Bishop in “is a fucking idiot” shock

Where are these no-go areas for non-Muslims that the Bishop of Rochester is scaremongering about?

Answer: there are none in the UK, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying BNP twat.

8 thoughts on “Bishop in “is a fucking idiot” shock

  1. Neil says:

    Well I’ve never been to Rochester Cathedral. Clearly the Bishop needs to make more effort to engage with me.

  2. duckman says:

    There are, and have always been, areas where “outsiders” of various descriptions would be ill advised to visit during the hours of darkness – and in extreme cases, the daylight hours. Specifically, there are areas where blacks, whites, jews, hundus, muslims or members of any other visually distinct group have a greatly increased changce of being on the receiving end of uncomfortable stares, verbal abuse, harassment of even physical assult.

    I wonder if PDF would also be inclined to state that there are no such areas where muslims are likely to be on the receiving end of such intimidation/violence, or that there are no such areas where orthodox jews are likely to be similarly treated? Whether such places could be reasonably described as “no go areas” is a matter of opinion. Depending on who you are, a particular area might be unlivable in practice (quality of live can be significantly reduced by even minor levels of intimidation).

    That these areas exist (in Britain, as elsewhere) is not even a matter worthy of discussion, it is simply a matter of fact that they do. Whether the problem is sufficiently widespread or serious as to justify the comments made by Bishop Nazir-Ali is difficult to judge. He has a reputation for “speaking out” in a somewhat controvertial manner so it could just be the case that he is just trying to advance his own career by adopting an attention-grabbing strategy or it could be that he is ahead of the curve on something that will ultimately become a more widely recognised feature of multi-cultural Britain.

    Time alone will tell.

    A blogger will hardly distinguish themselves by trying to argue that a, rather regretable, feature of human nature does not exits (unless they are determined to be identified as an ignorant fool). This sweary-blog format works if you’ve got a point – in this case you don’t so it’s just reactionary drivel.

  3. PDF says:

    Do you believe there are any places in the UK where you could go as a white Muslim but not as a white Christian (or as an Arab Muslim but not an Arab Christian)? I don’t, and I don’t think either you or the bishop have any evidence otherwise.

    (Note: smartarse answers such as ‘the mosque’ will be punished.

    Ethnic ghettoes exist. The Bishop was also making specific points about the nature of Islam, which were bollocks.

  4. duckman says:

    PDF Says:
    January 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
    Do you believe there are any places in the UK where you could go as a white Muslim but not as a white Christian (or as an Arab Muslim but not an Arab Christian)? I don’t, and I don’t think either you or the bishop have any evidence otherwise.
    (Note: smartarse answers such as ‘the mosque’ will be punished.
    Ethnic ghettoes exist. The Bishop was also making specific points about the nature of Islam, which were bollocks.

    >Do you believe there are any places in the UK where you could
    >go as a white Muslim but not as a white Christian (or as an
    >Arab Muslim but not an Arab Christian)? I don’t, and I don’t
    >think either you or the bishop have any evidence otherwise.

    I don’t have any evidence otherwise – you seem to need reminding that I didn’t say so in the first place so I can hardly be held to account for not supporting my own statements (or even “punished” as you rather presumptuously put it). You’ve already resorted to putting words in my mouth (well, implicitly attributing statements to me to be precise) – I did ask whether you would be prepared to support a couple of hypothetical statements that I though flowed quite naturally from your previous posting but the propositions you offer do not, even remotely, follow from my posting. The reason why you don’t agree with the propositions you put forward, and which neither myself nor the bishop will supposedly be able to provide supporting evidence for, is because they are complete and utter garbage – a fact of which I am sure you are only too well aware, hence your attempt to attribute them to myself and the bishop and then argue against them like some kind of glove-puppet theater where you get all the best lines.

    The perpetrators of such intimidation/violence work, almost exclusively, on obvious visual cues; you’re white, you’re brown, you’re black, you’re wearing obvious ethnic garb etc. Hence the qualifier of “visually distinct”, the clue’s in the wording you see. The mind-set of such people is an easy enough thing to model – how else are some group of ner-do-wells on a street corner (and rather stereotypical scenario I’ll concede but probably sufficient for the purposes at hand) going to decide who to pick a fight with other than on the most obvious racial and/or ethnic indicators?

