What grinds my gears...

[leicsmac]

Nope, not convicted.

 

Pulled in whilst in Pakistan in 2002,  Has said himself he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism, but he denies the remainder of the U.S.'s allegations. Not my idea of a holiday in Algeria but maybe he just took a small de tour. Maybe he was unlucky.

 

Has his shop raided again on his return, literature this time after various convicted terrorits grassed him up, maybe he was unlucky again. Went to Bosnia to fight in all that as well.

 

Arrested by the West Midlands police on suspicion of attending a terrorist training camp and facilitating terrorism overseas earlier this week, maybe he's been unlucky again.

 

You know how it is, you finish your computer course and up sticks and try and move somewhere, you went to Korea, sure you could just as easily ended up trying your luck in Kabul or the Helmand province on a different day.

 

Go to one of his talks when you get back, sure you'll enjoy it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg

 

Reading through his wikipedia page whatever this country gets its deserves when he not only walks the streets of it but is made a millionaire by it.

 

But hey if the Guardian give him some print he cant be too bad I suppose! http://www.theguardian.com/profile/moazzambegg

 

Sickening, and it's readers have the gall to slag off the Mail. You couldn't make it up.

 

Ye Gods, what kind of case did the US Gov lawyers make when they couldn't get him nailed down based on all that? Sounds like someone seriously dropped the ball if all of that is true and they weren't able to convince a jury to lock him up, let alone convince one to give him a seven-figure settlement. Mind you, I guess one does follow the other in cases like this.

 

As for the Guardian giving him a mouthpiece...well, perhaps it's better to hear what these people are saying, if only to be able to point a finger and say what w@nkers they are. Guess you could say he's an Islamic Richard Littlejohn, though to be fair Tricky Dick never said or got fingered for actually wanting to kill people himself. 

 

 

The only good thing about the uproar over Guantanamo is instead of arresting them now, bringing them back etc etc you just take them into some deserted land, put a bullet in the back of the head and no one will ever know now.

 

Shame it didnt happen twenty years ago and this bastard would be gone.

 

I thought the US used drones for all their 'extrajudicial killings' these days? Costs less and much more impersonal than having to drag someone somewhere secluded and stick two in the back of the head. 

[surrifox]

Ye Gods, what kind of case did the US Gov lawyers make when they couldn't get him nailed down based on all that? Sounds like someone seriously dropped the ball if all of that is true and they weren't able to convince a jury to lock him up, let alone convince one to give him a seven-figure settlement. Mind you, I guess one does follow the other in cases like this.

 

As for the Guardian giving him a mouthpiece...well, perhaps it's better to hear what these people are saying, if only to be able to point a finger and say what w@nkers they are. Guess you could say he's an Islamic Richard Littlejohn, though to be fair Tricky Dick never said or got fingered for actually wanting to kill people himself. 

 

 

 

I thought the US used drones for all their 'extrajudicial killings' these days? Costs less and much more impersonal than having to drag someone somewhere secluded and stick two in the back of the head. 

 

I guess that the secret service in UK and US are protective of how they go about their business; rather than disclose sensitive information about surveillance and intelligence  to assist a conviction they would rather let the case collapse or not proceed.

 

Everyone has a right to know everything about every aspect of how the security services work (apparently) - this is a safeguard against the spooks randomly picking on an innocent member of the public and hounding the life out of them - come on we all know someone who has had that happen to them

[leicsmac]

I guess that the secret service in UK and US are protective of how they go about their business; rather than disclose sensitive information about surveillance and intelligence  to assist a conviction they would rather let the case collapse or not proceed.

 

Everyone has a right to know everything about every aspect of how the security services work (apparently) - this is a safeguard against the spooks randomly picking on an innocent member of the public and hounding the life out of them - come on we all know someone who has had that happen to them

 

That's certainly possible. Or maybe they consider him no threat. Or maybe even they're using him as bait to lure others in. Who knows?

