go to the home page
see what Ruth is up to links to all Ruth's non-fiction publications links to all Ruth's crime fictions titles links to most of Ruth's journalist over the last four years
 ...RUTH'S FAVOURITE COMPLIMENT
photo of Ruth Dudley Edwards, author and journalist
Author/journalist
JOURNALISM 2016
JOURNALISM 2015
JOURNALISM 2014
JOURNALISM 2013
JOURNALISM 2012
JOURNALISM 2011
JOURNALISM 2010
JOURNALISM 2009
Daily Telegraph

Stop pandering to enemies of our way of life

Radical Muslims get special treatment, says Ruth Dudley Edwards

< back to the article

The responses:


The only thing that can help us now is an immediate change of government.
Erik Reese
on March 15, 2009
at 11:52 AM


The covering of womens faces in islam as far as i can see has no religeous baring at all. i think it was invented by insecure muslim clerics way back when to control other men looking at there wives... A modern day equivalant of the stella drinking man telling his wive not to go out in that skirt or he'll beat her - nice...
lee
on March 13, 2009
at 05:39 PM


This man is not British!!
The former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed claimed that British intelligence officials were complicit in his torture, the main focus of the controversy was the alleged collusion of ministers, rather than precisely what Mr Mohamed was doing in Afghanistan.
He might, as he insists, be innocent of any wrongdoing. But the risks of taking the protestations of innocence of a former Guantanamo detainee at face value have been graphically demonstrated this week by the revelation that another inmate, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, has re-emerged as one of the Taliban's most effective commanders in southern Afghanistan
When the former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed claimed that British intelligence officials were complicit in his torture, the main focus of the controversy was the alleged collusion of ministers, rather than precisely what Mr Mohamed was doing in Afghanistan.
He might, as he insists, be innocent of any wrongdoing. But the risks of taking the protestations of innocence of a former Guantanamo detainee at face value have been graphically demonstrated this week by the revelation that another inmate, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, has re-emerged as one of the Taliban's most effective commanders in southern Afghanistan
tonytft
on March 13, 2009
at 05:39 PM


As an old man in his middle seventies, I find it unbelievable that a nation like ours, that once boasted that the sun never set on our empire, should simply lie back and permit ourselves to be slowly consumed by the Islamic parasites that we have not only permitted, but welcomed, to invade our society.
j.b.windmill
on March 12, 2009
at 05:22 PM


The problem with this entire sorry country is that we have been groomed to not offend anyone as we are all so lilly livered and scared. It is pathetic. The Australian way if far better.
http://www.azcameron.co.uk/2008/02/27/john-howard-and-his-right-to-leave/

Also, the BBC continues it's ZanuLabour line by not even mentioning the protest against the returning soldiers, instead they have a debate on chocolate tax.

This country is a disgrace and an embarassment thanks to Bliar and Bruin.
Tom
on March 12, 2009
at 05:09 PM


Of course, let's get at the Jews.

Thanks Abdulilah Deiraniya at 8.32 am for reminding me what kind of bigotry is at the heart of all this.
Giles H
on March 12, 2009
at 05:09 PM


Personally, I think it's too late for Britain. It was a nice run, but all good things must come to an end. You became confused and self loathing. Perhaps you will wake up, but it might be too late. Remember, as has been said about the US Constitution, it is not a suicide pact. Snap out of it and shape up.
William Wallace
on March 12, 2009
at 05:09 PM


"this type of protest " - a peaceful one, exercising democratic rights to protest, presumably. When will we understand that freedom of speech means hearing what your enemy says? I think there are people here who would gladly cut their own tongues out if it meant that "extremists" were silenced.

There is a suggestion here that the Muslim protesters are terrorists. What evidence does the DT have that this is the case? Or is that just a paranoid Bushian fantasy of yours?

What I see here are disturbing irrational pseudo justifications for restricting freedom of speech, not too far removed from the likes of the Taleban.

You profess to find the Taleban et al obscene and claim that they "threaten our way of life" (evidence please) yet you promote pretty much the same rabid intolerance and disgust for any other opinions other that your own self-evidently correct opinions. What is the difference?

Our way of life is freedom of speech, asembly, protest to name but three. I would suggest you step back from the brink because if the world goes that way you apparently want, you can kiss this kind of opinion sharing goodbye.

