[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's already happening in yours, man. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lications.html.

a) hahahahahahahahahahah you used a daily mail online article to back your crazy hypothesis

b) what utter tosh. You have NO idea.

c) hahahahahahahahahah you linked to a daily mail article to back up your crazy hypothesis

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It should. Thank radical Islam, and by London's own mayor's admission, it's something you'll "just have to live with" from now on.

That's such a famously linkbaited mis quote that I'm going to assume you are just trolling for the sake of trolling. Even you can do better than this.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even though it barely registers anymore that every cop is carrying a pistol, anything larger is rare enough for me it's still jarring.

Ironically, more often than not, I've had the experience in Europe. It's been awhile, but Rome was like, "whoa".

Not making a political point, just offering my (limited) observations.

Yeah- I see it all the time around Europe (and Asia), but seeing it in London- it just stood out.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

a) hahahahahahahahahahah you used a daily mail online article to back your crazy hypothesis

b) what utter tosh. You have NO idea.

c) hahahahahahahahahah you linked to a daily mail article to back up your crazy hypothesis

Two attacks on the source, which actually showed evidence, and a blank assertion that I have "no idea". Well, that's convincing.

More (to peruse once you stop laughing at your own folly):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ell-uk-6957168
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7049826.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6761221.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-165753...se-for-concern

From the BBC article:

There has been a rapid rise in the use of Sharia law to settle legal disputes in the UK, with the number of cases being dealt with by informal courts trebling in recent years, according to the largest Sharia body. The courts have no legal standing, but many Muslims and some non-Muslims see them as a quicker and more efficient way to resolve disagreements. But there is also opposition from some groups who argue that the practice discriminates against women, as the BBC Asian Network's Divya Talwar reports.

Well, you know how right-wing biased the BBC is...

[Chongo]

Would those non existent sharia courts be in the non existent no go zones?

[Waragainstsleep]

Some muslim communities use Sharia courts to settle internal disputes instead of taking them to actual British courts. Participation is technically voluntary. Anyone who really didn't like the outcome is not bound by it other than they will get shunned by the rest of their local muslim community. No different to when a Christian defies the rules of their local crew like when families disown their gay kids which happens a lot in the US.
These Sharia courts do have never applied to any non muslims though I suspect if a muslim and non-muslim were to have a dispute, they would happily rule if both parties were into that. Not many non-muslims would trust them to be impartial though I suspect.

The supposed no go areas where non-muslims are forcibly held to Sharia rules are an absolute myth and would not be tolerated under any circumstances. Its just garbage spread by the likes of the Daily Fail and I've heard the same parroted by Fox News. In fact I've corrected CTP on the subject before.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

You "corrected" nothing, you merely disagreed.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

Semi-automatic weapons with a removable magazine is already pretty much all of them.

Regular semi automatics are modified for jurisdictions that ban removable magazines. Basically, the way it works is that you have to disassemble the entire gun to get the magazine out, but the only part that is different is the magazine itself.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You "corrected" nothing, you merely disagreed.

How about we settle this? You provide a location for one of these no-go zones in London, and I will head there with a video camera (GPS enabled) and have a look around. I will happily wear a Pride Flag t-shirt or other generally socially acceptable symbols or dress?

I'll even take my 13 year old daughter with me in appropriate summer dress- tank-top and shorts for example? I'll even live-stream it if you like.

Just tell me where to go.

Sound good?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I'm trying to find where I mentioned "no-go zones", so far I'm not having any success with that, so I'm not even sure WTF you're trying to settle. Is that supposed to prove Sharia Law courts aren't active and spreading throughout the UK? You aren't making very much sense.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'm trying to find where I mentioned "no-go zones", so far I'm not having any success with that, so I'm not even sure WTF you're trying to settle. Is that supposed to prove Sharia Law courts aren't active and spreading throughout the UK? You aren't making very much sense.

That was me. The standard line is there are " no sharia courts in the EU/UK" along with there not being any "no go zones"

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The supposed no go areas where non-muslims are forcibly held to Sharia rules are an absolute myth and would not be tolerated under any circumstances. Its just garbage spread by the likes of the Daily Fail and I've heard the same parroted by Fox News. In fact I've corrected CTP on the subject before.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

You "corrected" nothing, you merely disagreed.

I took your reply to be a tacit agreement to his statement that you had this disagreement in the past. Apologies for not searching your entire post history to verify.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

Regular semi automatics are modified for jurisdictions that ban removable magazines. Basically, the way it works is that you have to disassemble the entire gun to get the magazine out, but the only part that is different is the magazine itself.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Just ban them already.

