Thread: 'Shootings' and 'machete attack' in south east London: latest

Originally Posted by bsnub

My English friends please explain something to me.

I have noticed that the nationality of these murderous scum has been mentioned and a few posters have stated that the killers are "British" solely because they where born in the UK. Why is this? He is not of British decent he is Nigerian. Shouldn't you refer to him as a British citizen of Nigerian decent and not call him British? This is a very important question because it really establishes who is truly deserving of residing in that nation.

This argument can not be applied in the US as aside from the indians all Americans at some point in the family tree emigrated and no one is of American decent. One thing that is different in the US is someone who gains citizen ship after they emigrated. They are called naturalized citizens and can not run for president and can have their citizenship revoked.

I assume that you know the difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain.

The laws and terms in the UK seem to very similar to those you summarise as applicable in the UK. It's unusual to describe someone as 'British of Nigerian descent' unless one is making a point about his family origins but the term is correct. The same applies to the term. naturalised' - it's rarely used unless the point needs to be made.

The person in question seems to have been born in England and so is entitled to citizenship. There is absolutely no chance that his citizenship could be revoked or that he could be deported to Nigeria. There is a section of the community for which I have long wished that didn't apply. Perhaps when the UK leaves the EU its parliament will again be able to make its own laws.

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by bsnub

My English friends please explain something to me.

I have noticed that the nationality of these murderous scum has been mentioned and a few posters have stated that the killers are "British" solely because they where born in the UK. Why is this? He is not of British decent he is Nigerian. Shouldn't you refer to him as a British citizen of Nigerian decent and not call him British? This is a very important question because it really establishes who is truly deserving of residing in that nation.

This argument can not be applied in the US as aside from the indians all Americans at some point in the family tree emigrated and no one is of American decent. One thing that is different in the US is someone who gains citizen ship after they emigrated. They are called naturalized citizens and can not run for president and can have their citizenship revoked.

I assume that you know the difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain.

The laws and terms in the UK seem to very similar to those you summarise as applicable in the UK. It's unusual to describe someone as 'British of Nigerian descent' unless one is making a point about his family origins but the term is correct. The same applies to the term. naturalised' - it's rarely used unless the point needs to be made.

The person in question seems to have been born in England and so is entitled to citizenship. There is absolutely no chance that his citizenship could be revoked or that he could be deported to Nigeria. There is a section of the community for which I have long wished that didn't apply. Perhaps when the UK leaves the EU its parliament will again be able to make its own laws.

Thank you for clarifying this for me! Cheers!

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by bsnub

My English friends please explain something to me.

I have noticed that the nationality of these murderous scum has been mentioned and a few posters have stated that the killers are "British" solely because they where born in the UK. Why is this? He is not of British decent he is Nigerian. Shouldn't you refer to him as a British citizen of Nigerian decent and not call him British? This is a very important question because it really establishes who is truly deserving of residing in that nation.

This argument can not be applied in the US as aside from the indians all Americans at some point in the family tree emigrated and no one is of American decent. One thing that is different in the US is someone who gains citizen ship after they emigrated. They are called naturalized citizens and can not run for president and can have their citizenship revoked.

I assume that you know the difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain.

The laws and terms in the UK seem to very similar to those you summarise as applicable in the UK. It's unusual to describe someone as 'British of Nigerian descent' unless one is making a point about his family origins but the term is correct. The same applies to the term. naturalised' - it's rarely used unless the point needs to be made.

The person in question seems to have been born in England and so is entitled to citizenship. There is absolutely no chance that his citizenship could be revoked or that he could be deported to Nigeria. There is a section of the community for which I have long wished that didn't apply. Perhaps when the UK leaves the EU its parliament will again be able to make its own laws.

Thank you for clarifying this for me! Cheers!

You're welcome!

Originally Posted by taxexile

to defend themselves, from immigrants

it appears that these two killers are not immigrants. they were born in the uk, but possibly radicalized with islamic claptrap overseas.

