal western democracy.

You can't reform something by repeatedly giving in to it - at some point you have to say "no more" and that point is now. If, rather than just allowing new mosques to be built or seminaries and madrassas to be set up we were to say that they have to be funded from British sources, they have to be built to fit in to the British landscape, they have to be managed by British born Moslems, they have to allow men and women to worship together and they have to employ British born and English speaking imams then we might start getting somewhere.

Until then we'll always have a breeding ground for extremism in our own backyard.

Read it all.

The Domino's effect

A branch of Domino's Pizza has decided to ban pork from its pizza menu and only offer Halal meat alternatives.

The takeaway has told customers in the mixed-race area of Hall Green, Birmingham, that if they want ham or pork on their pizza they will have to go elsewhere.

And if they don't want Halal to go elsewhere too presumably.

For meat to be deemed Halal, it must meet certain conditions. These include that the animal should be killed by having its throat cut by a Muslim and any flowing blood of the carcase should be completely drained.

Yes - how very humane. And did you notice that bit about the throat has to be slit by a Moslem? No discrimination there then. Mr. Jones, the out of work butcher from Walmington-on-sea, can't get a job in a Halal abbatoir and no Moslems are trained to do it - so they just have to employ immigrants don't they.

Masood Khawaja, President of the Halal Food Authority, said: "It's good news for Muslims, with changing pallets, who want a bit of variety in their diet. This is only the beginning and we are delighted that Domino's has participating in this trend."

Yeah - good news for Moslems and fuck the rest of us, eh. As he says "this is only the beginning" - the question is, where will it end?

1+1

On the comments of another post, Old Greeny, a teacher, asks ....

"For instance, we are now required to teach "Community Cohesion" (whatever THAT is!).....I presume it's a case of....erm....treating ech other with respect? But what do I know? I teach maths...If someone knows how to teach "Community Cohesion" in maths, please let me know...."

Well, here's my answer Old Greeny.

1 language + 1 culture = 1 community
1000 communities + 1 shared history = 1 nation
1 nation + 10 new cultures + 50 new languages = 1 hell of a mess

Is this the death knell for the multicultural experiment?

A report commissioned by the BBC confirms what most of us already knew - that Britain's communities are considerably more fragmented than they were 30 years ago.

Community life in Britain has weakened substantially over the past 30 years, according to research commissioned by the BBC.

Although the article does mention immigration as being a contributory factor, at no time does it mention the thing that would have been the single biggest factor. The policy of multiculturalism. Instead they claim that the major reason for the breakdown of communities is wealth and transport.

Increased wealth and improved access to transport has made it easier for people to move for work, for retirement, for schools, for a new life.

Sorry, but this is speculation. Not only that, but it doesn't explain why people choose to move for "a new life". Retiring to the coast has been part and parcel of our lives for some time before 1971, but more and more younger people are choosing to leave the areas where they grew up and leave behind their friends and families in doing so. Why? No one chooses to make such an upheaval lightly.

They are doing so because the areas they once called home have changed beyond all recognition. Not only are they no longer familiar as part of their past, they are not even familiar as parts of their country. Fuelled by the policy of multiculturalism and driven by immigration, huge swathes of Britain are no longer "British". When people find that they are strangers in their own town they look elsewhere and that is what has driven the "mobility" that the researchers refer to - not wealth.

Living in Slough I can understand that. The only thing that stops me moving is a stubborn refusal to accept that my home town is no longer my own - even though I increasingly feel like the stranger. A walk down the high street confirms that with the proliferation of shopfronts and signs in foreign languages and where the sound of an English voice speaking the English language is increasingly rare.

The thing is, in a sane world this would be taken as confirmation that the multicultural experiment is the complete failure that most of us realise it is. The sensible thing to do would be to reverse the policies that have allowed our communities to become so fractured and return to the sensible policies that once ensured that our society held together. Unfortunately, with our current crop of politicians this is unlikely to happen whether it is a Labour or Tory administration.

Nations are nothing other than the culmination of communities that share an identity, culture and history. It simply is not possible to introduce foreign cultures, alien identities and alternative histories into those communities and expect them to adapt to it. They won't. It is totally unreasonable to expect the majority to change to suit the minority. When forced to do so the majority will leave the community and try to find familiarity elsewhere - either within the nation or outside. The result will be what this report finds - fragmented and broken societies.

This report should be the final nail in the coffin of multiculturalism. It should be seen as the final warning that the only thing to do is return to the predominantly Christian culture that was once the bedrock of the greatest nation on earth. Failure to do so will ultimately lead to the end of this nation as we know it.

I'm just tired of this argument

I like his blog, but don't agree with everything Guido Fawkes says. I particularly despise this recycled garbage.

Anyone who believes in free markets and free trade has to believe as a corollary in the free movement of people.

Why? Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as a free market (and there hasn't been for centuries) or even free trade - why would the corollary be free movement of people? We've had "free markets" and "free trade" for much of the 20th century without free movement of people. There has always been immigration, but it was always managed not "free" - .i.e. there were restrictions on it. It's like saying if you believe in free trade you must believe in free love or free health care or free lunches. It's bollocks.

This latest regurgitating of this outdated socialist doctrine is in response for Boris Johnson's call for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. To use the argument of Guido - how can anyone who believes in the rule of law encourage rewarding criminals for successfully avoiding detection by the law for so long?

No amnesty - not now, not ever.

The massacre continues

A teenage murder you may not have heard about went to court yesterday.

Mario Carvalho went before Slough magistrates accused of murdering Jane Treasure, 19, at his home in Ledgers Road, Chalvey.
Carvalho, 24, is also charged with the attempted murder of 22-year-old Damien Sharpe at an address in nearby The Crescent.

