I would say your post is very pertinent to the thread, most of the other posts have gone off at a usual Sin Bin tangent and have become embroiled in the usual religious and political arguments behind it. The sad thing is that there is a dead young man who has left a distraught wife and a small child grieving, which becomes secondary to these arguments.

Who appointed you?



"Were"? So when did that stop and when did you decide that I ceased to be honest, eh?

Just so we know, since you clearly consider yourself the self-appointed expert on such matters.

And would that have been honesty as opposed to your disingenuous and downright intellectually dishonest suggestion that, because I asked you for evidence of your claims, I thought everything was hunky dory?

I'm not self-appointed anything.

You probably are still very honest, I ain't been on here much. but I was gobsmacked at the time of your self-disclosure. That's where I first thought how open and honest you were.

Why make up stuff earlier stuff in your own mind and say I said it, massive surge" (which wasn't said). "Attacks like this" once again made up in your mind. You're even making stuff in your own mind about me being a self-appointed whatever. There's a similar theme starting here.

But really, why get personal? You did and you do to others. I thought you're above that. After all, you are a strong woman remember?

Do you know what, I would have loved to have had a pint with you one day. But now, I'll move out of your way.

"Get personal"? And you haven't?

This is turning into a good diversion from your claim – which I have linked to and quoted, in context, so as to avoid any confusion – and your subsequent attempt to claim that I thought that everything was wonderful.

My suspicion is that what you mean by my apparent loss of honesty is that, as someone who does not personally 'like' religion and has a 'history' with it, you expect me to indulge in a little kneejerkery over this last week's murder. I suspect that you might have become so convinced of the correctness of these social media claims that you've come across about an increase in Islamic-related hate crimes that you think that anyone who asks for evidence of the same is either living in a sort of imaginary place where they don't notice what is going on or is deliberately pretending that nothing is going on for 'political' reasons.

This – and this is bringing us properly back on topic – is rubbish. There are real issues around integration (or lack thereof) and some Muslims.

But my 'liking' religion or not does not suddenly mean that all Muslims are fundamentalists and/or terrorists any more than all adherents of any other religion are fundamentalists etc. That is a simple fact. And a subjective like or dislike of religion does not alter that reality one iota. And I like to think that my critical faculties allow an understanding of that – regardless of whether or not I 'like' Islam or any other religion. That, I think, is 'honest'.

Hyperbolic ranting does nothing to deal with the serious issue of radicalisation/brainwashing of some people – mainly young men – and how on earth that is tackled in a way that prevents it happening in the first place.

And I repeat: we have a mass media in the UK, much of which would love to publish exactly stories about exactly the sort of things that you claim are happening (they love 'winterval' and all that sort of stuff for precisely that reason), but apparently do not.

That should tell you something. If you believe for a single, solitary minute that the likes of the [iExpress[/i, the [iSun[/i and the [iMail[/i are caught up in a PC web of hiding such crimes, then you really need help.

Maybe I shouldn't have retaliated to your initial personal digs, suggestions and inmuendo. But I did. Unfortunately.

You make so much stuff up in your mind about what i think or what's happening. Getting it wrong all the time. Something that would be easily resolved in a conversation. But off you fly attack attack attack . And it is I that needs help is it? About something I don't even believe!

Tommy is one of the few who have posted on this thread to have any decency at all.


Its just a power struggle on here at times and any event will be used to fuel it.

The lad appears to have been estranged from his wife and was engaged. Not that that matters.

Perhaps you shouldn't have made claims that you cannot even remotely back up and then try to swerve madly (including by mentioning unrelated PM conversations) and make suggestions about someone, all the while still showing that you cannot back up your initial claims.

Either you can back up your initial claim or you cannot and all you were doing was spreading gossip – and probably malicious gossip at that.

It's that simple.

Perhaps you shouldn't have made claims that you cannot even remotely back up and then try to swerve madly (including by mentioning unrelated PM conversations) and make suggestions about someone, all the while still showing that you cannot back up your initial claims.

Either you can back up your initial claim or you cannot and all you were doing was spreading gossip – and probably malicious gossip at that.

It's that simple.

Threads on the main board would have been locked by now, this is just becoming pathetic.

This is an off-topic forum.

What happened at Woolwich was, in itself, a particularly horrific crime. But it does not stand alone.

It would appear, for instance, that at least one of the accused was known to the intelligence services and had been arrested in Kenya three years ago.

In the meantime, there are suggestions that one way forward is a new version of a previously-moosted 'snooper's charter'.

In other words, this particular crime has many ramifications and potential ramifications far beyond most other murders. It should hardly be a surprise that people wish to discuss the issues that it raises.

Have you changed your mind now?......

So why bother friggin' posting it then?

Dally Wail in essence

To "correct" something someone had written.

In essence, no.

I'm still enjoying the ongoing battle for supremacy. The only thing in there that obviously isn't right is the drugs connection. Like I said, it was something I read, the original poster is denying he said it now and it's mysteriously vanished!

Is it my imagination, or have the press stopped referring to this as 'terrorism', and are now just referring to it as a 'murder'?


But now for my favourite conspiracy theory so far, I have to share this. I've paraphrased it a lot, but in short, here is the best conspiracy theory yet, it just misses out The Illuminati and/or New World Order.

********************************************************************

MI5 actually successfully recruited the murderer. They get him to infiltrate a mosque known to harbour a radical Islamic preacher, and pretend to become radicalised. They then set him up to murder Soldier Lee Rigby in an attempt to discredit the preacher and/or Mosques in general. In short, they set him up as a fall guy.
With it so far? You want proof?
The proof is (apparently) that despite being next to Woolwich Barracks, despite explosives being easy to make and despite having a car, it didn't occur to them to actually try to bomb the barracks as this would have been too heinious a crime. There is also the point about the amount of witnesses that, instead of running away screaming (As I would have done!) stood around calmly filming the murder on their mobile phones. Finally, there is the arrest of the friend who has blown the whistle on MI5 being arrested as no one is supposed to know about the recruitment.

***********************************************************************

Some peoples paranoia know no bounds.

Posted on here or posted in your mind?

It is usual, if wanting to correct someone, to quote the phrase or post that requires correction.

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/edl-dont-defend-england-says-1908599Fleet Street Fox's take on the EDL post-Woolwich[/url

I find little to disagree with. She often exhibits a wonderful turn of phrase, such as: "what utter wastes of half-baked spunk they are"

I would agree.
It gives us a greater understanding of how Stephen Lawrence's family must have felt after being slashed down by young indoctrinated fascist thugs.

Thank you for your detailed response, however, I am aware of how this forum works, I read it most days. My use of the word pathetic was not aimed at the serious discussion, more the childish bickering, condescending attitudes and name calling.

It's not a bad one but I prefer the one about WMD whereupon a western alliance invades a sovereign nation and kills hundreds of thousands of it's innocent citizens.

You surely couldn't make that one up and get away with it, could you?

This actually beats the Chicago bombing consiparcies as top conspiracy of the year.

As to conspiracy theories, the defacing of the two war memorials in the centre of London look a bit odd to me.

There is plenty of CCTV round there. Someone will get lifted for this. And I have a feeling they are going to be EDL types trying to stir.

Or security services posing as EDL?

That tinfoil hat is a good fit I see.