Whatever your political persuasion, defend your corner here. All we ask is that you voice YOUR opinion, rather than just post a link to a half-hour youtube video. Politics can get a bit lively, and if you prefer a less combative debate, please post in the Politics for Moderates section instead.
PhotoLady wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 11:29 am
So as part of this integration discussion - how many UK immigrants currently residing in Cyprus are fully conversant with the Greek language that they can read, write and hold a full conversation?
Integration has to work all ways if those are the rules you want to lay down.....
One main difference is that we do integrate, by donating to local charities, hospitals etc. and we live amongst the local community.
What we don't do is to harbour terrorists and protect them by not involving ourselves with the local security services by hiding behind our religion.
Neither do the vast majority of immigrants in the Uk. And what do you mean by hiding behind their religeon? All the local mosques in our old neck of the woods were at pains to have open days and to get to know the community. The same was true for the large Nepalese community (Aldershot). Their temple has regular open days.
Here's a true story. There was an old abandoned building in Aldershot, going to ruin. It was next to the Football Ground. The local Nepalese community raised money and bought the building, turning it into a Buddhist temple. They regularly hold open days and give away food and drink etc. Now some people moan that the building should have been used for something else. Or that there is nowhere for them to park, despite the fact that all the football fans are perfectly able to park. The Nepalese just can't win.
I am not saying for one moment that all immigrants are fine. I don't think the vast majority of immigrants would say that either.
Strangely, the government doesn't spend ££££££s on counter-radicalisation policies aimed at Buddists, nor or Sikhs, Hindus and other religions...
Why do you think that is...?
I don't think that most people object to immigrants that integrate with their local communities.
It is those that demand special treatment, don't integrate, create no-go ghettos, treat women appallingly and have a tendency to blow themselves up in the name of their religion that slightly annoys the general population...
PhotoLady wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 11:29 am
So as part of this integration discussion - how many UK immigrants currently residing in Cyprus are fully conversant with the Greek language that they can read, write and hold a full conversation?
Integration has to work all ways if those are the rules you want to lay down.....
One main difference is that we do integrate, by donating to local charities, hospitals etc. and we live amongst the local community.
What we don't do is to harbour terrorists and protect them by not involving ourselves with the local security services by hiding behind our religion.
Neither do the vast majority of immigrants in the Uk. And what do you mean by hiding behind their religeon? All the local mosques in our old neck of the woods were at pains to have open days and to get to know the community. The same was true for the large Nepalese community (Aldershot). Their temple has regular open days.
Here's a true story. There was an old abandoned building in Aldershot, going to ruin. It was next to the Football Ground. The local Nepalese community raised money and bought the building, turning it into a Buddhist temple. They regularly hold open days and give away food and drink etc. Now some people moan that the building should have been used for something else. Or that there is nowhere for them to park, despite the fact that all the football fans are perfectly able to park. The Nepalese just can't win.
I am not saying for one moment that all immigrants are fine. I don't think the vast majority of immigrants would say that either.
The examples you give are similar to what the British community does in Cyprus and what I would consider to be normal behaviour of immigrants who wish to be integrated into the host community. By hiding behind religion I mean that an immigrant community first considers the possible budding terrorist's religion before raising their concerns with the relevant authority.
Not only would I like to see the existing immigrant community actively condemning terrorist attacks (which I accept that it might do, but such condemnation is not given such air time by the media) but this also might have the effect of encouraging more immigrants to come forward with their suspicions.
Such actions are no more or less than what a civilised society should expect from all its members either ethnic or immigrant.
One main difference is that we do integrate, by donating to local charities, hospitals etc. and we live amongst the local community.
What we don't do is to harbour terrorists and protect them by not involving ourselves with the local security services by hiding behind our religion.
Neither do the vast majority of immigrants in the Uk. And what do you mean by hiding behind their religeon? All the local mosques in our old neck of the woods were at pains to have open days and to get to know the community. The same was true for the large Nepalese community (Aldershot). Their temple has regular open days.
Here's a true story. There was an old abandoned building in Aldershot, going to ruin. It was next to the Football Ground. The local Nepalese community raised money and bought the building, turning it into a Buddhist temple. They regularly hold open days and give away food and drink etc. Now some people moan that the building should have been used for something else. Or that there is nowhere for them to park, despite the fact that all the football fans are perfectly able to park. The Nepalese just can't win.
I am not saying for one moment that all immigrants are fine. I don't think the vast majority of immigrants would say that either.
Strangely, the government doesn't spend ££££££s on counter-radicalisation policies aimed at Buddists, nor or Sikhs, Hindus and other religions...
Why do you think that is...?
I don't think that most people object to immigrants that integrate with their local communities.
It is those that demand special treatment, don't integrate, create no-go ghettos, treat women appallingly and have a tendency to blow themselves up in the name of their religion that slightly annoys the general population...
Unfortunately you are wrong. There is a lot of bile directed at the Nepalese from certain sections of the community there.
Web Designer / Developer. Currently working on Paphos Life.
Living in Polemi, Cyprus with my wife and daughter.