PS: Britain, if anything, is secular/atheist not Christian. Less than 10% of the population go to church. Even less are Muslim. Finally, disturbing supersitions are dying off.
Richard
on March 12, 2009
at 05:09 PM


I couldn't agree more Ruth, good work. If only mainstream politicians would listen to the British people...
James
on March 12, 2009
at 05:03 PM

We take great care at our bor


ders to stop the importation of alien plants. We have rightly, decided the nature of the UK is worth defending against alien species that would threaten our native flora and fauna and possibly wipe them out.
Sadly, we allow any person into the UK without a care about their views, habits, or customs, even though many of their habits threaten the very way of life of natives living in the UK. It is time we stopped allowing aliens in, we must, also start to eradicate the Knot Weed characters, those who are spreading their uncompromising nature by pushing out the native population and sinking their roots ever deeper.
They believe they have the right to change what has been, a stable and happy indigenous people living in these islands of Great Britain.
The time is approaching for the natives to draw the line.
John Ward
on March 12, 2009
at 05:02 PM


The demonstration agains

t returning UK troops is just a tiny manifestation of the enormous price the nation has paid by the encouragement of mass immigration . While the world has changed and , I suspect , in some measure Britain has gained by Indian and Asian east African immigration , never the less the unrestricted entry of those with an historic antipathy to western , Christian thought is not only lunatic but possibly treasonable . It should render those in Government who were and are responsible liable to judicial enquiry . Attention should also be given as to why the nation was not only never consulted on the issue of immigration laws were specifically enacted that would stifle dissent , one resultant of which was that no action was taken against those protesting against troops but was taken against those supporting . The price of all this is deadly civil war in the shortly coming years .
paul02
on March 12, 2009
at 05:01 PM


There is a very serious and potentially dangerous issue here. No country is going to, nor should be asked to, allow itself to be 'invaded' by elements hostile to the majority of its population. Clear minds need to address this issue soon or there may well be a strong domestic backlash against these Paiksiani based terrorists. The USA correclty acuses the UK of harbouring these people. The need for action is getting closer.
nick
on March 12, 2009
at 04:55 PM


I agree with Ruth Dudley Edwards regarding the Chief Constable not interviening on a matter of racial hatred, because that is what the protest was about.This Government brought in a law to try to prevent the demonstation of racial hatred which is not being applied even handedly.In private I can hate who I please, and that is my private privilage
A simple expedient of useing the law of, "Behavior Likly to Cause a Breach of the Peace" could have been used to keep the placard waving protesters off the street and so have prevented Nathan Draper (Report Page 14) from ending up in court. Very puzzled why only the counter demonstrator ended up there
mike
on March 12, 2009
at 04:54 PM


Yes Sarah L, we are all entitled to wear what we like but if I turned up at a demonstration with a balaclava on my head I expect I would either be told to take it off or arrested!
Timothy Robinson
on March 12, 2009


How often does one have to restate the simple truth in this matter?
Islam is not just a faith but also a faith for a way of life. It is not possible for a Muslim to live as a fully integrated citizen of a western liberal democracy and to remain a believer. Moreover, the only interest that a Muslim has in democracy is as a route to power that will eventually allow believers to do their evangelical duty and impose Sharia on all citizens and by so doing eliminate democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and tolerance as we know it.
I do not condemn this I merely state that which is true and is demonstrable by anyone who understands the religion and who has read the Koran.
This effect cannot fairly be compared to, for example, a situation which believers take the Old Testament literally as the Old Testament does not depend upon the imposition of fixed rules across the whole of society. I do accept however that it might be argued that in some ways the effects would be similar.
The situation is made much more complex by the requirement for the adherents of Islam to live apart, to resist integration, in part so as to be able to impose their traditions on their family and other Muslims and in part also so as to prevent what they would see contamination and pollution of their spiritual and social environment by other faiths and tolerances. We made a large mistake earlier in making allowances of these kinds for other religious groups - Jews for example - and by allowing the mutilation of male genitals not for medical reasons but because of religious beliefs and also by allowing Sikhs the freedom not to wear motor cycle helmets when all other citizens were required to comply. As was once said in the House of Commons; To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned".
If you wish to see how these things involving belief systems evolve, take a look at the evidence this morning in Israel. Whatever else is said about the election result, there is no clear majority for a settlement that involves giving up the occupation. The likely enforcer of this is a Jewish extreme sect that is no less demanding in the way it wants to impose its will on Israeli's than is any fundamentalist Muslim or ultra religious group.
It follows therefore that we cannot accommodate Muslims demands that are simultaneously both a part of their inevitable direction and an element of the eventual loss of what we think of the British way of life including but not limited to the rights of women and children, freedoms of decision, expression and worship and equality of opportunity extending to governance, education, sports and cultural (or lack of cultural) integration.
I do not argue here that one is right and the other is wrong, simply that the logic and outcome are inevitable; either one will be deliberately restrained and its adherents constrained to conform or the other will eventually be subsumed and eliminated, perhaps in small incremental steps but unalterably changed?.
WAK Coe
on March 12, 2009
at 04:54 PM


