Johnny Bognor

Bearer bonds or shares are one of the main vehicles for hiding the identity of people who have money in shell companies in the tax havens. the tories banned the use if these in the uk last year, as not only are they used for tax evasion, they are used by terrorist groups, criminals, people of influence and anyone who wants to hide serious wonga

The system definitely needs changing. I was under tax investigation a couple of years ago, where I received a £40 'dividend' from the Co-op. I didn't declare it, because I didn't even know I had been paid it. The tax due on it was £16, but as it turned out after the investigation, it was not a dividend but a reward (much like you receive from reward cards). So it turned out that nothing was due. Bearing in mind my tax bill both personally and from my business, the effort the inland revenue expended in chasing £16 was completely disproportionate and utterly ridiculous. I incurred costs during that investigation and didn't even get a ****ing apology from them. The amount in question was a fraction of the cost of investigation incurred by the Inland Revenue, so everyone loses.. me, the inland revenue, the taxpayer... whilst people evade and avoid tax on an epic scale.

The NHS is NOT free. Anyway, carry on.

Good point. Someone writes a book and there are fatwas flying all over the place as soneone insults the prophet. People murder innocent civilians (including muslims) in the name of islam and nothing, zilch, nada.

i would be interested to know, who on this forum has never paid 'cash' to a tradesman in order to get a lower bill?

One thing to bear in mind, is that the extreme versions of Islam pre-date the creation of the state of Israel, pre-date the lust for oil and pre-date the wests intervention in the middle east. There is no doubt these events haven't helped and have made things worse, but lets not pretend these are the root causes.

.... and not saddle them with our debts.

Interesting article, although a few years old... Why is the left so blinkered to islamic extremism? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html

in terms of a backlash, to be fair, the Muslim Council of Britain's response was spot on. http://www.mcb.org.uk/muslim-council-of-britain-condemns-attacks-in-brussels/ http://www.mcb.org.uk/murder-in-glasgow-mcb-condemns-religiously-aggravated-attack/ Bravo for moderate muslims!!! But look at these ******s... no mention on tackling extremist islam, no recognition that it even exists, no mention of the glasgow murder on their website, but plenty of references to standing up to EDL... http://uaf.org.uk After the brussels attack.. Weyman Bennett, Unite Against Fascism Joint Secretary said:“Our thoughts are with all those affected by the recent terrorist attacks. It is crucial that politicians and the media do not concede to a narrative that portrays all Muslims as terrorists. Firstly because it is not true. Secondly because we do not adopt the same approach when the perpetrators are white racists and fascists. Scapegoating all white people for Anders Breivik’s attacks in Norway seems ridiculous, but this is exactly the response when terrorist attacks occur in the name of Islam. Thirdly this is the climate in which far right and fascist organisations grow.” i am more worried about about these apologists for extremism, as opposed to moderate muslims. The AFEI (thats apologists for exremist islam, formerly the UAF) need to take thier heads out of their arses, as extremist islam ideology is as close to facism as any of us are ever likely to experience. They stand up to a bunch of aging / retired footie hooligans, but suck up to the extremists. Either you're against facism or you are not. Just selecting white racists, makes them, well racist. More dangerous than the BNP.

Not having a pop at you soggy, just questionning why I was brought to task by the self-appointed thread police for daring to move away from the topic, which is strictly limited to 2nd and 3rd generation home grown terrorists. Seems a bit unfair that I get brought to task for widening the debate to include all Islamic Terrorism, whilst others debate the Katie Hopkins effect, Adolf Hitlers Christian credentials and the Bosnian conflict.

No offence taken. i totally get the terrorist v freedom fighter point of view. if you look at most terrorist groups, there is a cause they are fighting for, whether that be freedom, regaining territories etc. There is a very different agenda for the current brand of islamic terrorism. one of imposing their will on the world.

Very well put, but i was discussing terrorism on a wider scale, only to be told that this thread was to specifically discuss 2nd and 3rd generation home grown terrorists. i do not disagree with your first three paragraphs (and beleive that they widen the debate), but i must warn you that Sherlock will be along in a minute to give you a dressing down for straying wayyyyyy off topic. My reference to apologists was not specifically related to people on this thread, but aimed more at apologists at large and there are many of them. It seems to me, that many of a left persuasion (not specifically on this forum) defend all islam at any cost, whilst those of a right persuasion (not specifically on this forum) attack all of islam. There are diffrent forms, some worthy of criticism and some not. More needs to be done to educate both sides.

sorry, i must have missed the bit about it specifically being about second or third generation immigrants. Where does katie hopkins, adolf hitler being a christian and the balkans conflict fit into the thread. i thought it was more about islamic extremism and islamic terrorism in general.

i think things may have changed in that they are perhaps trying to recruit more misfits now, whereas in the past they could be well educated from wealthy families. Osama bin laden anyone??? But a significant number are well educated and come from decent backgrounds. Which is different to the knuckle draggers aluded to earlier in this thread. So it begs the question why? Because apart from sectarianism, there doesnt seem to be any rational argument.