They were radicalized in a mosque in downtown London

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by taxexile

to defend themselves, from immigrants

it appears that these two killers are not immigrants. they were born in the uk, but possibly radicalized with islamic claptrap overseas.

They were radicalized in a mosque in downtown London

It seems that the one with the bloody hands was raised in London as a Christian and then joined a radical Muslim group there. It's possible that he found Islam to be a suitable home for his pre-existing mental illness. He would certainly be a suitable subject for radicalisation.

I'm glad that he wasn't killed and that the UK doesn't have a death penalty. Despite the cost of keeping him, he will enjoy the hospitality in prison of some non-Muslim Englishman for many years.

THE GREAT LIBERAL DEATH WISH:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by taxexile

to defend themselves, from immigrants

it appears that these two killers are not immigrants. they were born in the uk, but possibly radicalized with islamic claptrap overseas.

They were radicalized in a mosque in downtown London

Ala Boston Bombers radicalized in various Mosques.

But, but, we were told by our 'betters' that Islam is a Religion of Peace?

It's no more a religion of peace than Christianity. It depends on which bits of preaching you want to accept.

Doesn't Islam preach death to all non-believers?

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by taxexile

to defend themselves, from immigrants

it appears that these two killers are not immigrants. they were born in the uk, but possibly radicalized with islamic claptrap overseas.

They were radicalized in a mosque in downtown London

Yes it is a fact. So the answer is when is Briton going to wake up? Why are these scum allowed a soapbox? Why are they even considered "British".

As an American I have a fairly high regard of my British comrades. I think of Monty, tea, footy and a warm hearth. As an American I ask you lot have you surrendered everything that makes your country great in the name of multiculturalism and this politically correct nonsense?

Why are they even considered "British"? bsnub, are you suggesting that anyone who commits murder should be made stateless? I suppose that would cut down on the prison population. The government could always look for a south sea island somewhere to send them too. Or do you mean people with non-conformist ideas should be made stateless? As an American, you are surely not simply against immigrants.

Originally Posted by Morden

Doesn't Islam preach death to all non-believers?

It certainly does and I was being facetious in that earlier post.

Originally Posted by bsnub

As an American I ask you lot have you surrendered everything that makes your country great in the name of multiculturalism and this politically correct nonsense?

Yes many years ago. Next question.

As for the two involved in this incident well it's TNB isn't it.

A video of the losers being shot.

LiveLeak.com - Woolwich attack: Watch shocking video of terrorists charging at police car to try to kill WPC

The two murderers, both apparently British raised, but Muslim converts from Xtianity, should be tried for murder, not terrorism.

The apparent "jihadist" element to their brutality, makes maximimising the sentence they receive appropriate, as religiously motivated murder is an insanity and a crime against humanity at large, notwithstanding the fact that the innocent victim was randomly targetted for a ritual belief based murder.

RIP Drummer Rigby.

Originally Posted by ENT

The two murderers, both apparently British raised, but Muslim converts from Xtianity, should be tried for murder, not terrorism.

The apparent "jihadist" element to their brutality, makes maximimising the sentence they receive appropriate, as religiously motivated murder is an insanity and a crime against humanity at large, notwithstanding the fact that the innocent victim was randomly targetted for a ritual belief based murder.

RIP Drummer Rigby.

Under your legal system, what is likely to happen to this trash? Your system appears very lenient, but I don't really know as I don't understand it very well.

Is it the case that the young man killed was the actions of a random attack, or did they know he was a soldier.
As for them getting shot, bloody good, religious nut case's
My thought are with his family and friends.
RIP young man.

^^^ I would imagine that, being all class that they are, they will suddenly forget their religion and claim insanity. 5 yrs a piece in the funny farm and then out to the streets with a free house and pocket money next to their old mosque.

(Or put it another way, if they survive prison....the squaddies will get them when they get out).

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by taxexile

to defend themselves, from immigrants

it appears that these two killers are not immigrants. they were born in the uk, but possibly radicalized with islamic claptrap overseas.

