So for clarity, I was suggesting that as they had grown up fully immersed in that culture so they would have far greater insight than you or I and hence I am using them as a source, albeit not a definitive one. I was also stating that yes, they have abandoned it in all but name (probably for parents' etc. sake) and that is why I have an association with them.

I do understand what you are saying/where you are coming from and perhaps I was not clear in my mission to begin with.

I do not believe that I have a solution either, without being brutal and inevitably incurring some sort of Nazi, final solution comparison which would probably be wholly inaccurate and unfair. I am just suggesting that this ideology is not compatible with modern life as I would infer most are aspiring to live it, and certainly isn't compatible with what I will term as 'traditional British values and customs'.

Therefore, I am suggesting that yes, there are arguments against assigning the label of 'Islamic' to the perpetrators of these crimes (you have articulated) but there are equally, if not to a greater extent, arguments to suggest that the label is totally accurate as the contributory cultural and societal factors behind the crimes can be quite clearly linked to the ideology of the perpetrators.

In any event, the ideology very much seems to be one that directly clashes with both modern and historical British society and these crimes are merely serving as a gruesome and horrific example of this. Therefore the label may be just in articulating a massive societal problem and juncture we have reached. I would argue that the religion is very much on trial, with these crimes a damning piece of evidence.

As mentioned in my previous post, I think it more ridiculous to say that it is fine to practice your religion so long as you modify it appropriately to fit in with the rest of society. I would argue that those who categorise themselves as Muslims, but who 'get along' have done this to what is probably an unacceptable degree and perhaps not practising the religion at all just retaining the moniker.

So for clarity, I was suggesting that as they had grown up fully immersed in that culture so they would have far greater insight than you or I and hence I am using them as a source, albeit not a definitive one. I was also stating that yes, they have abandoned it in all but name (probably for parents' etc. sake) and that is why I have an association with them.

I do understand what you are saying/where you are coming from and perhaps I was not clear in my mission to begin with.

I do not believe that I have a solution either, without being brutal and inevitably incurring some sort of Nazi, final solution comparison which would probably be wholly inaccurate and unfair. I am just suggesting that this ideology is not compatible with modern life as I would infer most are aspiring to live it, and certainly isn't compatible with what I will term as 'traditional British values and customs'.

Therefore, I am suggesting that yes, there are arguments against assigning the label of 'Islamic' to the perpetrators of these crimes (you have articulated) but there are equally, if not to a greater extent, arguments to suggest that the label is totally accurate as the contributory cultural and societal factors behind the crimes can be quite clearly linked to the ideology of the perpetrators.

In any event, the ideology very much seems to be one that directly clashes with both modern and historical British society and these crimes are merely serving as a gruesome and horrific example of this. Therefore the label may be just in articulating a massive societal problem and juncture we have reached. I would argue that the religion is very much on trial, with these crimes a damning piece of evidence.

As mentioned in my previous post, I think it more ridiculous to say that it is fine to practice your religion so long as you modify it appropriately to fit in with the rest of society. I would argue that those who categorise themselves as Muslims, but who 'get along' have done this to what is probably an unacceptable degree and perhaps not practising the religion at all just retaining the moniker.

I have already said that selection of candidates for citizenship is a matter for a sovereign government.

Obviously, but there have to be rules and religious belief cannot be one of them unless we want to attract the attention, and ridicule, of the whole world. We want to be leaders and not the targets of scorn. Of course past behaviour will be a factor so anyone who has transgressed on their route to citizenship can be refused. As they are now. People though can be cunning and become sleepers so this isn't a substitute for the need to change behaviour.

I know you want us to be governed by foreign powers but that ship has sailed. I don't accept your excuses for inaction.

Don't be so ridiculous. We never were, and were never going to be "governed by foreign powers". The EU is a partnership of equals.

You seriously think that wishing to protect British citizens from harm, in this case, the mass rape of young girls, is jingoistic?