The murder of the 19 year old care worker has failed to get the coverage given to so many teenage murders over recent months. I can't for the life of me think why, can you?

Why we must get rid of the Human Rights Act

An illegal immigrant who mowed down a brilliant Oxford graduate and writer while driving illegally can't be deported because it would breach his "human right" to family life.

Ahsan Sabri, 28, was unlicensed and not properly insured when he roared through a red light and ploughed into Oxford University graduate Sophie Warne.

But the High Court overturned an immigration tribunal decision that Sabri - who had overstayed his visa - should be sent home to Pakistan.

The judge ruled that deporting him would breach his right to 'respect for family life' as he had married a British woman in 2003 and had a daughter, born last May, with her.

Even if we put aside the fact that Sabri showed absolutely no respect for Ms Warne's right to a family life this is a decision that defies belief. Sabri's wife made a free choice to marry an illegal immigrant - that was her decision and she should live by the consequences of that decision which includes the possibility that he would be deported.

Once again we have the courts making decisions which are contrary to the wishes of the British people, go against all the principles of British law and make a mockery of any claims by this government that it will get tough with illegal immigrants.

The only way we can prevent this systemic abuse of our law is to repeal the Human Rights Act as a matter of urgency. It was never needed in Britain anyway and has done nothing to improve British law or the everyday lives of Britons. All it does is provide a "get out of jail free" clause for the illegal and the feckless.

Labour won't do it, the Tories won't do it and the Lib Dems certainly never would. When will one of our main political parties stand up and say we will do what is right for Britain"?

This is England in 2008

Dreadful.

H/T House Of Dumb

Immigration and crime

With the US Presidential elections in full swing the sites I most often visit for informed opinion from the USA have been understandably preoccupied with the low-level skirmishing between McCain the decrepit and Obama the vacuous. All very interesting to US readers, no doubt, but not exactly riveting reading for yours truly.

Occasionally, though, something pops up which is worth note and today is one of those days. Over on American Thinker, J. James Estrada highlights some very important bits from two very important studies relating to immigration and crime. I know they are about the USA in particular, but I'm of the opinion that similar studies here - if they were ever to be conducted and if the results were ever allowed to be published would reveal similarly startling figures.

Figures like this........

In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for:
16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes
18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes
33.5% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
50% of those sentenced for crimes related to "chop shops"*
35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping
20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI.

Benefits of immigration? Well it's been an enormous benefit to the legal profession - but apart from that ...........

* A chop shop is a business dealing with stolen cars and flogging off the parts. It was immortalised in the Kirsty MacColl song - "There's a guy works down the chop shop swears its Alvis"

Work harder!

Come on you lot - pull your fingers out! With the impending financial gloom these poor people are going to need all the benefits they can lay their hands on to maintain their lifestyle.

You can't seriously expect them to make do with a mere £170,000 a year and a £1.2 million home do you? Then there's the education for the school age kids -four of them. What's that worth? £10 grand a year each? And of course there is the NHS - roughly about £1500 per person per year - so that's another £12000. Someone has to pay for all this - and this is just one family. What about the thousands of others still waiting to get their fashionable million pound pad?

Fair? Of course it's not fair that you work hard to keep these immigrants in a luxury lifestyle you can only dream of, but that's modern Britain and socialism for you. Haven't you read "Atlas Shrugged" yet?

Modern Britain - a safe haven for terrorists everywhere

The only surviving terrorist of the 1980 Iran Embassy siege is to be freed from jail and allowed to stay in Britain living on benefits at our expense.

They say that the poor little so and so may face the death penalty if he is deported back to his homeland where he faces trial for murdering one of the hostages in cold blood. No doubt the progressive liberals will be jumping for joy at such a bold progressive move - such tolerance and understanding.

Unfortunately, the message this sends out to would-be terrorists is clear - if you have a grievance with anyone, commit your crime in Britain. Not only will you get a soft sentence, but you'll be released and kept at taxpayers expense for the rest of your natural life.

Making your country an immigration hotspot is bad enough, but providing a refuge for murderers and criminals on the run from the law of their own country is plain stupid.

Burning for Islam

Yep, the followers of the Religion of Peace are at it again, this time trying to firebomb the home of a publisher for daring to publish a book about their beloved prophet's penchant for 9 year old girls.

Police moved in to arrest three men moments after a fire broke out at the London home and office of Martin Rynja in the early hours of Saturday.

The attack came days after Mr Rynja's company, Gibson Square, bought the rights to the book by the American writer Sherry Jones, which has already been likened to Sir Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.

As usual, the same old vitriol pours out from the usual suspects.

Hardline clerics said that further attacks would be "inevitable" if publication of the novel, The Jewel of Medina, goes ahead as planned next month.

Inevitable, eh? If it is "inevitable" that Islam leads to violence and terrorism against law abiding citizens, should it not be inevitable that followers of that religion face huge restrictions on their ability to practice their ideology?

Instead we give them more and more concessions - more mosques, more influence on local and central government policy, more preferential treatment. It really is time we had a government that was prepared to stand up to these bullying tactics and told people like Choudhary and other Moslem "community leaders" that they either get the followers of this "religion" to abide by the law of this country or their religion will face tough restrictions and the followers of this "religion" will be subject to severe restrictions on what they can do and where they can go.

I'm all for tolerance in Britain, but there are limits to what we should be expected to tolerate. In my view those limits were reached some years ago with the Salman Rushdie affair, but there have been considerably more outrages since then and still we refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem - or even that there is a problem.

We're always being told that there is nothing wrong with the RoP - it just needs to reform a little, but why would it reform when it is making progress in it's current form? Everywhere this ideology has gone it has brought violence, death, terrorism and hatred.

How much longer do we have to put up with it?