    >(Note: smartarse answers such as ‘the mosque’ will be punished.

    It’s interesting that you mention “the mosque” because the religious anonymity of an Arab Christian would almost certainly be lost in this setting so you do seem aware of the preposterousness of your own line of thinking. Such violence is directed on the basis of obvious visual cues or (in the rather rare cases that you put forward) on the basis of specific knowledge of a persons religious orientation. Muslims who convert to Christianity are rare but there seems to be some evidence that they are disproportionately likely to be on the receiving end of intimidation if they continue to live in a predominantly muslim area where their conversion is widely known (there was some kind of documentary on this issue but it’s a while since it was on and it might have been guff anyway). Western convert to Islam are similarly rare but I’m unaware of any instances of abuse directed against them by the “Christian” community as a result – I’m open to any evidence to the contrary though.

    >Ethnic ghettoes exist. The Bishop was also making specific
    > points about the nature of Islam, which were bollocks.

    I don’t see what your point is here, you say “Ethnic ghettoes exist” as though you’re actually pointing out what the real truth of the matter is and as if i’ve somehow just confused myself into trying to make a point that I think is valid but what I really should have realised is that “ethnic ghettoes exits” of something?. You are welcome to clarify your meaning if you think I’ve got the wrong end of the stick but I am well aware that ethnic ghettoes exist – and even that the kind of racially/ethnically motivated intimidation which was the point of all this in the first place is highly correlated with social and economic deprevation. Such events, regardless of the race/religion of the perpetrator or victim are a function of territoriality and ignorance with deprivation thrown in as a “force multiplier”.

    The issue of whether the bishop was specifically attributing the intimidation of non-muslims by muslims as a characteristic of the Islamic faith seems to be more of a “semantic flight” than I’ve got the wings for. The whole issue of whether some act is or is not “Islamic” or “Christian” or whether this or that community or religious leader should take a lead in dealing with it seems to be one of those areas where *everyone* makes up their level of involvement and responsibility on the spot to best serve their own interests. An extremely squalid state of affairs from which no one comes out smelling of roses in my opinion.

    Now that I look at the article you linked to again, there is an overly religious tone to it all and some of the counter arguments by Muslim comentators about it being sour grapes do have a ring of truth about them. On the other hand, as someone with a passing interest in the language of the media and it’s attendent punditry, I note with interest that they are not, for the most part, falling over themselves to deny the bishops main contention outright (which is that this kind of intimidation does take place). Asking for proof is not a particularly reassuring way of clearing ones name against accusations – and this is not a matter of opinion either. You are welcome to deny this if you like because it’s a bit on the “slim side” as conclusions go, but I would be inclined to see the “show us your proof” line as a tacit acknowledgment by these commentators that there is something to what the bishop is saying .

    It could still be that it’s so rare as to fall well below justifying the comments of the bishop and that the muslim commentators simply don’t want to provide any kind of validation to what they know to be a largely false interpretation of the facts (a kind of “good faith” bullshitting) but I stand by my original assertion that the kind of intimidation that the bishop highhights does exist, perhaps even to the extent that “no go areas” exist in the mind of some non-muslims, but it’s difficult to quantify so we’re going to have to wait and see if it persists and become more widely know or just blows over and shows the bishop up as an attention-seeking hack. However, there is a “bad stuff” bias in the whole media reporting model so we’re unlikely to ever get a report of “no muslim on non-muslim violence to report” from any mainstream outlets – sadly, we’re just going to have you use our wits on this one.

  5. You more than any other blogger make me laugh out loud, old son. Keep up the good work.

  6. [...] Yes, obviously Richard Littlejohn is a lying cunt; and as with the Moslemhass crew passim [*], I’d normally not even bother mentioning his drivellings. However, since he’s lying about my direct experience here, with reference to the silly bishop’s witless no-go-area ranting: [...]

  7. The Poppy says:

    FUCKING ALAAH IS A CUNT AND ALL THE MUSLIMS ARE TOO

  8. poppy curtis says:

    im a fukin idiot

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>