Are revolvers okay?

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Two attacks on the source, which actually showed evidence, and a blank assertion that I have "no idea". Well, that's convincing.

More (to peruse once you stop laughing at your own folly):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ell-uk-6957168
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7049826.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6761221.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-165753...se-for-concern

From the BBC article:



Well, you know how right-wing biased the BBC is...

M'kay. If you want to bait and switch your terms. Feel free to move from the challenge to find a Western democracy that radical Islam has gained control of to one where you misinterpret the use of sharia courts and try to claim that the use of legally non binding community mediation (also used in other sections of the community) is defacto the same thing.
Hint: using a daily mail reference will support your assertion but be almost entirely fact free, the quoted BBC sources do will offer a more accurate representation of the facts but inconveniently fail to fit your crazy hypothesis.

[subego]

Top of Reddit right now is a pic of the Queen visiting a bombing victim in the hospital.

This raised the question just what the **** does the Queen have in her purse.

Best answer? A fiver for the collection plate at church... which also serves as her ID.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Just ban them already.

Are revolvers okay?

The reason it is done this way in some places (I know Finland does this) is that there are some valid uses for semi-automatic rifles in hunting (and I think some sports), and by allowing semi-automatics with fixed magazines, you carve out an exception for those uses.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

The reason it is done this way in some places (I know Finland does this) is that there are some valid uses for semi-automatic rifles in hunting (and I think some sports), and by allowing semi-automatics with fixed magazines, you carve out an exception for those uses.

What threw me was taking the gun apart. I presumed that meant they banned fixed magazines which are easily reloadable. Taking a quick lap in the Googlemobile, it doesn't seem that extreme. There are plenty of designs with easily reloadable fixed magazines, most of them are older though.

The idea of fixed magazines has merit, but forcing a design where it needs to be taken apart to be reloaded would be ridiculous, even if the conceit is hunting and sport are the only legitimate reasons for civilians ownership.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

Top of Reddit right now is a pic of the Queen visiting a bombing victim in the hospital.

This raised the question just what the **** does the Queen have in her purse.

Best answer? A fiver for the collection plate at church... which also serves as her ID.

As an interesting side note, I was at church with Liz a few weeks back (no, seriously), and she had the bag but was never passed the plate.

My best guess is a taser and flask of gin.

Kind of proof (pic I sneaked on the day)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

M'kay. If you want to bait and switch your terms.

I was talking about Sharia law, I referenced Sharia law before, I don't know WTF you're going on about. Keep moving those goalposts, though. At what point in your life did you believe you'd be defending religious kangaroo courts operating in your country, courts that are often sexist, bigoted, and fly in the face of your own country's laws?

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and fly in the face of your own country's laws?

except they don't since they are not recognised as legal courts, have no binding powers, and if they did (fly in the face of any laws) would be shut down.
Stop making stuff up. It makes for a better argument.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I was talking about Sharia law,

Good for you. I set you a challenge. You decide to answer a different question. Carry on.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As an interesting side note, I was at church with Liz a few weeks back (no, seriously), and she had the bag but was never passed the plate.

My best guess is a taser and flask of gin.

Kind of proof (pic I sneaked on the day)

Awesome. Phillip looks as happy as ever.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

What threw me was taking the gun apart. I presumed that meant they banned fixed magazines which are easily reloadable. Taking a quick lap in the Googlemobile, it doesn't seem that extreme. There are plenty of designs with easily reloadable fixed magazines, most of them are older though.

The idea of fixed magazines has merit, but forcing a design where it needs to be taken apart to be reloaded would be ridiculous, even if the conceit is hunting and sport are the only legitimate reasons for civilians ownership.

I will confess to not being well versed in the details here. I am like somewhat amused by the amateurish lobbying going on around here regarding the possible semi-auto ban in the EU. A number of years ago, the media was shocked! that we begun allowing some semi-automatic weapons for hunting. No they're shocked! that we might ban them.

Mostly I think that if you have a weapon with five or maybe ten shot magazine that might is reloaded one shot at a time, that prevents it being used in a Breivik situation while still allowing all those oh-so-important situations the lobbyists talk about.

[OAW]

"Sharia" in Islam is functionally equivalent to "Halakha" in Judaism.

Halakha (/hɑːˈlɔːxə/;[1] Hebrew: הֲלָכָה‎, Sephardic: [halaˈχa]; also transliterated as halacha, halakhah, halachah or halocho) (Ashkenazic: [haˈloχo]) is the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah. It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch (literally "Prepared Table", but more commonly known as the "Code of Jewish Law").

Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and non-religious life; Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[2] Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish Law," although a more literal translation might be "the way to behave" or "the way of walking." The word derives from the root that means "to behave" (also "to go" or "to walk").

Historically, in the diaspora, halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of law – both civil and religious, since there is no differentiation in classical Judaism. Since the Age of Enlightenment, emancipation, and haskalah, many have come to view the halakha as less binding in day-to-day life, as it relies on rabbinic interpretation, as opposed to the pure, written words recorded in the Hebrew Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

Now you can give someone the benefit of the doubt and chalk their consternation about "Sharia" to simple ignorance if they were not aware of this. But anyone who knows better and is still getting their panties in a wad about "Sharia" but is as quiet as a church mouse about "Halakha" is just being bigoted. Simple as that.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You "corrected" nothing, you merely disagreed.

I'm going solely from memory but I believe you repeated something from a Fox News report about No-Go zones. I think it was Birmingham, might have been Leicester or possibly even Fulham (or I might mean Feltham). Fox backed their arguments up with footage of an Islamic demonstration against the police (who had arrested some guys wife for something) from a BBC documentary made by Stacey Dooley.

I shot you down and you didn't argue the point any further than that, hence I say "corrected".

As I stated before, Islamic communities do use Sharia courts and they may well be spreading but they are not legally binding to anyone, they have no official jurisdiction unless they are appointed by a real British court as official mediators in a civil dispute (which would require all parties to agree that the Sharia Court could make a final binding decision). The British legal system retains all legal authority until you run something up as high as the European Courts.
Any gangs wandering about trying enforce Muslim laws on non-muslims would be swiftly dealt with by either police or the nearest group of football hooligans.

Fox have made similar claims about areas in the US. These were just as untrue. Can you even imagine? If there were a shred of truth to something like that every armed hillbilly within a 2000 mile radius would be there like a shot.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Good for you. I set you a challenge.

Because you couldn't complete mine in the first place. Carry on.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

except they don't since they are not recognised as legal courts, have no binding powers, and if they did (fly in the face of any laws) would be shut down.
Stop making stuff up. It makes for a better argument.

If you're Muslim those powers are binding, because you'll be seen as living outside Islamic law, an apostate. Real quick, what's the penalty for apostasy, even for moderate Muslims?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm going solely from memory but I believe you repeated something from a Fox News report about No-Go zones. I think it was Birmingham, might have been Leicester or possibly even Fulham (or I might mean Feltham). Fox backed their arguments up with footage of an Islamic demonstration against the police (who had arrested some guys wife for something) from a BBC documentary made by Stacey Dooley.

I shot you down and you didn't argue the point any further than that, hence I say "corrected".

As I stated before, Islamic communities do use Sharia courts and they may well be spreading but they are not legally binding to anyone, they have no official jurisdiction unless they are appointed by a real British court as official mediators in a civil dispute (which would require all parties to agree that the Sharia Court could make a final binding decision). The British legal system retains all legal authority until you run something up as high as the European Courts.
Any gangs wandering about trying enforce Muslim laws on non-muslims would be swiftly dealt with by either police or the nearest group of football hooligans.

Fox have made similar claims about areas in the US. These were just as untrue. Can you even imagine? If there were a shred of truth to something like that every armed hillbilly within a 2000 mile radius would be there like a shot.

While I appreciate your faith in "hillbillies" (let's keep slurs to a minimum) to keep the peace in the US, heightened vigilance by lawmakers and state police is the only reason why places like Dearborn Michigan haven't completely adopted Sharia law. Your claim that such extra-legal courts are okay because "they aren't legally binding" is absurd, because if you are Muslim and you don't abide by them, you become an apostate. Like Scientology, one does not merely leave Islam, like you would abandon a gym membership.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

(Speaking of Dearborn) Another major issue when Islam starts to take over an area: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ation-on-girls

Unlike male circumcision, which is still barbaric, FGM is where they actually remove most of the clitoris (the equivalent of cutting off the head of a penis). This has no place in any society, anywhere, but is all too common in Islamic regions.

[BadKosh]

Ignorant and proud of it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Not anymore.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you're Muslim those powers are binding, because you'll be seen as living outside Islamic law, an apostate. Real quick, what's the penalty for apostasy, even for moderate Muslims?

So you brought the whole sharia courts up to answer my question about finding a western democracy that had been concerted to a Muslim State. This doesn't even come close to that. Sharia law continues to effect the law of the UK.... not one bit.
Come back when some sharia legislation is passed by the UK parliament and I'll be right with you.