Neither do the vast majority of immigrants in the Uk. And what do you mean by hiding behind their religeon? All the local mosques in our old neck of the woods were at pains to have open days and to get to know the community. The same was true for the large Nepalese community (Aldershot). Their temple has regular open days.
Here's a true story. There was an old abandoned building in Aldershot, going to ruin. It was next to the Football Ground. The local Nepalese community raised money and bought the building, turning it into a Buddhist temple. They regularly hold open days and give away food and drink etc. Now some people moan that the building should have been used for something else. Or that there is nowhere for them to park, despite the fact that all the football fans are perfectly able to park. The Nepalese just can't win.
I am not saying for one moment that all immigrants are fine. I don't think the vast majority of immigrants would say that either.
Strangely, the government doesn't spend ££££££s on counter-radicalisation policies aimed at Buddists, nor or Sikhs, Hindus and other religions...
Why do you think that is...?
I don't think that most people object to immigrants that integrate with their local communities.
It is those that demand special treatment, don't integrate, create no-go ghettos, treat women appallingly and have a tendency to blow themselves up in the name of their religion that slightly annoys the general population...
Unfortunately you are wrong. There is a lot of bile directed at the Nepalese from certain sections of the community there.
How bizarre then that Buddhism is never ever, ever, ever, EVER mentioned in the media in a negative way...
Nor Sikhs or Hindus...
Is there a secret anti-radicalisation programme for the Nepalese that we are not aware of...?
Or are you rather playing up the problems caused by the Nepalese and rather ignoring the elephant in the room, the religion which is linked to FGM, segregation, cruel slaughter practices, inter-marriage and the odd suicide bombing...?
I can't help but think the average neighbourhood in the UK would prefer to have a few ex-Gurkhas as neighbours...
Varky wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 6:07 pm
The examples you give are similar to what the British community does in Cyprus and what I would consider to be normal behaviour of immigrants who wish to be integrated into the host community. By hiding behind religion I mean that an immigrant community first considers the possible budding terrorist's religion before raising their concerns with the relevant authority.
Not only would I like to see the existing immigrant community actively condemning terrorist attacks (which I accept that it might do, but such condemnation is not given such air time by the media) but this also might have the effect of encouraging more immigrants to come forward with their suspicions.
Such actions are no more or less than what a civilised society should expect from all its members either ethnic or immigrant.
You are right, it is not given much air time.
This is what the Muslem Council Of Britain had to say:
Following the attack on Manchester Arena last night, Harun Khan, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, issued the following statement: “My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. I understand teenagers and children have been caught up in what the police has confirmed to be a terrorist attack. This is horrific, this is criminal. May the perpetrators face the full weight of justice both in this life and the next.
I pay tribute to the police and emergency services who have worked valiantly to save lives last night. They were helped by civilians who rushed into offer their support. I urge all those in the region and around the country to pool together to support those affected.”
They made similar statements after Westminster. You can find them on their website:
Dominic wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 6:32 pm
Given that one of the main complaints people have is that Muslems don't condemn these actions, why don't the media publicise it when they do?
May be it doesn't suit their aims or objectives to do so!
Dominic wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 6:32 pm
Given that one of the main complaints people have is that Muslems don't condemn these actions, why don't the media publicise it when they do?
May be it doesn't suit their aims or objectives to do so!
Shane
Which begs the question, what are their aims and objectives?
Web Designer / Developer. Currently working on Paphos Life.
Living in Polemi, Cyprus with my wife and daughter.
In fairness to the Daily Telegraph, they published the above article. I haven't seen anything elsewhere though, which is bizarre.
Given that one of the main complaints people have is that Muslems don't condemn these actions, why don't the media publicise it when they do?
When the Moslem community rise up and condemn - and help a great deal in times of need, it's shared all over facebook, twitter etc and not just by Moslems. Sadly, they don't get much airtime elsewhere.... except for the wrong reasons.
Road Warrior wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:24 am
Biased Broadcasting Conservatives tend not to show anything which does not suit their narrative, @chanel4news is the only news prog. worth watching, they still employ real journalists.
Everyone has a bias, as evidenced by many posters on these forums. Also many people call the BBC left wing, not pro Conservative.https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/
Road Warrior wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 11:52 am
It is inappropriate for a publicly funded Broadcasting Corporation, to have a bias. As a private individual, with no charter to adhere to, you are entitled to your bias, as am I.
I know and understand that, however it was you who called the BBC pro Conservative, I was merely pointing out that many have a different perception.
I long ago stopped regarding the BBC as an accurate news source, so my information may well be out of date, but I don't think the BBC is particularly biased towards one political party or another.
I think it sees itself more as the voice of the chattering classes, and their rather strange set of social policies, and side with whichever party seems to most closely aligned with their delusional view of the world on an issue by issue basis. Hence all parties at various times claim the BBC is biased against them [i.e. not supporting them on this particular issue]. Except of course UKIP, who will always be racist, misogynistic, proto-fascists, and therefore not suitable for even a cursory analysis by their socially aware reporters.
Last time I watched a BBC News programme was their reportage on the EU referendum, where I thought the bit where they had to announce that a remain vote was now out of reach was worth all that taxpayer money purely on its own.
