How can a highly educated and politically astute man like you think it wrong to speak what you believe is the truth just in case some people can not handle it?
May 6, 2016 at 3:06 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, assuming there is a Mrs D, and assuming she is on the other side of the average from "skinny", what do you tell her when she asks "D, does my bum look big in this tight dress"?

Dung
You are correct, the Bishop didn't cover Climate Change in the early days and did have a Bill Of Rights which was discussed from time to time. I think it disappeared some time after the blog moved here from where-ever it was hosted before. I sometimes think that we could do with a bit more variety from the Bishop. In my opinion the EU and BBC discussions would have fitted in well in the early days.

As regards Little Englander, I had in my that he could be considered a British Nationalist and from his anti-EU stance. Not sure sure about him being xenophobic or his views on the empire. Which is why I used the phrase you could say because I'm not entirely certain of his views.

Dung. Shall we start with "rivers"? I thought I gave you a good hint.

Dung. Not at all "Rivers" implies predictions of significant inter-racial clashes producing multiple deaths. To my knowledge those predictions have yet to happen. So to date EP is not a prophet, and is still considered a pariah. End of?

'The world won't be a fit place for honest men to live in till the blood of Lord Bittlesham and his kind flows in rivers down the gutters of Park Lane.'
======================

Now I'm looking in Herodotus. This guy was not so much a prophet as a plagiarist. And some here doubt the reality of 'rivers of blood'.
===========

Yup, de Nile.
========

Strange that Dung, I thought it was you playing about. After all it was you who challenged what I had written to Stewgreen, not the other way around.

I will now consider what you write with greater care, having read what you admitted to Martin A. I suspect, however, we shall remain political opposites.

Dung, "depends on how it is positioned" absolutely does not equate to "bend the truth".

@AK: ...significant inter-racial clashes producing multiple deaths. To my knowledge those predictions have yet to happen.

I imagine that Paris, November 2015 does not count?

Mike Jackson, I am not a Muslem, and don't seek to defend Islam, or indeed any religion, as I am not a religious person. The complete mistrust between Suuni and Shi'ite is a good example, the differences between UK Catholics and Protestants are trivial in comparison to Rome and the Orthodox Churches of Russia and Greece.

If you understand some of the difference between the various different interpretations of Islam, plus the reason why Saman Rushdie's book title 'The Satanic Verses' caused such offence, you will appreciate that the Moslem world is unlikely to unite, without infighting. Not dissimilar to the Christian Crusaders, all answering to Rome, but fighting for self interest.

The Catholic Church does have a leader, so does the Church of England. The Muslem world does not, however various individuals are proclaimed to be, on behalf of countries/regions etc. The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran lived in exile in Paris, before replacing the Shah of Persia, triggering a mass of conflicts that still rumble on.

Since the creation of Israel, the Moslem world has wanted it obliterated, but has failed. Some of their combined attacks have been fraught with mistrust. Egypt flirted with the USSR under Nasser, and so increased USA support for Israel.

Osama BL was trying to unite Moslems against their sworn enemies. He did not fail, but the Moslem world has not united in terms of working together. The UK remains one of the best places for Muslems (and others) to fight extradition to the USA (and other countries) and so remains a handy place to reside.

My original point was that Radicalisation of Muslems does occur in the UK, as it does in many countries, because the UK is a safe place to do it, not because the UK to date has been seen as No1 Target. Over the last few years, their attacks have been aimed at destabilising regimes and economies that are not sufficiently Muslem. The 'Arab Spring Revolutions' occurred with comparatively little bloodshed, and generally were welcomed by the 'West'. Unfortunately, the replacement regimes have not met the approval of the Extremists.

Would the UK be immune from attacks by Moslems if Enoch Powell had been listened to? No! But the attackers might not speak English.

Your comment about Saudi Law is perfectly apt. Saudi men see UK Law as stupid, but it does mean they can get away with stuff in the UK, that is illegal in Saudi. Brits are unlikely to get away with 'inappropriate' behaviour in Saudi though!

Martin A.

You are of course correct. I was being insular and arguing that the prophecies had not come to pass in the UK.

On the other hand, is your rebuttal really fair? Enoch Powell was speaking before the rise of militant Islam, nor was he speaking of carnage directed from hostile groups from overseas. Similar attacks have taken place in countries with small minorities, like Spain. Surely EP was basing his predictions on his belief that cultures and races could not amicably live together without violence occurring, a belief denied across the world.

Tout de suite, Tutsi;
Machete love, or Uzi.
Now and then
Ever again,
Rootsie, tootsie, the Bootsie.
=================

I'm not particular familiar with the history of Islam. But it seems to me we're in one of its expansionist phases, the fifth? The third attempt into Europe? It's a pity Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski aren't better known these days.

SandyS, over history, sucessful dynasties/empires have been built on greed/power/might etc, but have needed success and stability to survive.

Osama BL hoped to unite Islam, in the naive belief that everybody would be so much more happy and pure living a simple peasant life, even if it took bloodshed, money, hi-tech etc to achieve it. Just like Communism, Green Economics etc, there is an assumption that human greed will not lead to the 'message' being warped and distorted to favour the few.

The irony is that OBL had access to a lot of money, to enable everybody to live as pure peasants, and assumed that if he could live without obvious trappings of wealth, there was no reason for anyone else to want anything better. He was a deluded and dangerous dreamer, who could afford to make his nightmares come true. His 'sucesssors' are not so dreamy, and therefore more dangerous, but they have seen income decrease.

Powell himself said he was a failure in that he had 3 causes, all of which had failed : retention of the British Empire so that he could become Viceroy of India, non - membership of the EU, and hostility to mass immigration of any kind. It is a mistake to suggest that he was especially opposed to Moslems. He would have said the same things about the influx of Eastern Europeans that we are seeing. So he was a crackpot. Neither prophet nor pariah, just a deeply eccentric individual.