 

I find myself leery about trusting the security services as a whole, but then I share the same mistrust for anyone who has a fair bit of power and not much accountability. For me it's not about them actually abusing that power - just the possibility is enough. Putting your personal information and therefore a fair bit of power over you in the hands of a complete stranger (no matter how trustworthy they say they are) is not something you'd do face to face, so why should it be stood for in the world of technology?

 

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but power without some kind of limiting influence has a tendency to corrupt and the greater the power the greater the corruption.

[ozleicester]

Absolute beginners by David fvcking Bowie.. what an appalling song and from a man who was a genius.. now i sit here with the shitty electro drum machine and pointless crap words .. AAARGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh

[Soar Fox]

People who try and tell you money doesn't buy happiness. Yes it really does, you don't see homeless people sitting in doorways looking all happy and cheerful do you.

[purpleronnie]

  

Absolute beginners by David fvcking Bowie.. what an appalling song and from a man who was a genius.. now i sit here with the shitty electro drum machine and pointless crap words .. AAARGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh

I like that song    Mainly because of the film which I actually liked   mainly due to the early mod influences.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/tory-cuts-cerebral-palsy-operations-3186435

Edited 27 February 2014 by purpleronnie

[bovril]

People who try and tell you money doesn't buy happiness. Yes it really does, you don't see homeless people sitting in doorways looking all happy and cheerful do you.

 

Bit of extreme example. Homeless people aren't only lacking money.

Personally I agree with all the cliched "money isn't everything" stuff, but each to their own. All you can do in life is what makes you happy. If that's make loads of money then do it.

[ozleicester]

I like that song    Mainly because of the film which I actually liked   mainly due to the early mod influences.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/tory-cuts-cerebral-palsy-operations-3186435

 

 

yes, to each their own, there are bound to be people who love all the thngs we hate... HOWEVER, playing the cerebral palsy card is a bit harsh  

[purpleronnie]

yes, to each their own, there are bound to be people who love all the thngs we hate... HOWEVER, playing the cerebral palsy card is a bit harsh  

[Bellend Sebastian]

Going back to that whole Harman/NCCL/PIE/Daily Mail stuff, interesting article on BBC site about the background of it all:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

 

Hard to imagine this happening now in the current climate - paedophiles openly campaigning for their rights?

 

It's a funny old world, innit

[Guest MattP]

Going back to that whole Harman/NCCL/PIE/Daily Mail stuff, interesting article on BBC site about the background of it all:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

 

Hard to imagine this happening now in the current climate - paedophiles openly campaigning for their rights?

 

It's a funny old world, innit

 

Very, although I'm shocked myself just how many openly see nothing wrong with a 14 year old being fcuked.

 

The response of "not on my watch" just isnt going to cut it, article from the Mail today showing pictures of a young boy in a PE kit next to a "join the NCCL" advert in PIE's magazine from the time she was there.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568850/Harmans-pressure-group-advertised-members-magazine-paedophiles-New-evidence-links-NCCL-PIE-Harriet-legal-chief.html

 

She's even been criticised by the Guardian (who you could imagine has more than it's fair share of ex PIE member and peadophiles in its readership) for her response among other papers, think The Sun actually has it spot, she is so blinded by her hatred of the Tory loving press she is engaging in a phoney war rather than face up to the allegations.

014/02/26/article-2568850-1BDD700800000578-595_634x372.jpg

Edited 27 February 2014 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

That's certainly possible. Or maybe they consider him no threat. Or maybe even they're using him as bait to lure others in. Who knows?

 

I find myself leery about trusting the security services as a whole, but then I share the same mistrust for anyone who has a fair bit of power and not much accountability. For me it's not about them actually abusing that power - just the possibility is enough. Putting your personal information and therefore a fair bit of power over you in the hands of a complete stranger (no matter how trustworthy they say they are) is not something you'd do face to face, so why should it be stood for in the world of technology?

 

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but power without some kind of limiting influence has a tendency to corrupt and the greater the power the greater the corruption.

 

Could be anything.

 

He's probably the Sparkhill version of Teflon Don or Jimmy Savile, we all now what he's doing but we just cant nail him down.