[Doc HM]

Huge amounts of Theatre of Security on show today. A quick trip into town (provincial small town, not anywhere in London or even near any city) and I lost count of the number of police wandering around. The sight of pairs of police officers touting large automatic weapons in a suburban shopping centre is, disturbing.

I'm not sure what the use is either. We were surrounded by people carrying bags, backpacks, trollies, prams. Since the police were just wandering around their presence could have had no effect on any terrorist attack. (note to those who mentioned that people carrying guns would have helped stop the Manchester Attack). So, why do this? I don;t think it makes anyone here feel safer since the sight of weapons is so alien to our everyday lives.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

So you brought the whole sharia courts up to answer my question about finding a western democracy that had been concerted to a Muslim State. This doesn't even come close to that. Sharia law continues to effect the law of the UK.... not one bit.
Come back when some sharia legislation is passed by the UK parliament and I'll be right with you.

Like every other country where Islam has taken over. Right. They don't need it to be the law of the land, at last not yet, the UK is allowing them to do anything they want within their communities. If it was your teenage daughter being indoctrinated, to be shipped off to a husband in Afghanistan, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I don;t think it makes anyone here feel safer since the sight of weapons is so alien to our everyday lives.

Get used to it, this will only get worse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I don;t think it makes anyone here feel safer since the sight of weapons is so alien to our everyday lives.

In purely practical terms, I think it makes things less safe. Every cop with a rifle is a cop who can pretty much only shoot people. Purse snatcher needs to get wrestled to the ground? Not something to attempt with a rifle slung over the shoulder. The only practical reason for a cop to carry a rifle is they expect to shoot people. I doubt they expected to shoot people at the mall, only that it might happen. The appropriate firearm for that is a pistol.

Now, in terms of a cop with a rifle's ability to scare the shit out of people, that's an entirely different matter.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It isn't too hard to imagine that the rifles aren't for would-be terrorists, they're for the scared Brits to keep them in line.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It isn't too hard to imagine that the rifles aren't for would-be terrorists, they're for the scared Brits to keep them in line.

Given that we rarely see eye to eye weirdly you may not be far wrong on this.
During the remaining weeks of the election Theresa May is happy to play the safety card for all she's worth.

[Waragainstsleep]

"Stop running away or we'll shoot!"?

Thats not how the rest of the world does it you know.

[subego]

I'm not sure I understand.

[Chongo]

More Ramadan rampaging in London.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-Bridge.html

The count since Ramadan began.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/03/14...madan-attacks/

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe they are just hangry.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's just more to get used to, I guess.

[BadKosh]

What will be the tilting point when the west DOES actually go after them? Not just the limited campaigns going on now.
Will it take 50,000 Muslim extremists on pikes?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Hidden camera caught CNN using actors to stage a Muslim protest denouncing the terror attacks in London. Why? Because they couldn't find any real protests.

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/871490500179656705

[The Final Shortcut]

First off, there were a ton of important Muslim figures who immediately made public statements denouncing the attacks.

Secondly, I don't get why anyone would expect Muslims to protest over what happened. Who the eff does that? Why don't they just walk up to the nearest Muslim and ask them what they think, and then listen to them say that they think it's terrible? It's really weird to hold people who have nothing in connection to these terrorists other than name (but not sect) of their religion to some odd double standard compared to the rest of the world.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

First off, I'm sure they did, that wasn't my assertion. There simply weren't any physical protests, so CNN decided to create one.

Secondly, I don't. Why is CNN going through all the trouble to deceive people into thinking they are?

[The Final Shortcut]

Yes, I agree.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Hidden camera caught CNN using actors to stage a Muslim protest denouncing the terror attacks in London. Why? Because they couldn't find any real protests.

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/871490500179656705

Oh FFS man. Last time it was the daily Mail, this time, Katie Hopkins. she gives Pond Scum a bad name. It is literally impossible to find a "journalist" with a lower set of morals and a shakier grasp of the word integrity. Anywhere.

Who knows what's going on there. If you click your link theres a series of confused tweets and messages that are hard to parse into any firm facts. Other than the fact that if Katie Hopkins is involved anything will have a thin film of slime over it.

There has been plenty of Muslims speaking out about both Manchester and now London. Just as Muslims lined Westminster Bridge in solidarity with victims then.

Do better if you want to whip up anti muslim feelings here or anywhere else. This is not the story.

[Chongo]

the original tweet with video.

https://twitter.com/markantro/status/871419204846669825

orientation corrected
https://twitter.com/OperativeCarter/...81013846671360
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...im-protesters/