51%.
There was that survey a while back which suggested a sizeable number had some sympathy with the world view of suicide bombers.
I'm not sure there's sufficient recognition of that.
I'd love to know how many politicians who cite 'the vast majority' of Muslims not supporting something actually have any figures to back this up, or are they just projecting their own lazy assumptions, or are they deliberately lying in order to try and dupe us into carrying on with the multicultural consensus that propelled them to where they are? I think the latter.
It was her who arranged for Russell Brand to interview Ed Miliband, so she could just be an idiot.
Why does nobody I know ever get surveyed on these things? Who are all these surveys asking exactly?
Because they don't care what the Viet Congleton think?
lol Chelsea have cancelled their title parade on Sunday. John Terry must be absolutely fuming.
The fifties/sixties immigration did most of the damage.
The survey here cites some key stuff.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7...muslims-survey
Particularly:
Surely this is where one needs to start if the ideology is to be stopped.The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
It's a concept rather than a policy. Multiculturalism i.e. there is no indigenous culture and it's all a big free for all in which everyone is free to practise their culture side by side.
Sounds lovely in theory until you get people wanting to follow sharia, perform honour killings and FGM, and the establishment is intellectually ill-equipped to deal with them.
Seeing as its about Manchester, just had an attempted shooting outside my flat. Five shots, car sped off, armed police and detectives have turned up.
You can't 'protect' a culture, and you can't force people to integrate. What you can do is not let loads of people in.
Back in the day anyone under/previously under a British flag was entitled to come and live here, because you were a 'British subject' (and then formally a 'Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies' after 1948); but then people actually started taking us up on it and moving around, which nobody liked, and it was gradually reformed over the sixties and seventies. I don't know whether it was 'on purpose' as such. It was probably just what it was and nobody being that arsed about altering it until - as with all of these things - about ten years too late. Nevertheless, it was down to a small number from the seventies right up until the mid-nineties. More recently I would say that it has been 'on purpose', particularly under the previous Labour government.
I've read in a couple of places now that this was an attack on women.
Can we not start Hutu'ing it up and just machete the fuck out of the local Islamic communities?
An attack like this scares women into submission.
Alright then.
Toxic masculinity mate. Is it just men, love, or a particular kind of man? Chelsea fans? Short men?
"These girls are survivors of an orchestrated attack on girls and girlhood, a massive act of gender-based violence."
"I can empathize with the survivors of this incident. When I was 13. I was groped on a public train. For years I was afraid to take the train. The experience was not as dramatic as being at a concert when a bomb goes off, killing and injuring dozens of people. But what we all have in common is that we have been the target of an assault simply for being female in a public space."
Men don't listen to that singer?
It was an attack on paedophiles. No children, no sex.
We don't know, but if I were going to speculate as to why an Islamist terrorist has targeted an Ariana Grande concert, I would say that it's because he disapproves of women being able to sing, dance, display their bodies if they want to, have fun, do all the stuff that Ariana Grande (apparently) represents.
He could have gone for the Hairy Bikers stage show otherwise.
Wouldn't he have targeted her directly then?
Not that it matters.
This is a new low.
The Gender Studies balls could probably be quite useful if its focus was actually on Islam[ism], since there is clearly a repressed wanking addict aspect to those losers (Theodore Dalrymple is interesting on this), but if they can't bring themselves to delve beyond MEN then fuck their non-subject.
He's right though.
"Hey, we can halt Labour's momentum and all it'll cost is a dozen children."
"Cheap."
Four Lions does a brilliant job of portraying the type of people that get into terrorism. Very few are intelligent and seriously radicalised, whilst the rest are disenfranchised losers.
Four Lions is an absolutely brilliant film, didn't get nearly enough praise at the time.
The Americans constantly leaking information from our security services straight to the media is a right fucking mess. It seems we've finally kicked off properly about it, but fucking hell "God Bless America" really is a terrible, terrible country sometimes.
One for you, @Lewis
Fuck the investigation, clearly the best thing is to provide the media with more information for NARRATIVE and DRAMA.
Such wankers.
It does shitloads of harm ffs.
Active crime scenes should not be disclosed in such a way. I hate this bullshit approach to media.