 

Most papers though just leave them to be though, not give them a column, we all know the Guardian has to prove how Liberal they are by being outrageously shocking but really, no need to pay the bloke to write. That money is more than likely being used to kill and murder people.

Edited 27 February 2014 by MattP

[Captain...]

Very, although I'm shocked myself just how many openly see nothing wrong with a 14 year old being fcuked.

 

It all depends how you say it, do you think a 15 year old boy should be arrested for having consensual sex with a 14 year old girl? Would you be disgusted by someone campaigning for his rights to not be sent to jail and branded a nonce?

[The Doctor]

Whiney little bitches like this chap: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26359917

 

As a right thinking country, blasphemy is legal in this country (never mind that I highly doubt Katy Perry or her video directors can read Arabic and it's more likely a wardrobe error), but still the I can't help but think grow up and get over it. I don't doubt he's fine with his religion insulting polytheists, atheists and homosexuals on a regular basis.

[Guest MattP]

It all depends how you say it, do you think a 15 year old boy should be arrested for having consensual sex with a 14 year old girl? Would you be disgusted by someone campaigning for his rights to not be sent to jail and branded a nonce?

 

Would I be disgusted? No, should they be arrested? Well yes, they have broken the law and should be punished for it.

 

Why do we always talk about arresting the boy in these situations? Aren't we supposed to be trying for an equal society?

 

 Someone campaigning for sex with a ten year old to be legalised though I'll happily call a nonce.

Edited 27 February 2014 by MattP

[StanSP]

Whiney little bitches like this chap: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26359917

 

As a right thinking country, blasphemy is legal in this country (never mind that I highly doubt Katy Perry or her video directors can read Arabic and it's more likely a wardrobe error), but still the I can't help but think grow up and get over it. I don't doubt he's fine with his religion insulting polytheists, atheists and homosexuals on a regular basis.

 

It is pretty stupid. You can barely notice the pendant, let alone what it says on it.

Some sad fvck must have been sitting there for hours. It's not blatant at all. It's ridiculous it's got pulled up really.

[Guest MattP]

Whiney little bitches like this chap: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26359917

 

As a right thinking country, blasphemy is legal in this country (never mind that I highly doubt Katy Perry or her video directors can read Arabic and it's more likely a wardrobe error), but still the I can't help but think grow up and get over it. I don't doubt he's fine with his religion insulting polytheists, atheists and homosexuals on a regular basis.

 

Ridiculous.

 

You are only going to get more and more of this nonsense though over the our lifetimes, if you import the most fanatical religion on the planet on mass into your country without thinking of the consequences you get what you deserve.

[Captain...]

Would I be disgusted? No, should they be arrested? Well yes, they have broken the law and should be punished for it.

 

Why do we always talk about arresting the boy in these situations? Aren't we supposed to be trying for an equal society?

 

 Someone campaigning for sex with a ten year old to be legalised though I'll happily call a nonce.

 

True, never understood why the boy can get done but the girl can't even if she is older than the boy, at least that used to be the case.

 

But the point is, you can argue a case for the age of consent being lowered to 14 without being a paedo, because there are absurd results that can come from putting a strict age limit on it and the only proof needed being that they had sex, and not that it was in any way forced.

 

Obviously 10 is way too low, but the point of the consent law is to protect children from Paedos, not stop them from having sex, so I see no problem with what they have in Germany where it is not automatically an offence, unless you are over 21 having sex with a 14-15 year old.

 

Would you oppose that if it became law here in the UK? Would you think anyone campaigning for that was a disgusting Paedo?

[Guest MattP]

True, never understood why the boy can get done but the girl can't even if she is older than the boy, at least that used to be the case.

 

But the point is, you can argue a case for the age of consent being lowered to 14 without being a paedo, because there are absurd results that can come from putting a strict age limit on it and the only proof needed being that they had sex, and not that it was in any way forced.

