http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36349693

The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a jahadist.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I have'r read a word of mr Sillie's diatribe but wish to speak out against the misconduct of western governments.

While I am of the belief that in certain respects travel broadens the mind (while loneliness and cupidity lead to religious extremism) most of the GPs in the practice I go to are Indian or Pakistani (I have no idea which) the actions of the various UK governments have lead to a "Brain Drain" of highly trained medical personnel from the regions most in need of them and brought them to a nation that can easily afford to train and keep its own.

I don't subscribe to jumper's dimwitted analysis but anyone with the ability to see logic and reason cohesively will understand this practice is criminal and makes us de-facto murderers of women and children.

Do we really need this on our collective conscience?

The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a jahadist.Â*

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup?
Why is this relevant at all?

On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a jahadist.Â*

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup?
Why is this relevant at all?

It isn't but I have to say something to trolls like this. More on foreigners:

Southampton, which has Britain’s second largest container port and is Europe’s busiest cruise terminal, is one of nine UK cities cited by the World Health Organisation as breaching air quality guidelines even though it has little manufacturing.

“Up to five large liners a day can be berthed in the docks at the same time, all running engines 24/7, said Chris Hinds, vice chair of the Southampton docks watchdog group WDCF. “Pollution from the port is leading to asthma and chest diseases. We are now seeing more, bigger liners but also very large bulk cargo ships.�

In the good old days they all burned anthracite albeit very inefficiently and the article is slanted to let you think that this 4/ thing is avoidable and that it consists of bunker fuel Number 6.

It would take more than the fuel they do use to start up a shut engine and the turn around on a cruise ship is not a slow process. When the QE 2 was docked for repainting the whole ship was done in one day so I dare say that a modern liner can get a faster turn around than most freighters do.

Out at sea the so called pollution should be considered fertiliser.

On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a jahadist.Â*

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup?
Why is this relevant at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant. Nothing can be done.

Tudor Hughes.

On 22/05/2016 00:39, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a
jahadist.

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup? Why is this relevant
at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are
abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant.
Nothing can be done.

Except KF them.

The problem is, they are unshakeably convinced they are right, and that
everyone else secretly shares their views but are afraid to speak out.
Any attempt to convince them you are sincere in beliefs opposite to
theirs, merely strengthens their delusion that you are 'afraid to speak
out'.

We all have our prejudices (that's to cover my ass if Col is reading
this thread) , but mostly we recognise that few others share them, and
therefore don't try and convince them they are wrong.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:45:26 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 22/05/2016 00:39, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a
jahadist.

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup? Why is this relevant
at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are
abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant.
Nothing can be done.

Except KF them.

The problem is, they are unshakeably convinced they are right, and that
everyone else secretly shares their views but are afraid to speak out.
Any attempt to convince them you are sincere in beliefs opposite to
theirs, merely strengthens their delusion that you are 'afraid to speak
out'.

We all have our prejudices (that's to cover my ass if Col is reading
this thread) , but mostly we recognise that few others share them, and
therefore don't try and convince them they are wrong.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

That's why, If I ever reply directly, it's with the single word 'racist'. This racist detests that. It gives him no platform. However, I'd always support his right to post. It's this wonderful and diverse country's freedoms that allow him the right to express his racist views on a free, public newsgroup. Ironic that the racist hates his own country, isn't it?

On Sunday, 22 May 2016 09:01:14 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:45:26 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 22/05/2016 00:39, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a
jahadist.

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup? Why is this relevant
at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are
abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant.
Nothing can be done.

Except KF them.

The problem is, they are unshakeably convinced they are right, and that
everyone else secretly shares their views but are afraid to speak out.
Any attempt to convince them you are sincere in beliefs opposite to
theirs, merely strengthens their delusion that you are 'afraid to speak
out'.

We all have our prejudices (that's to cover my ass if Col is reading
this thread) , but mostly we recognise that few others share them, and
therefore don't try and convince them they are wrong.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

That's why, If I ever reply directly, it's with the single word 'racist'. This racist detests that. It gives him no platform. However, I'd always support his right to post. It's this wonderful and diverse country's freedoms that allow him the right to express his racist views on a free, public newsgroup. Ironic that the racist hates his own country, isn't it?