D. Singh at 2.42 pm.

Right on the button Mr.Singh.

We are caught in the middle of a battle for the establishment of a New World Order - the New Islamic World Order or the New Communist World Order.
Unless we are prepared to get off our backsides and take our country back from all types of extremists and fight to restore the values we have held dear for centuries, we are going to wind up as dead or - worse - slaves.
David, Oxford
on March 12, 2009
at 04:53 PM


A fairly crisp piece on this topic was here in the comment section only the other day. Unlike the others, it offered no facility for comments. That smacks of wishing to avoid the honestly expressed but un-PC remarks of readers.

The subject was also touched on by breakfast TV today - and it seems that we are in complete denial as to the expression of distasteful minority views with impunity in Britain - when, were this same minority to be the majority, similar comments by Christians would be utterly suppressed, as happens in an Islamic state, where their faith let alone words would be proscribed.

This is not do as we do but do as we say. Our belief in freedom of speech is our enemy in this situation - and does not even exist where these types prevail.

120309-09:23

where has this been all day?

reposted 120309-15:05
simon coulter
on March 12, 2009
at 04:48 PM


Sorry Ali Hamdan (March 12, 2009 at 08:31 AM) but the difference between 'our boys' and terrorists is not whether innocents are killed in war but whether the war is legitimate. Your view that our soldiers are terrorists is simply because you are backing the other side.

It is surprising that the police allowed the protest to go ahead, given the likelihood of civil disorder. After all this was the reason given for banning Geert Wilders.

But perhaps it was preferable to have the protesters out in the open, despite the tone of their protest being entirely inflammatory. Theirs was quite different from a 'troops out' demonstration, and appears to have been designed to cause offence, probably even to incite violence as an aid to recruitment to their cause.

Opposing our role in Iraq and Afghanistan is permissible in a democracy; fighting our troops and supporting the overthrow of our democracy is not.
09.44 120309 (second attempt)
Phil Cowburn
on March 12, 2009
at 04:48 PM


Ali Hamdan's comments reflect the 5th column of muslims in this country. Everyone knows it - even this pathetic government who are simply too scared to do anything about it.

The police have been politicsed to protect muslims from the righteous indignation of British people who see what muslim infiltration of Britain is really about.

Their will be a civil war if this is allowed to continue - but it wont take anything like 30 years to come about. More like 3 years.

Pandering to muslims is no solution - it only makes bloody conflict more certain because radical muslims have no respect for weakness or democracy. So a weak democracy - well you figure it out!
Pete
on March 12, 2009
at 04:45 PM


reading this article and the comments, I was shocked to see how many people believe that the UK is "in danger of becoming an Islamic state" and that we need to "defend the British way of life". Absolute rubbish!

These are exactly the kind of arguments that Hitler used against the Jews.
This kind of racism should not be tolerated on the website of a respectable newspaper!
martin russell
on March 12, 2009
at 04:44 PM


FEAR of radical Muslims is the reason that our government, and therefore our police, act in this cowardly fashion.

It seems to me that Brown's government is deluded, like the Chamberlain government was with Hitler's crew. That would imply incompetence and lack of foresight - pretty much Labour's core values.

However, the present situation is probably much more sinister. While Chamberlain was deluded, Quisling was a traitor. The government's support for radical Muslims while arresting offended British citizens who were supporting our troops smacks of the latter.

Whether deluded or traitorous they have to go. This country needs a Churchillian figure - its that serious.

Also, D Singh, 12.42PM is right: we need to return to the centuries old value system based on Christian principles (whether one is Christian or not. The values stand on their own as a cultural construct). They work better with faith - but even without it they are better than other culturally constructed values.
Ralph
on March 12, 2009
at 04:43 PM


Its curious that those who freely admit to holding similar views to the Islamic protestors demand the same rights of free speech as those who do not. However, if these protestors do not respect MY rights, what reason do I have to respect theirs?