 

Obviously 10 is way too low, but the point of the consent law is to protect children from Paedos, not stop them from having sex, so I see no problem with what they have in Germany where it is not automatically an offence, unless you are over 21 having sex with a 14-15 year old.

 

Would you oppose that if it became law here in the UK? Would you think anyone campaigning for that was a disgusting Paedo?

 

Paedo is a strong word and in the same way as "homophobe" and "racist" it's bandied around far too freely these days in order to attack people that don't hold the same views or follow the same moral code as the one banding it around, glad you've noticed what I've been doing with regards to it.

 

Would I oppose the age of consent lowering to 14? Yes. Would campaigning for it make you a "peado"? No, although I'd be a little uncomfortable with that persons views, ten times more so if they had children themselves.

 

Do I find a 21 year old having sex with a 14 year old wrong? Absolutely, one is likely a more mentally secure adult, the other is a child. To be a 21 year old wanting to have sex with a 14 year old I'd argue you have something very sinister in your own mind, predator would be a better description than peadophile.

[Beliall]

tv series that have mid season breaks. they all do it now and i cant work out if a new series has started or if the current one is continuing

[Bellend Sebastian]

Very, although I'm shocked myself just how many openly see nothing wrong with a 14 year old being fcuked.

 

The only thing that might surprise me is people being open about it.

 

Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think this stuff is as alien to a lot of people as they would have you believe, and as a society we are, at best, a bit confused about it all.

 

Yes, we're all horrified at the depravity, yet at the same time strangely compelled to read about it all the time, reflect on it at length and then deliver our very strong opinions.  Sex with kids?  Awful.  Can't stop talking and reading about it.

 

A lot's been made about the Mail's seemingly casual use of photos of underage girls, particularly the children of celebrities, with oddly suggestive captions and quite specific references to body parts.  No, it's not the same as campaigning for paedophile rights or shagging children, and it doesn't make DM readers predatory paedophiles, but it is a bit weird and seemingly cheerily accepted by the readership of a newspaper with a large national circulation and massive international web presence.  You can say (and I certainly have) a lot about The Mail, but it knows its market and it knows what's popular.

 

There's a big leap from a picture of some shit actor's 9 year old daughter showing a bit of leg in a tabloid newspaper and someone having sex with a kid, but it's not like there's no relation whatsoever between the two is it?  These aren't opposites...they're two extremes of the same thing, however much some of us might try to convince ourselves that there's no connection. 

 

Somewhere on that line between the two we go from being fine with it to being outraged.  Personally, I think a lot of the time the outrage a lot of the time is overcompensation for us actually being fine a lot further a long that line than we'd like to admit, even to ourselves.

 

I personally have extremely conservative sexual tastes, which is great because I don't have to get myself in a lather about all this stuff.  No wonder people get so cross

[Alf Bentley]

Going back to that whole Harman/NCCL/PIE/Daily Mail stuff, interesting article on BBC site about the background of it all:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

 

Hard to imagine this happening now in the current climate - paedophiles openly campaigning for their rights?

 

It's a funny old world, innit

 

Very true. Attitudes have changed drastically. I don't remember knowing the word "paedophile" before about 1990 (when I'd have been in my late 20s). People in Leicestershire might have been aware earlier due to the Frank Beck case, one of the first paedophile scandals (mid-80s), which was local but got national coverage (I was darn sarf but vaguely aware of it - probably thought of it as a one-off, if anything).

 

I dredged up a couple of memories as a result of all this, though:

- 1982 (approx; I was 20 or so): A load of us young blokes in the local village pub in Kent were talking about sex (as young men do when they're not getting any!) and this slightly older, rather inadequate bloke (late 20s), newly arrived in the village, gave an account of how he used booze and fags as an enticement to get 14 or 15-year-old girls to have sex with him.

- 1987 (I was 25): I was doing a temporary live-in job at a French winery, working with a team of British blokes. They were mainly early/mid-20s, but there was an old hippy (backing up Webbo or was it Zingari's point), aged 40-odd, and he came out with a similar story: how, back home, he used booze and drugs to entice 14-year-old girls to have sex with him - they loved it, he said; I remember him kicking his legs up, giggling.