What an utterly vacuous point to make. You may as well say that it's perfectly legal to shag Mrs Next-door if she agrees to it, while ignoring the the widely-held consensus that it's generally inappropriate and there may be a price to pay, so to speak. But in this wonderful diverse country it's quite legal, say you. Hooray! C'mon girl, get 'em off!

You say that calling someone racist gives him no platform. It doesn't, of course - he is quite indifferent to comments and it will if anything encourage his misplaced sense of hurt. In any case he already has a platform - this group, and we can't take it away from him, something that you seem to applaud. This is a good example of you keeping your options open in that you can have a go at anyone who disagrees with either of your stances and enhance your absurd self-image as an authority. You just reek of insincerity.

Tudor Hughes

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 5:26:53 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 09:01:14 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:45:26 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 22/05/2016 00:39, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a
jahadist.

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup? Why is this relevant
at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are
abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant.
Nothing can be done.

Except KF them.

The problem is, they are unshakeably convinced they are right, and that
everyone else secretly shares their views but are afraid to speak out..
Any attempt to convince them you are sincere in beliefs opposite to
theirs, merely strengthens their delusion that you are 'afraid to speak
out'.

We all have our prejudices (that's to cover my ass if Col is reading
this thread) , but mostly we recognise that few others share them, and
therefore don't try and convince them they are wrong.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

That's why, If I ever reply directly, it's with the single word 'racist'. This racist detests that. It gives him no platform. However, I'd always support his right to post. It's this wonderful and diverse country's freedoms that allow him the right to express his racist views on a free, public newsgroup. Ironic that the racist hates his own country, isn't it?

What an utterly vacuous point to make. You may as well say that it's perfectly legal to shag Mrs Next-door if she agrees to it, while ignoring the the widely-held consensus that it's generally inappropriate and there may be a price to pay, so to speak. But in this wonderful diverse country it's quite legal, say you. Hooray! C'mon girl, get 'em off!

You say that calling someone racist gives him no platform. It doesn't, of course - he is quite indifferent to comments and it will if anything encourage his misplaced sense of hurt. In any case he already has a platform - this group, and we can't take it away from him, something that you seem to applaud. This is a good example of you keeping your options open in that you can have a go at anyone who disagrees with either of your stances and enhance your absurd self-image as an authority. You just reek of insincerity.

Tudor Hughes

We are all well aware of your unwillingness to criticise racists, hughes. No need to reinforce that reticence, eh?

On Sunday, 22 May 2016 18:45:28 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 5:26:53 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 09:01:14 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:45:26 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 22/05/2016 00:39, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:02:12 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
The report on the BBC doesn't say whether he was a muslim or a
jahadist.

Why is this relevant on a weather newsgroup? Why is this relevant
at all?

It isn't, of course, but try telling the perpetrators they are
abusing the group and you may as well talk to a fire hydrant.
Nothing can be done.

Except KF them.

The problem is, they are unshakeably convinced they are right, and that
everyone else secretly shares their views but are afraid to speak out.
Any attempt to convince them you are sincere in beliefs opposite to
theirs, merely strengthens their delusion that you are 'afraid to speak
out'.

We all have our prejudices (that's to cover my ass if Col is reading
this thread) , but mostly we recognise that few others share them, and
therefore don't try and convince them they are wrong.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

That's why, If I ever reply directly, it's with the single word 'racist'. This racist detests that. It gives him no platform. However, I'd always support his right to post. It's this wonderful and diverse country's freedoms that allow him the right to express his racist views on a free, public newsgroup. Ironic that the racist hates his own country, isn't it?

What an utterly vacuous point to make. You may as well say that it's perfectly legal to shag Mrs Next-door if she agrees to it, while ignoring the the widely-held consensus that it's generally inappropriate and there may be a price to pay, so to speak. But in this wonderful diverse country it's quite legal, say you. Hooray! C'mon girl, get 'em off!

You say that calling someone racist gives him no platform. It doesn't, of course - he is quite indifferent to comments and it will if anything encourage his misplaced sense of hurt. In any case he already has a platform - this group, and we can't take it away from him, something that you seem to applaud. This is a good example of you keeping your options open in that you can have a go at anyone who disagrees with either of your stances and enhance your absurd self-image as an authority. You just reek of insincerity.

Tudor Hughes

We are all well aware of your unwillingness to criticise racists, hughes. No need to reinforce that reticence, eh?

Weird answer! You're mad, you know.

Tudor Hughes