I stopped taking my kids on trains and tubes since 7-7, I very rarely take the public transport and never have, I have always worked local or had a company car so used that, but the thought of my kids being separated from me or the worst possible outcome and me or my wife not surviving having life changing injuries and my kids being alone in that situation is something that I can not overcome, we drive to London we Park in the underground car parks and we try to enjoy the sights and sounds, but these evil bstds have changed my attitude changed my outlook and had an impact on where we go when we go and how,
I work in London I am in very high risk areas buildings and events on many occasions through the year, and probably associated to the most recognisable brand of the Western world and mainly the USA apart from the stars and stripes,
I have no fear no problem with what I am doing and where I am doing it, as my kids are not there, the second they are with me that changes and yes these dirty fukas have won in that respect
You've managed to wind us up again, as was your aim.
I have to admit, I'm still not sure, whether you're a troll or not, so very well played.
Everything he's said makes perfect sense.
Yes, I thought you would agree.
Oh those loony lefties!
The best response to fuckers like that is to completely ignore them
If this was petty name calling or blowing raspberries then I would completely understand. But these people are dangerous brainwashed lunatics and ignoring them is probably the worst thing we could do.
You've managed to wind us up again, as was your aim.
I have to admit, I'm still not sure, whether you're a troll or not, so very well played.
Everything he's said makes perfect sense.
Yes, I thought you would agree.
Oh those loony lefties!
The best response to fuckers like that is to completely ignore them
If this was petty name calling or blowing raspberries then I would completely understand. But these people are dangerous brainwashed lunatics and ignoring them is probably the worst thing we could do.
I hope the Met are compiling a big file on him. To his face, though? Stone, blank apathy. The way we can combat ISIS is not to play into their hands but to create and publicise Islamic ideals that bear no resemblance to their aims. In other words, a softer, Anglicised, dare I say reformed Islam. I do believe very strongly in religious reform and I think it would be the single greatest weapon against the crimes of militant Islam.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
spot on , those that post tweets and fb responses that like the actions of these filth , or justify their actions by mentioning that if the west didn't do this didn't attack this country didn't support this action etc, need to seriously look at the words they have posted, its no justification to kill and maim innocent members of the public of all creeds and colours , races and religions in an indiscriminate and careless way, you dont need to post it we all know it, we know the trigger and the reasons behind those actions that were made by people we have no influence over,
if you can justify their actions you feed their fuel , if you post words of support you are one of them, you have no place to walk breath and stand along side me or anyone else who see these cowards for the true weak feeble weak minded and willed scum they are
id arrest and jail every person who tweeted their joy at the actions of these people for being supporters of a terrorist organisation and serve five years minimum to evaluate your action,
if you are one of those that feel the need to tell us the reason why these people feel the need to do it , dont we know you are just sounding like you understand their action
Tolerance does have boundaries. The example of total licence to say what you like floundering when somebody decides to shout 'fire' in a darkened crowded theatre is a good example. That London is a city that honours liberty to do your thing, a person doing just what they like needs to acknowledge that they do it in the context of the wider community. If you decide to outrage people don't be surprised if you get a reaction however technically 'legal' your outrage might be.
London has been under threat of attack (often imminent attack) for longer than most of us have been alive. The other constant is that it was, is and will always be the best city in the world.
This survey by the Daily Mirror suggests there is increasing disgust amongst people here, but worryingly IS hardcore support is growing. There could be 1.5 million sympathisers in the UK. I don't know how this poll was conducted, but it involved 2016 people and it appeared in the Mirror yesterday.
This survey by the Daily Mirror suggests there is increasing disgust amongst people here, but worryingly IS hardcore support is growing. There could be 1.5 million sympathisers in the UK. I don't know how this poll was conducted, but it involved 2016 people and it appeared in the Mirror yesterday.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
I happen to sort of agree with @Chizz . I can see where the rest of you arr coming from, but rising above this sort of intimidation is what makes London so great. The fact that the day after 7/7, so many continued their daily routine shows these bastards we cannot be beaten. If i had seen this guy with the flag i would have wanted to kick the bastards head in as much as the rest of you, but what i would have done was say to him "you will never win and never beat us".
I suspect he was waving the flag to get a reaction (either arrest or beaten up) in order to "justify" their actions to young potential terroists.
Chizz is raising a considered view, articulated well, as is Leuth, neither of them support IS. I agree that we need to get to a point when folk simply don't want to provoke and outrage with symbols, however getting there is going to take decades, and during those decades we're all at risk.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack - Feel Normal
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law. Same with an IS flag in London.
We need to stop thinking about the flag waving tossers rights and feelings and start thinking about the general public that shouldn't have to be made to feel scared on their own streets.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack - Feel Normal
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law.Same with an IS flag in London.
And therein lies my whole point. It is *not* breaking the law to wear, carry or wave an IS flag. And the moment that it *becomes* against the law, it imbues the flag with more significance than it deserves. Don't criminalise it; ignore it.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack - Feel Normal
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law.Same with an IS flag in London.
And therein lies my whole point. It is *not* breaking the law to wear, carry or wave an IS flag. And the moment that it *becomes* against the law, it imbues the flag with more significance than it deserves. Don't criminalise it; ignore it.