 

On both occasions, the blokes were talking to groups of men and were boasting about their activities. The first bloke may or may not have been fabricating, I was never sure, but I was convinced that the second bloke was telling the truth.

 

On neither occasion did any of the blokes listening (including me) challenge the 2 men speaking or express real disgust. I felt queasy both times, instinctively thought of it as abuse and couldn't comprehend why an adult would be interested in schoolgirls, but maybe I'm sexually conservative like Bellend Sebastian. The general response both times could be summed up as: "You dirty old bastard (but it's a laugh)". In retrospect, sort of helps me understand how a blind eye was turned to outrages like Saville.

 

Postscript: Did you read Bellend Sebastian's link, Matt? If so, did you see that 2 of the people publicly arguing against PIE & paedophilia back in the 70s (along with a couple of Tory MPs and the NF!) were...Peter Hain and Polly Toynbee! There's (justiifed) criticism of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality & The Guardian, though, so you might prefer to focus on that. 

Edited 27 February 2014 by Alf Bentley

[Webbo]

Going back to that whole Harman/NCCL/PIE/Daily Mail stuff, interesting article on BBC site about the background of it all:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

 

Hard to imagine this happening now in the current climate - paedophiles openly campaigning for their rights?

 

It's a funny old world, innit

 But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s.

 

This is what I was trying to say in my earlier post. It was a fashionable cause for trendy,unthinking, anti establishment types like Harman. I'm not saying she was ever in favour of kiddie fiddling but pointing out her involvement, if only in a very slight way,is fair game.

[Guest MattP]

Some pretty uncomfortable stuff that Alf, not sure how I would have reacted in the same situation.

 

Despite it not being there everyone does seem to have these stories though, it's amazing just how many you hear from older blokes, a few stories have gone around since a Labour MP from Leicester recently had his coller felt, I'll tell you a couple of Saturday.

 

Postscript: Did you read Bellend Sebastian's link, Matt? If so, did you see that 2 of the people publicly arguing against PIE & paedophilia back in the 70s (along with a couple of Tory MPs and the NF!) were...Peter Hain and Polly Toynbee! There's (justiifed) criticism of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality & The Guardian, though, so you might prefer to focus on that. 

 

Just reading it now, ecellent, interesting and quite pleasing to see they did go against it. I'm not surprised at Peter Hain actually as he does seem "a bit of a bloke" - not someone I'd expect to put up with that sort of nonsense. Toynbee I'm very surprised, thought something as shocking as this would be have been right up her street.

 

This does worry me, "When Peter Hain, then president of the Young Liberals, described paedophilia as "a wholly undesirable abnormality", a fellow activist hit back. "It is sad that Peter has joined the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade. His views are not the views of most Young Liberals."

 

I seriously hope that most young Liberals didn't believe at the time that the practice of this wasn't an undesirable abnormaility. The comments from Toynbee that despite her opposition she fully expected them to be taken in to the "general liberal credo" probably does give some credit to his views though.

 

I'm sure you can't blame me for having a chuckle at this mind, sure you would had you seen a comment from someone like Nick Griffin expecting the Mail to support him.

 

They seemed genuinely aggrieved at what they called a "Fleet Street conspiracy". One of them told her: "We would expect the Guardian, a decent liberal newspaper to support us."

 

On a serious point though, just what the hell was wrong with this place in the 70's? Was it a hippy hangover from the years before? No wonder the next generation grew up with what's widely regarded as the least discipline the country has ever seen. What were the reasons so many people turned blind eyes, said things along of "oh it happens" or just outright supported it?

 

Impossible for someone like me to even try and get my head around it.

[Harry - LCFC]

People who try and tell you money doesn't buy happiness. Yes it really does, you don't see homeless people sitting in doorways looking all happy and cheerful do you.

 

It buys you choices which will probably make it easier to be happy. Using an extreme example doesn't prove you can't be on a low income and happy either.