Ex-patriot Britons and those who hold Britsh passports though born overseas are encouraged to assimilate into their country of residence. I can't see this happening with these protestors no matter what the moderate muslim leaders say.

Observe your religions, yes, observe your culture, yes, but respect those for whom this country is their heritage, then your views would be accepted by a greater proportion. Respect has to be earned and the more these protestors go against the grain in such an emotive manner, the less they will get.
It is the way of this country to be tolerant of those of other background and faiths, but when that tolerance appears to be thrown in the mud, then you must expect a backlash, and anyone who doesn't believe there would be one, is naive.
How on earth can the protestors expect to gain respect if they have no respect for others? It is not the common soldiers that they should be protesting to, its those at Westminster and Washington who should be the target.
Rob Overfield
on March 12, 2009
at 04:23 PM


The Luton protesters had placards calling the soldiers Murderers. Most people killed in Iraq have been murdered by suicide bombs and car bombs left outside public offices and in crowded markets etc. Perhaps the protesters could tell us how many Coalition soldiers have been suicide bombers and car bombers. It's time they faced the fact that the vast majority of Muslims killed in Iraq have been murdered by other Muslims. Or is that acceptable to them?
Bluedragon
on March 12, 2009
at 03:59 PM


Enough is enough. Toe the line or get out. Free speach is one thing, but insulting our countrymen and women is not allowed in a democtratic society.
barbara taylor
on March 12, 2009
at 03:46 PM


Oh dear Ruth,expressing such views.You will go the same way that Mark Stein went when he did something similiar.
Mel Deri
on March 12, 2009
at 12:58 PM


The doctrine of 'free speech' was admirable when rational debate could be held. When both sides, whatever their views, could debate any issue without ensuing violence and inequality, all well and good. Now that tenet has long gone. There is no reciprocation. I hold not one iota of respect for Islam for many reasons. I could not go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia et al and murmer those views. Yet we permit alien cultures and religions (British muslims? -not on your life)to seek to impose their beliefs irrespective of the offence given to the indigenous community.

If you thing there is a level playing field, try this for a social experiment. Go into the part of any inner city inhabited by muslims and note the non-adherence to traffic laws in relation to conditions of vehicles, parking and licensing. Then return to your own community and attempt to practice the same - the law will be on you like a ton of bricks.

Luton? Does anyone believe that a protest against Islam conduct at a moslem festival would not attract swift retribution from the police? Of course not. You would be nicked and they would claim they are upholding peaceful community values.

Whatever reasons legislators and enforcers claim when they chose laws to enforce they can never claim 'impartiality'.
Roy G -Solihull
on March 12, 2009
at 12:44 PM


Sarah L Covering the face is rude and aggressive.Nuns never covered their faces. Covering is the dress of the Bedouin and suitable for sandstorms .In the UK it leads to rickets and more subtle Vitamin D deficiencies It is also meant to dehumanize women at least as much as tart dressing does. It is just the other side of objectification and those who buy into it are just as dim and narcissistic as
barbie doll fashion victims. It is just another sort of look at me I'm much better than everyone else.
Felix
on March 12, 2009
at 12:43 PM


Ali Hamdan

You expose the hub of this particular argument.An unpopular war waged on a tissue of lies was always going to provoke protest from the indigenous populace and ethnic minorities alike, and all are of course entiled to their point of view. Had the will of the people prevailed it is almost cetain that UK forces would not have committed to these two particular campaigns. Equally had the will of the people prevailed the fundamentalist element of the Muslim religion would not have been alloWed into the UK in the first place.
Therefore all reasonably tolerant people of all faiths, together with our excellent professional servicemen and women have all been betrayed by a Blair and his equally unprincipled cabal of inadequates.
Vandiemen
on March 12, 2009
at 12:42 PM


Sir ? How did this small group of protestors acquire such brazen confidence to mount a protest in such a context? Whatever the answer to that question is, it is the key to defeating radicalism in the free West.

No state in the history of the world (including the USA) has permitted absolute free speech ? for to do so would risk major civil disorder.

Therefore, each state or imperial power has been impelled to impose limits on free speech. But those parameters on free speech in the free West have largely been based upon Judaeo-Christian values ? those values can be discerned in Anglo-American literature.

What we have now, at least in this country, is the collapse of those values and the consensus that supported them.

