If You Wanted Confirmationour...
News0 min ago
How Did We Get To This State Of Affairs.
12 Answers
I know that this is the Daily Mail and not exactly famed for unbiased reporting but really, how as this country let things get to this state of affairs.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Where to start?
The reasons we got into this state are manifold. But among the most important perhaps these will do for starters:
The benefit system, which started as an admirable “safety net” to ensure that people did not starve as a result of circumstances beyond their control, has now become a lifestyle choice for large numbers of people. Mr Choudray has clearly decided that the £25k he is being given (which equates to a pre-tax income of around £33k) is sufficient for him to live on and conduct his life in the manner to which he has become accustomed. The reason this has been allowed to develop to today’s situation is that insufficient diligence has been given to claimants who are alleged to be “seeking work” and cash has been doled out regardless.
The European Convention on Human Rights and our own Human Rights Act have ensured that people such as Mr Choudray can preach their hatred. Their “right to religious expression” has left the authorities terrified of taking action against such individuals (whilst similar legislation is liberally used to deny Christians similar expressions of faith because it may interfere with “equality”). The reason this has been allowed to develop is that successive governments have allowed the courts to interpret the ECHR and the HRA (both extremely “wooly” pieces of law) with increasing abandon. Even when it is quite clear that the legislation is not operating in the best interests of the majority of the population and has become far removed from its original good intentions, pernicious court rulings (often made by judges from nations with, shall we say, hardly the best record on either justice or Human Rights)still prevail.
I dare say some of the more liberal AB-ers will soon be along to say that (a) this is a “Mail” story so there’s either no truth in it whatsoever or it’s grossly exaggerated, (b) that there’s really no problem so why all the fuss and (c) that this is all fine and lovely and one of the many benefits of “multiculturalism”. We’ll see.
The reasons we got into this state are manifold. But among the most important perhaps these will do for starters:
The benefit system, which started as an admirable “safety net” to ensure that people did not starve as a result of circumstances beyond their control, has now become a lifestyle choice for large numbers of people. Mr Choudray has clearly decided that the £25k he is being given (which equates to a pre-tax income of around £33k) is sufficient for him to live on and conduct his life in the manner to which he has become accustomed. The reason this has been allowed to develop to today’s situation is that insufficient diligence has been given to claimants who are alleged to be “seeking work” and cash has been doled out regardless.
The European Convention on Human Rights and our own Human Rights Act have ensured that people such as Mr Choudray can preach their hatred. Their “right to religious expression” has left the authorities terrified of taking action against such individuals (whilst similar legislation is liberally used to deny Christians similar expressions of faith because it may interfere with “equality”). The reason this has been allowed to develop is that successive governments have allowed the courts to interpret the ECHR and the HRA (both extremely “wooly” pieces of law) with increasing abandon. Even when it is quite clear that the legislation is not operating in the best interests of the majority of the population and has become far removed from its original good intentions, pernicious court rulings (often made by judges from nations with, shall we say, hardly the best record on either justice or Human Rights)still prevail.
I dare say some of the more liberal AB-ers will soon be along to say that (a) this is a “Mail” story so there’s either no truth in it whatsoever or it’s grossly exaggerated, (b) that there’s really no problem so why all the fuss and (c) that this is all fine and lovely and one of the many benefits of “multiculturalism”. We’ll see.
The main trouble has and is that so many muslims have been allowed to settle here over the years and now they are a quite powerful minortity. And once islam takes ahold on an area then no other religion is permited to exist.They say that islam is a peaceful religion and is tolerant to other faiths,but just look around the world of late to see that lie in action.
I really feel sorry for the U.K.
keenonhist
I really feel sorry for the U.K.
keenonhist
NJ, did we not have a right to religious expression before the Human Rights Act? We did. The Act changed nothing. But it has become a favourite complaint of those who did not know the law as it was before the Act that it somehow created "rights" which we never had before. All that has happened is that lawyers now plead the Act in cases, rather than common law, equity, or previous statute.
//did we not have a right to religious expression before the Human Rights Act? We did.//
I can’t see how what this man is encouraging can be considered freedom of religious expression. Incitement to hatred, yes.
We got into this state of affairs because we like to be fair, forgetting that the only people we are not fair to are the law-abiding, peace-loving, taxpayers! A job should be found for this parasite and all benefits for him and his family stopped entirely. Perhaps then he'd do us all a favour by going to live in a country that suits him better.
I can’t see how what this man is encouraging can be considered freedom of religious expression. Incitement to hatred, yes.
We got into this state of affairs because we like to be fair, forgetting that the only people we are not fair to are the law-abiding, peace-loving, taxpayers! A job should be found for this parasite and all benefits for him and his family stopped entirely. Perhaps then he'd do us all a favour by going to live in a country that suits him better.
Yes fred, I quite agree. Neither our signature on the ECHR nor our own Human Rights Act bestowed any additional rights to anybody in the UK which were missing and necessary. Nobody as far as I know, certainly since those pieces of legislation were introduced, has suffered any injustices which could not have been remedied by other legislation, either statutory or common law. We have statutory law which prevents torture, slavery, religious persecution and almost everything else the HR legislation covers. What the HR legislation has introduced is particularly broad and nebulous “catch all” clauses which trump the domestic law to which we are subject. Domestic law is being usurped by these clauses and the UK government is prevented from introducing legislation which may fall foul of HR. These interferences have nothing to do with genuine “Human Rights”.
The UK needs to get back to managing its own affairs by enacting and enforcing its own legislation and ignoring interference from elsewhere. Only then will Parliament be able to run the country in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate - which is, after all, what it was elected to do.
The UK needs to get back to managing its own affairs by enacting and enforcing its own legislation and ignoring interference from elsewhere. Only then will Parliament be able to run the country in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate - which is, after all, what it was elected to do.
Naomi you may remember we have discussed this man before, and he crops up time and again in these discussions as being a pivotal head of a movement that wants to impose Sharia Law in Britain. As i mentioned on a thread earlier today he was on a talk show some time ago, spouting his bile, which of course to them isn't, and indeed i really think that he and his followers are an insidious threat, and no one seems to be taking them seriously enough. Our freedom of speech is sometime a double edged sword, and a club to beat us with.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Home & Garden1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Saga Magazine January 2025 General...
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