As what you are proposing won't happen it's irrelevant but even if it did it wouldn't protect anyone from harm because it wouldn't work. It's the thinking behind it which is jingoistic.

Or like most of your type, do you just wish to stereotype people with deep reservations about our immigration policy?

You stereotype yourself without any help from me.

To me, you sound like a dithering old man who is playing his proverbial fiddle while the city burns.

I am 75 years young, so probably more than half way on life's journey, but I am working on disproving that. I don't sit around watching things just happen. I am pretty active I can assure you! No need to worry on my behalf.

We are largely on the same page.

I have no sympathies for Islam either, despite the frequent attempt by the Islamophobes to suggest the opposite. I regard all religious belief as past it's time and an encumbrance to a peaceful world. Those who try to justify criminal activity because of a belief need to be stopped and we must insist that teaching that supports it ceases too. I would close all faith based schools and teach British values to all children. No compromises. No home schooling for religious reasons.

Demanding that all religious leaders acknowledge the need to adhere to British values and join us in trying to eradicate evil seems sensible to me. There must be ways to apply pressure to achieve this.

Putting Islam "on trial" by demanding that it's teachers comply with our expectations (alongside those of every other religion) is fine with me.

My primary focus in these long exchanges is whether continuing to describe the criminal grooming gangs as "Muslim", "Asian" or "Islamic" is actually beneficial to making things better. It certainly helps the Islamophobes feel better but does it help the victims of the crimes or the Police who are trying to find the criminals and bring them to justice? Just because something might be true doesn't mean it is wise to keep on bringing it up.

My view is unless a positive impact can be proved then we ought not do it, even if not to do so has a marginal effect.

You are a disingenuous old apologist and you can argue round in circles as much as you like.
You would rather sit around a table with a load of other dithering old men finding ways to avoid doing anything about our growing immigration crime crisis than take some positive action.

You are an appeaser. The Neville Chamberlin of HOL.

Asia isn't responsible. Neither is Islam.

People are.

We don't need to muddy the water by firing at the wrong targets.

Unless, of course, your real motivation is that of the Islamophobe.

Understanding the backgrounds, and motivations of, the perpetrators is an essential part of the way our authorities will try to move things forward.

Throwing mud only makes their task more difficult. It might sell copies of the Mail, Express and Sun though. Really worthwhile result.

[Link]

Phobia? Seems quite reasonable to be phobic under these circumstances.

We are largely on the same page.

I have no sympathies for Islam either, despite the frequent attempt by the Islamophobes to suggest the opposite. I regard all religious belief as past it's time and an encumbrance to a peaceful world. Those who try to justify criminal activity because of a belief need to be stopped and we must insist that teaching that supports it ceases too. I would close all faith based schools and teach British values to all children. No compromises. No home schooling for religious reasons.

Demanding that all religious leaders acknowledge the need to adhere to British values and join us in trying to eradicate evil seems sensible to me. There must be ways to apply pressure to achieve this.

Putting Islam "on trial" by demanding that it's teachers comply with our expectations (alongside those of every other religion) is fine with me.

My primary focus in these long exchanges is whether continuing to describe the criminal grooming gangs as "Muslim", "Asian" or "Islamic" is actually beneficial to making things better. It certainly helps the Islamophobes feel better but does it help the victims of the crimes or the Police who are trying to find the criminals and bring them to justice? Just because something might be true doesn't mean it is wise to keep on bringing it up.

My view is unless a positive impact can be proved then we ought not do it, even if not to do so has a marginal effect.

Of course I am not! That's a really crazy assertion. Why don't you read my post at 7.15 above which will quickly disprove it.

It's strange because when I read the comments here from the usual bunch it reminds me pretty closely of your own description of me.

You all seem like a bunch of old regressives, locked in a time warp and longing for a time past which is never coming back.

It's like watching a tea dance from the 1950s with guys in blazers doing the military two step. A simple dance which even those with two right feet can master. One that goes round and round in circles and always ends up where it started.