Nature abhors a vacuum. That vacuum has been replaced by the value system of Left-liberalism whose central supporting base is moral relativity. Within that framework all positions are relative to each other in status. The devastating fact that supports that entire system is that the world-view of moral relativity itself, by the power of the ruling Left-liberal elite, is not open to challenge: it presides over all the other systems of thought whether they are religious or political. Thus, from its position ? all religions are the same? and they are to be accorded the same status as atheism, for example.

Then if all systems are relative to each other it is then a small step for radicals to claim and project that their system of thought is of equal value (or better) than others. The moral relativity of Left-liberalism has allowed that ? it is a logical result ? and a disastrous one if we wish to remain a free society.

If that is correct then one can explain how within the rules of democracy, in the context of a military parade, confident in the protection of the police and the risk of a violent reaction from cheering crowds and a hostile press those protestors acquired such confidence.

As the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester have frequently warned: abandon Judaeo-Christian values and their notions of moral absolutes - abandon God, family and country.
D. Singh
on March 12, 2009
at 12:42 PM


from the report that I heard from a reporter on the scene, these people were demonstrating peacefully and some of the relatives of those in the parade started the trouble. I would say that the problem was caused by the bigotry and ignorance of the families of those in the parade. Whatever else they might be(and no, they are not automatically heroes because they choose to become soldiers) a large number of the rank and file of the army (and its families) does not seem blessed with a great deal of intelligence - otherwise one would have hoped that they would have realised that the battle to protect our Western values should also include the battle to protect free speech - even if we disagree with what the other person is saying or if it makes us feel uncomfortable.
how sad
on March 12, 2009
at 12:40 PM


I can understand that this is a polarised debate. Yet, if I demonstrated against a radical cleric, I would expect to be arrested. This article is not about the rights and wrongs of the war, it appears to me to be about the relative laxness of state treatment of radical muslim activists. And that, in a democracy, is not acceptable however much Ali Hamdan and the other apologists for this behaviour bleat.
Martin B
on March 12, 2009
at 12:39 PM


Well said Ruth Edwards,good to know the british opinion abut nature of hindus in general.
"while no one much bothers about the peaceable Hindus?"

A policy of this nature(pandering) is adapted in India as well, and now the situation went out of control for politicians to find a solution. Hope british citizens are waking up and realizing the glim future.
S Kumar
on March 12, 2009
at 12:38 PM


Sarah L

In a free world people are treated equally. Both sides would either be left alone or arrested equally. Not the ones offended and angry at the original racially motivated 'protest'. Those who disagreed with the protest are the ones being charged by a politically motivated left wing police force (poice farce?) for inciting racial hatred. The one's causing the original outrage with a racially motivated event are protected.

If you think this is a free country then you are deluded.

As for the dress code. Ask youself how many of those women actually have a choice and if they did what would their choice be?
Non-delusional
on March 12, 2009
at 12:38 PM


How come when muslims express their hate, racsism, and intoplerance - your police never do anything.

But when a young boy shots back at them - he his arrested?

This is also happening in Norway, where the police do not do anything about violent muslims attackiing elderly women and children demonstrating in support of Israel.

The west is dying unless is starts to stand up for its values
Christopher
on March 12, 2009
at 12:38 PM


Both my wife and I are of the same opinion: either Islamic (and any other immigrants for that matter) observe British values and the British way of life or they should go back to wherever they came from. If they want to live an Islamic lifestyle and have their children taught in Islamic schools, then there are a range of countries to choose from (predominantly in the Middle East) - and England is NOT one of them.
Robin A
on March 12, 2009
at 12:38 PM


How many of the returning East Anglian regiment were British Muslims? What do they have to say about these protestors?
Sue
on March 12, 2009
at 11:54 AM


Ruth Dudley Edwards expresses her bigotry perfectly with her comments on muslim womens dress codes. Many women wear items of clothing that express who they are in either a personal or religious context. Nuns,punks,muslims,etc., Your repugnant statements are reminiscent of the days when women were labeled as sluts, tarts, etc., for wearing mini-skirts, or at the turn of the last century, as gender confused or mentally insane for wearing trousers. Get a grip on your paranoia Ruth. Women will not be judged by you or anyone else on how they choose to dress and if that code of dress is an expression of their personality or their religion then that is their choice. Last time I looked it was still a free world.
Sarah L
on March 12, 2009
at 11:52 AM


If you Brits aren't going to stand up for yourselves, you are going to be forced to lay down and be run-over by the Islamist movement.