... just putting them down to misfits with a criminal past doesn't tally with MI5's own specialist research or the conclusions of the Journal of Terrorism research... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1 http://jtr.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.380/ The JTR paper asks will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist. They don't seem to think so due to the normalcy and sociability of many terrorists, but you and Shirley seem to have nailed it. Perhaps we could cut the defecit by disbanding MI5 and just employing you two at a fraction of the cost? PS: Don't beat me up for posting another Guardian article

I think people are getting confused between ISIS fighters on the ground and terrorists. Granted that the Paris and Brussells attackers may fit Shirley's profile, but many simply don't. Poverty is just a poor excuse to justify these vile acts and in many cases, it's not true... Let's look at the profile of 'our' own terrorists. Many of them are better educated than most of the posters on this forum, including my good self. - 7/7 bombers = two of the four were married with kids, one of which was a teaching assistant. Another one was a Sports Science Graduate. - Lee Rigby's killers = One of them read Sociology at the University of Greenwich, not sure about the other - Glasgow Airport bombing = One was studying for a doctorate in engineering, whilst the other and the other was a practising NHS doctor FFS. There have been a number of studies to look for a link between poverty and terrorism. A study by terrorism expert Marc Sageman, who examined 102 Islamist radicals involved in global jihad, could find no correlation between poverty and terrorism; only about a quarter of the jihadis he looked at hailed from impoverished backgrounds. “Members of the global Salafi jihad,” Sageman writes in his book Understanding Terror Networks, “were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality and concern for their communities.”

Indeed, many people blame recent terrorist attacks on the Iraq war, Afghanistan etc etc, yet 9/11 (the worst terrorist attack on the west) pre-dates these events. As it happens, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Al-Qaeda in 1993, pre-dates both Bush and Blair (not that I am exonerating them).

The storm did hit Portsmouth hard and despite the game being called off, it caused thousands of pounds worth of improvements across the city

Yes. you are right. i was totally irresponsible in linking to an article in The Guardian. i dont know what came over me. There does seem to be an ascertion, particularly from those with an apologist stance, that to be Christian means that you are white, possibly middle class of european origin. They would do well to remember that there are millions of black christians living in africa, millions of asian christians in Asia, millions of christians in the middle east. Many Christians in the middle east and africa are under real threat. Just look at what has happened to iraqi christians post the iraq war... christianity transcends race. i am also aware of the threat to peaceful muslims, like the ill fated glasgow shopkeeper. These people need to be protected. But too many lefties are quick to chuck the racist card around when the issue of islamic extremists is discussed. This deliberate attempt to silence critics is as much as a threat as those who strap bombs to themselves to murder innocent people.

I dont know about you but i would like a world where a muslim shopkeeper who is part of the local community can post a peaceful message on facebook without getting brutally murdered by a islamist fanatic. There is clearly a problem with islamic fundementalism and one which needs to be dealt with. Many apologists dont seem to be able to get their heads around that. I beleive that these apologists pose a greater threat to our way of life than radical islamist nutjobs.

i get the impression that many lefties view christianity as bad, whilst islam can do no wrong. According to the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights, 80% of all acts of religious discrimination were against Christians. Christians are the most persecuted faith in the world. anyway, carry on.... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/christianity-under-global-threat-persecution-says-report

We used to have empires run by emperors and kingdoms run by kings. We now have countries run by...

I wasn't demonising them and in fact tried to explain away the lower than average contribution. You make a valid point that partly explains it. I was merely pointing out that the article does the argument no favours.

I see no mention of the poor people massacred on the beach in Ivory Coast... http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/18/world/ivory-coast-attack-survivors/ I guess the Ivory Coast airstrikes on the middle east were the primary cause...

To be fair, that article doesn't make a good case for the financial contribution by the muslim community. The contribution of £31bn to the economy represents 1.55% of our GDP, whilst they represent 4.5% of the total population. If the proportion of population related to a similar share of GDP, then you would expect a contribution in the region of £90bn+ to the economy. Obviously there is a lot more to contribution than just finances, such as social cohesion, cultural enrichment, filling skill shortages etc, etc. These are all harder to measure. But that article does not add gravitas to your argument. And before anyone cries racist, I would have been equally happy to show a higher than average contribution to GDP. Unfortunately, that's not the case based on that article. There may be many reasons for a lower than average financial contribution, such as the difficulty in finding work, language barriers etc.