But it is?!!!
The man wearing the IS flag walking through Parliment Square is breaking anti-social behaviour laws.
(a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
If i was there with my family and i saw him wearing that flag, then he would certainly cause me and my missus alarm and distress.
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack - Feel Normal
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law.Same with an IS flag in London.
And therein lies my whole point. It is *not* breaking the law to wear, carry or wave an IS flag. And the moment that it *becomes* against the law, it imbues the flag with more significance than it deserves. Don't criminalise it; ignore it.
You don't know much about our legal system, do you?
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go: Preach hatred in private - got away with it. Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it. Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it. Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it. Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
There are ways of disagreeing with someone without throwing insults.
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
Surely there is a human right to feel safe in ones own town? I don't know where this chap came from that day or how he got to London but can you imagine sitting next to him in the tube, whilst he wore his flag near the anniversary of the bombings. He should have been arrested, no doubt. The flag in itself is incite full.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
This thread is about how much - or less - safer people feel, since July 2005. I don't think the wearing of a flag makes me feel any less safe. If I am sitting next to someone on a tube train, with a large backpack and a flag, I'd honestly be more nervous about the backpack might do than the flag.
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack - Feel Normal
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law.Same with an IS flag in London.
And therein lies my whole point. It is *not* breaking the law to wear, carry or wave an IS flag. And the moment that it *becomes* against the law, it imbues the flag with more significance than it deserves. Don't criminalise it; ignore it.
But it is?!!!
The man wearing the IS flag walking through Parliment Square is breaking anti-social behaviour laws.
(a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
If i was there with my family and i saw him wearing that flag, then he would certainly cause me and my missus alarm and distress.
Maybe you and I simply have a different level of tolerance; and that's fine.
I would certainly be caused alarm or distress if someone was preaching hatred; was armed; was violent; was threatening violence. But not just because he or she was wearing a flag I didn't like.
Comments
I work in London I am in very high risk areas buildings and events on many occasions through the year, and probably associated to the most recognisable brand of the Western world and mainly the USA apart from the stars and stripes,
I have no fear no problem with what I am doing and where I am doing it, as my kids are not there, the second they are with me that changes and yes these dirty fukas have won in that respect
The best response to fuckers like that is to completely ignore them
This is the BBC's take on the question:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33415475
Double tap = nunights
I and other members of the forum don't want people to have a chance to be indoctrinated into terrorism.
You say it's choice, in many cases it's really not.
I'd imagine the thought process could go:
Preach hatred in private - got away with it.
Preach hatred in chosen audience - got away with it.
Preach hatred in mosque - got away with it.
Wear symbol of hatred in public - got away with it.
Preach hatred on the streets - got away with it.
Preach hatred on the streets in flag of terrorist organisation. Got away with that too..
What's next?
if you can justify their actions you feed their fuel , if you post words of support you are one of them, you have no place to walk breath and stand along side me or anyone else who see these cowards for the true weak feeble weak minded and willed scum they are
id arrest and jail every person who tweeted their joy at the actions of these people for being supporters of a terrorist organisation and serve five years minimum to evaluate your action,
if you are one of those that feel the need to tell us the reason why these people feel the need to do it , dont we know you are just sounding like you understand their action
I've been clear that preaching hatred in all circumstances is wrong; is - rightly - illegal: and should be prevented wherever and whenever it occurs.
But I do not believe that banning a flag being worn has any detrimental impact on terrorism.
In fact, a ban would do precisely the opposite. If you ban it, you make it exciting, add to its value and symbolises the repression that is used as the first step in radicalising. "Look, "they" banned our flag. Let me tell you more bad stuff about "them"."
Stamp down, with the full force of the law, when the law is broken. But don't invent new laws just because a flag upsets people.
I suspect he was waving the flag to get a reaction (either arrest or beaten up) in order to "justify" their actions to young potential terroists.
Disclaimer: im not a lefty at all
I agree that we need to get to a point when folk simply don't want to provoke and outrage with symbols, however getting there is going to take decades, and during those decades we're all at risk.
On another note, what do people think of Russell Brands comments about the minutes silence for the Tunisian victims?
Support for Jihaddist terrorism is abhorrent. Flags are one way of identifying people who might show their support - and, by extension, reveal themselves. The terrorists to fear are the invisible ones, not the ones showing their faces and waving flags.
Man sitting on train with backpack and ISIS flag - Shit Myself
You see the difference?
The point is why should the general public be made to feel scared/endangered/intimidated because a person wants to walk around with a flag. If i was to walk around Hatton Garden intimidating Jews or around Soho amongst the Gay Community with a Swastika draped over my shoulders, then id expect the police to intervene. Its breaking the law. Same with an IS flag in London.
We need to stop thinking about the flag waving tossers rights and feelings and start thinking about the general public that shouldn't have to be made to feel scared on their own streets.
The man wearing the IS flag walking through Parliment Square is breaking anti-social behaviour laws.
(a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
If i was there with my family and i saw him wearing that flag, then he would certainly cause me and my missus alarm and distress.
I would certainly be caused alarm or distress if someone was preaching hatred; was armed; was violent; was threatening violence. But not just because he or she was wearing a flag I didn't like.