Fight now... before your legs are taken out from under you. Otherwise, it will be too late.

If not now, when?
rachel
on March 12, 2009
at 08:33 AM


Would the author care to elaborate on the "western values" that we supposedly share with the muslim population?
Craig
on March 12, 2009
at 08:32 AM


Ruth Edwards forgets those who demonstrated are mainly British born and bred and just as entitled to have their say as she is. I cannot make up my mind who generates greater racial tension, her or them. Her subtle but virulent innuendo is a shade better than BNP literature. Would she dare nake similar remarks about the dress and influence of the far more powerful, much less numerous jewish community. I doubt it - she would be out of a job in a flash and would be torn to shreds inthe columns of the tabloids and broad sheets
Abdulilah Deiraniya
on March 12, 2009
at 08:32 AM


The people who go on about the 'free speech' rights of foreigners like Geert Wilders are just as vocally hypocritical when British Muslims exercise their right to free speech.

These war parades are an absolute disgrace. There is no part of a soldier's description that forces them to glorify their illegal invasion and occupation - amounting to terrorism - of Iraq and Afghanistan. By attending and glorifying such parades, Ruth Edwards and her ilk are in fact glorifying terrorism.

And yes - 'our boys' ARE baby killers and they have actually killed innocent people. And yes - it DOES make them terrorists.
Ali Hamdan
on March 12, 2009
at 08:31 AM


Excellent article - but the ruling socialist cabal think they know better than the rest of us and simply do not want to hear this message. Nevertheless - they will pay dearly for their hubris when the BNP achieves unprecedented success at the next election. We have had more than enough.
JohNW
on March 12, 2009
at 08:30 AM


Actions speak louder than words.If you want to stop Islamism in its tracks,you can now put an end to the operation of Sharia courts in the UK,in the same way as Canada has done,by signing the petition at www.onelawforall.org.uk,and by supporting the aims of the Council of Ex-muslims of Britain.
Peter Buckley
on March 12, 2009
at 08:13 AM


I,m afraid we have left it all to late, thanks to the Labour government.

By 2050, the UK will be an Islamic state, if you are Christian and a democrat, get out now,

Derek McDonald,
Saigon, Vietnam.
Derek McDonald
on March 12, 2009
at 08:10 AM


At last a sensible viewpoint to

what is becoming a disgusting state of affairs. When will the politicains begin to listen or depart? I believe many people are getting frustrated by the avoidance of this issue, by politicians of both major parties and a major backlash protest vote for the BNP is in the offing.
Steve
on March 12, 2009
at 07:51 AM


What we need to do in Britain is simply to draw the line. Stop giving away our way of life, protect our belief's, our interests and to promote our Britain, not to promote Islamic Britain. Britain is Christian, not Islamic, we are, however getting far too close to becoming an Islamic state because we are pandering to their every needs. Our Politicians need to become less spineless and take some pretty heavy and serious action to bring back our way of Life.
Piers
on March 12, 2009
at 07:50 AM


There's a simple answer.

We have in our country the rule of law. It should be used in the same way for all UK residents and visitors alike - no exceptions.

All who live here should keep the law and the police should enforce it when they do not - regardless of who they are.

If Muslims don't like our laws they are free to go and find a country where they do like the laws and they can live there.

So, stop giving all groups any money for any reason - it's taxpayers money after all - then they would have to work for a living - then they wouldn't have time to cause trouble.

To give them money for the sake of peace is madness as is proved on a daily basis - so stop - it's simple.
gillian moroney
on March 12, 2009
at 07:50 AM


Unless this Government or the next, do not change its destructive direction of pandering to muslims, then this country could end up in a civil war within 30 years. I think it is that serious!
Gary
on March 12, 2009
at 07:50 AM

Spot on, but the politicians couldn't care less for the "ordinary British people." The political classes fail to see the problems they are creating by their appeasement of this Islamic minority.
Fraser K Turner
on March 12, 2009
at 07:23 AM


< back to the article

RECENT JOURNALISM:

Ruth posts articles that interest or amuse her and replies to comments from her eclectic group of friends and followers.

 
follow Ruth on facebook

Follow Ruth on twitter

SEARCH THIS SITE: 

Custom Search
© 2003–2016
Ruth Dudley Edwards
back to previous go to home page send an email to Ruth