To think that the uk is a hostile environment for the natives aswell as for immigrants nowadays?

[malificent7]

Well the government have succeeded in one thing; making the uk a hostile place to live for most people what with cuts. Brexit etc. Is it just me or do things feel... tense?

Yet it had nothing to do with the city being Europe's murder capital, which was the point a previous OP made. Please do try to keep up

Boris love, you have no idea what you are taking about. The situation in Glasgow has improved a lot in the last 20 or 30 years but only a fool would attempt to make the case that the street gangs had nothing to do with sectarianism. The "Billy boys" ? Why did they start etc ?

Now you're trying to say that because it cannot be proven that when Glasgow was the "murder capital" of Europe, the majority of violence was a result of the sectarian divide in the city, any point about immigration and decades of serious religious violence is void ? Your debating is pathetic.

@eli4899 I won't reply to your racist private messages. I have deleted it. If you send me more messages like that I will report you.

Have you ever been to Glasgow or spent much time in the west of Scotland ?

Yes I certainly have! Other cities also have appalling white on white gang and knife crime... it is not religion or skin colour that is causing the problem.

Forgive me mirialis you are trying to telling me that sectarian violence has never been much of a problem....in Glasgow ? Have you been on the sherry ?

"Boris love, you have no idea what you are taking about. "

I have every idea what I'm talking about, my Glaswegian roots, and experience of living in the city would give me that perspective.

The murder rate in Glasgow in 2009 was nothing to do with sectarian violence.

"Why did they start etc"

But the reason groups start ages past is not the same reason why crime is occurring in the 21st century.

"Your debating is pathetic."

Loser. You are the one who has alternated between finding different statistics meaning very different things to justify your point. Skipping from different surveys which have data on the points you are debating, but choosing which one at will out of expediency. Conflating other points and using fallacies repeatedly. Intellectually bankrupt.

BTW Glasgow's immigration was internal, Ireland was part of the UK at the time it occurred.

Dont' be such a dick. That's not what I've said at any point - and you have the cheek to call other people's debating pathetic.

Utterly pointless.

Utterly ridiculous point, in fact your whole point is riddled with inaccuracies

Who was it that murdered Theo Van Gogh and tried to behead him? Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 people for publishing a cartoon - a cartoon! Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that killed 52 civilians in London in 2005? Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that attacked Lee Rigby with two knives and a cleaver? Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that drove a truck into people celebrating Bastille Day? Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that drove a truck into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge? Islamic terrorists.

Who was it that drove a truck into a department store in Stockholm? Islamic terrorists.

Who was the suicide bomber at Manchester Arena? An Islamic terrorist.

And the list goes on and on. It’s not a ridiculous point - it bears discussion. People aren’t onto nothing here. Why are you so keen to shut it down?

Only read up to p 7 and have to go out, but I'd like to applaud BorisBogtrotter for the good work throughout this thread.
Also whoever said this "Britain is pretty much a hostile environment for anyone who isn't a banker, a CEO or pretty much anyone else who isn't in the wealthiest top 10% percent." Spot on.

The thing is, it's been getting that way for a long time. The middle classes never noticed because it wasn't affecting them: they even made such ridiculous claims as 'we're all middle class now', in the 90s and 00s when I was busily working to pay rent to pay their mortgages for them. It's affecting middle classes now, that's all. It's affected those of us born into working class roots since the 60s all our lives.

Islamic terrorism is a relatively recent phenomena. It has roots in Islamic fundamentalism. Islam itself has a long history which compares very favourably to Christianity for tolerance, and no worse for women's rights. I don't know what is going on with it right now but I wish it would sort itself out.

How am I the one being a dick here exactly ? You're the one saying sectarian violence in the west of Scotland is of no relevance to the debate about mass immigration, and is of no significance in a discussion about the high levels of violence in Glaswegian society over the last century. You couldn't make it up. Apparently because the violence between whites, it would fine if the Irish had had brown skin I assume.

MrsAriadneOliver you correctly identify issues of violence that have been carried out by people claiming to be Muslim. Most Muslims reject them clearly and unequivocally.

We could counter by pointing out acts of violence carried out by other groups. Some could argue that the Iraq war - an illegal war - was an act of violence.

If one person or a group of people who share a trait behave badly do you condemn everybody of that religion?

TM is a woman and a Tory does that mean all Tories are intransigent, or all woman are?

Some people act badly, they are condemned by the majority of the population and the majority of Muslims - so your point is?

Some people act badly, they are condemned by the majority of the population and the majority of Muslims - so your point is?

Do you think that when legalisation is put in place to stop men having access to women's private spaces, that those people are demonstrating an unfair prejudice towards men ? Or is it fair even though we know that the majority of men unequivocally condemn violence towards women ? Why is any further analysis of the correlation between men and dangerous attitudes to women absolutely forbidden ?

@eli4899 say what you want in public but do not pm me.

Some people act badly, they are condemned by the majority of the population and the majority of Muslims - so your point is?

Do you think that when legalisation is put in place to stop men having access to women's private spaces, that those people are demonstrating an unfair prejudice towards men ? Or is it fair even though we know that the majority of men unequivocally condemn violence towards women ? Why is any further analysis (e.g. the expressed views of people in their country of origin) of the correlation between people and dangerous attitudes forbidden ?

@eli4899 come on, be brave, put the messsages you've been PMing out in public.

Coward.

"Do you think that when legalisation is put in place to stop men having access to women's private spaces, that those people are demonstrating an unfair prejudice towards men ? "

Are you equating putting laws in place to stop a minority of people committing crimes with stopping immigration of people of certain religions?

Sorry double post. @eli4899 please move along.

Love it when the far right show their true colours.

Sad, pathetic losers every last one.

We have to be careful about how we talk about religion because some people post comments like they can have "sex with a dead wife".

All religious texts have something's that are mad or offensive. I always make sure I don't plant different seeds in one field because it tells me that in Leviticus.

Why is any further analysis of the correlation between men and dangerous attitudes to women absolutely forbidden ?

Not quite sure what you mean. Men in all societies have demonstrated dangerous attitudes to women. It needs to be discussed but we have to take care for the reasons I've mentioned above.

There are problems but they need to be addressed in a moderate way.

"All religious texts have something's that are mad or offensive."

Yes the bible has far many more calls for violence or acts of violence in it than the Koran.

I worry that the real agenda behind some of these whole attacks on Islam is setting Christianity back up as its 'natural' opposite. Perhaps that isn't intended here, but the two are growing together. Christianity is not naturally superior and I dislike its sudden reappearance in the corridors of power every bit as much as I dislike Muslims wanting shariat law. Women's rights have improved under secularism. Under extreme Christianity they are reduced just as much as under extreme Islam.

More productive concerns are why extremism is suddenly so common, and why religious attitudes are suddenly more important than secularism. Many of the current attacks on women's rights have an almost religious, certainly anti-scientific, flavour to them.

In countries that have fallen apart and have no effective police force or legal system, you have no idea what kind of violence or activites people have been involved in, there is no way of knowing is the point. I'm not against immigration per se. But I think that we are in uncharted territory. The speed and scale of immigration to this country and Europe is unprecedented. We still talk about the Hugenout immigration to this country, by the 1990's the same number of people were immigrating to the UK every 2 months, 50000 people. I hope that everyone gets along and it all goes well of course, I really do..but we don't know what will happen.

What annoys me is the myth that this was all either inevitable or the same as it has always been. We need to be very careful and consider what we are doing, although it may be too late for that.