They were radicalized in a mosque in downtown London

Yes it is a fact. So the answer is when is Briton going to wake up? Why are these scum allowed a soapbox? Why are they even considered "British".

As an American I have a fairly high regard of my British comrades. I think of Monty, tea, footy and a warm hearth. As an American I ask you lot have you surrendered everything that makes your country great in the name of multiculturalism and this politically correct nonsense?

He was born in England. How else would you describe his nationality other than either English or British?

Great Britain, like the US, has always been multi-racial. Many immigrants during the past decades have fit in well.

Against which race or religion do you believe there should be prejudice?

I have to admit that Islam and its doings is getting on my wick these days. However, I don't condemn all Muslims just because of this horrible crime. It's like condemning all Christians because Bush invaded Iraq in the name of Christianity. Idiot Blair made the same speech.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Originally Posted by ENT

The two murderers, both apparently British raised, but Muslim converts from Xtianity, should be tried for murder, not terrorism.

The apparent "jihadist" element to their brutality, makes maximimising the sentence they receive appropriate, as religiously motivated murder is an insanity and a crime against humanity at large, notwithstanding the fact that the innocent victim was randomly targetted for a ritual belief based murder.

RIP Drummer Rigby.

Under your legal system, what is likely to happen to this trash? Your system appears very lenient, but I don't really know as I don't understand it very well.

We have various offences available which permit those who engage in acts preparatory to commissioning acts of terrorism to be prosecuted. These are used when such acts are thwarted before any execution and, indeed, several have been sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment for such crimes. However, in this case and any other for that matter the assailants will be charged with murder. Plain and simple. Their motivation is irrelevant under common and statute law. On conviction, it is likely these two will be sentenced to " whole life " terms and it is up to the judge to state the minimum term they must serve before any release on parole. I should imagine, given previous cases, they will not gain freedom for the next 40 years.

That is sufficient justice for most British folk. Death sentences are only for the barbaric and primitive.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Originally Posted by ENT

The two murderers, both apparently British raised, but Muslim converts from Xtianity, should be tried for murder, not terrorism.

The apparent "jihadist" element to their brutality, makes maximimising the sentence they receive appropriate, as religiously motivated murder is an insanity and a crime against humanity at large, notwithstanding the fact that the innocent victim was randomly targetted for a ritual belief based murder.

RIP Drummer Rigby.

Under your legal system, what is likely to happen to this trash? Your system appears very lenient, but I don't really know as I don't understand it very well.

It's too soon to know.

Having failed to become martyrs, they will do their utmost to keep out of a regular prison because the inmates would be waiting for them. Their defence will probably go for insanity and that is probably about right. If they have the guts to stand by what they said the other day, they will probably go down as murderers.

There's a lot we don't know yet. For example, two others have been arrested and their revelations have yet to be made public. Also, the right wing thug outfits and a few soldiers won't let this pass so there may yet be more bloodshed in Woolwich.

I don't agree that the UK system is generally lenient. occasionally, a sentence seems to be on the light side but not as a matter of course. There s no death penalty in the UK and that's a good thing in my view. Too many mistakes were made in the old days.

Trouble in the UK and most western Governments, is they are ruled by a bunch of spineless do nothing, but talk cretins.

There is a law in the UK called treason or high treason, you could lock up for life every radical , before they killed , plotted to kill or aided enemies of the crown. Every Imran that spouts hatred could be in cuffs tomorrow, think they would soon shut up or be on a plane out. Jim

Originally Posted by Morden

There s no death penalty in the UK and that's a good thing in my view. Too many mistakes were made in the old days.

in a situation like this, I think the death penalty is warranted.

^Of Course I do understand and respect your point of view Morden, but in a case like this there is no doubt that Murder 1 was committed, the sad thing is that those who brain washed them ,will not feel the brunt of the law , surely incitement to murder should be deemed almost as bad as the crime itself ,and it begs the question why is Choudary and his ilk drawing all this money in social security off the tax payers back who they hate so much, when there are so many jobs than can be performed for the benefit of the locality were he lives , I tell you in all honesty the UK is sick in the head.