Some philosophy for you to ponder….
If a person openly subscribes to a particular ideology but refrains from openly stating his or her beliefs that arise from that ideology, beliefs that are abhorrent to the society they live in, is that person ‘acceptable’ as long as they stay silent when, in comparison, someone who voices their beliefs is vilified and demonised?
Tyson Fury is a born again Christian, his beliefs about homosexuality stem from that…and yet when you look at the reports about the furore surrounding his comments this is not mentioned. Why not?
Here’s the Guardian’s Michael White, actually defending Trump and Fury’s right to say such things but blames Fury’s thoughts on him being punchdrunk and a muddle-headed chump…..liberal smug superiority on open display….
At the time I didn’t know what the problem was, though I rapidly found out. He’s mouthy and opinionated in an ugly and stupid way: wrongheaded views about homosexuality, abortion and paedophilia all mixed up inside a brain that, even for such an accomplished slugger, must have been punched more than is good for it. That’s boxing for you.
Distaste rapidly evolved into controversy and our old media standby “fury” (four-letter words are always handy for headlines) because the chump of a champ turned out to have been included in the shortlist of 12 for BBC sports personality of the year.
No mention that Fury is a Christian. The BBC are also rather circumspect on this. Why? Could it possibly be that mentioning religion would open up a whole can of worms when the favoured religion prescribes death, by stoning or throwing off a mountain for homosexuals?
If people have these beliefs but don’t openly admit them should they too be treated like Fury? The police after all ban BNP members from joining even if they wouldn’t allow their beliefs to influence their work. No outrage about that from the selectively outraged of Notting Hill.
No similar outrage when Geert Wilders was banned from coming to the UK, or Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, and they don’t espouse violence or religious apartheid…in fact they fight against such beliefs…and yet people were happy to see them banned.
Now there is a petition to have Trump banned from the UK…bizarre and illogical to ban someone because of their desire to ban someone.
The BBC loves it and has practically covered the frontpage wiith Trump stories….but note there are few if any voices in defence of Trump in the BBC reports….they are very one-sided. Note the entire lack of challenge to the notion of a ban, no sign that there is any hypocrisy or something amiss with such an idea.
The BBC tells us…
Labour’s Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, also called for Mr Trump to be banned from the UK after he claimed that parts of London were “so radicalised” that police were “afraid for their own lives”.
“I would say to him you are not welcome in our country in the same way that you want to ban people like me going into your country,” Ms Siddiq told BBC Radio London.
“I don’t think we need someone poisonous like Donald Trump in our capital city that we are so proud to live in, and in our country.”
Why doesn’t the BBC ask Mr Siddiq what his views are on homosexuals, women, Jews and apostates…and ‘unbelievers’? Or why not ask Mo Farrah, a sporting Muslim ‘role model’, his views?
Note the bit about the police being afraid to go to parts of London….why doesn’t the BBC check that out…both LBC and Breitbart have [Thanks to GB123 in the comments]…and come back with the answer that in many respects this is a true picture….
Mr. Trump’s comments were derided by the “impartial” British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as well as London’s part-time mayor Boris Johnson, and Prime Minister David Cameron. He said in a speech this week that parts of London are “so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives”.
But a Metropolitan Police source has spoken out against the claims made by the British political establishment, telling Breitbart London that “Islamification” is not new, and that it is not just London that has a problem
One close-protection security expert told Breitbart London earlier today: “You have to be more vigilant in some areas than others due to demographics and radicalisation. Absolutely, without question. Anybody that states otherwise would be burying their head in the sand and ignoring the reality”.
Why is the BBC so keen to cover up the very real problems the police face in such areas…just as they do iin France?
“What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”
No-go zones are Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims due to a variety of factors, including the lawlessness and insecurity that pervades a great number of these areas. Host-country authorities have effectively lost control over many no-go zones and are often unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim youth.
Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism and pose a significant threat to Western security.
Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.
The problem of no-go zones is well documented.
And then there are the ‘cultural’ no go zones…where the police dare not tackle crimes that arise from certain cultures for fear of being called racist as in Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby…you name the town….and of course as shown here.
Interesting what the BBC misses out of their report…here’s the Telegraph…
Sir Thomas Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said the report was one of the most important ever produced by the organisation.
“Cultural traditions and sensitivities deserve and should always be given due respect,” he said.
“But where they operate to imprison vulnerable people behind barriers of fear and the threat of reality of violence, and facilitate or intensify crimes committed against them, such barriers must be broken.
“They deserve no respect at all”
Here’s the BBC…
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Thomas Winsor added: “Cultural traditions and sensitivities deserve and should always be given due respect.
“But where they operate to imprison vulnerable people behind barriers of fear and the threat or reality of violence, and facilitate or intensify crimes committed against them, such barriers must be broken.”
Why is the comment that cultural traditions that are a threat or intimidate “deserve no respect at all” missing?
Ah look the BBC pay lip service to Fury’s beliefs…listen to the BBC presenter studiously ignoring Fury’s comments on religion…which are the bulk of the ‘interview’….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cllVTFkIvOw
If he’d cited the Koran?
roger harrabin 
Sathnam Sanghera 
