The Pat Condell Thread [DISCUSSION]

That EDL video has to be a piss take :lol:

I lived in Luton for years, I was there on the day the EDL was founded, but I have never seen or heard such a stupid, pathetic attempt at making sense from any of their members :lol:

I think the immigration 'issue' could be solved just by force-migration of all EDL and UKIP members. If they're not here they can't spread their message of hate and intolerance. Creepy, strange and moronic people.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Cal** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:05 pm

Scotty wrote:That EDL video has to be a piss take I lived in Luton for years, I was there on the day the EDL was founded, but I have never seen or heard such a stupid, pathetic attempt at making sense from any of their members I think the immigration 'issue' could be solved just by force-migration of all EDL and UKIP members. If they're not here they can't spread their message of hate and intolerance. Creepy, strange and moronic people.

How very 'progressive' of you. I'd expect nothing less from the 'enlightened Left' than to start rounding up the cattle trucks...

It was meant in irony, dude. Bit of a strong reaction there Cal?

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Cal** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:13 pm

Scotty wrote:It was meant in irony, dude. Bit of a strong reaction there Cal?

You mean if I forget your suggestion that all UKIP voters should be deported? If I don't consider your branding UKIP voters as 'creepy, strange morons'?

No, not over-the-top at all.

Opened a can of worms here. I'm bailing.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by Fm » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:19 pm

Spot-on, Scotty!

Cal wrote:

Spot-on, Pat!

Totally agree.Islamic/Pakistani immigration has been a strawberry floating disaster.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **coldspice** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:18 pm

The Grassy knoll wrote:
Cal wrote:

Spot-on, Pat!

Totally agree.Islamic/Pakistani immigration has been a strawberry floating disaster.

Examples of anti-female behaviour in Islamic countries don't tell the story of islam.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Superking** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:21 pm

He likes a good strawman does old Pat.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Cal** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:38 am

Superking wrote:He likes a good strawman does old Pat.

Interesting. I'd love to know why you think Pat is spinning a strawman argument, when all the facts about Islam's treatment of women clearly suggest otherwise. Can you show me why you don't think any of what Pat says is true?

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:44 am

Who is he even talking about?

I've never seen a feminist defend the treatment of women under Shariah law.

Like, ever.

Please, someone show me where 'Progressive Feminists' have defended Shariah Law.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:00 am

Oh, also, he's making gooseberry fool up anyway.

Nobody supports the type of Shariah Law that is exercised abroad, and given that nobody has produced any evidence that progressive UK feminists do then I'll happily call that another 'Fact Out of Condell's Arse' (FOoCA).

Also, nobody is defending the rape, gang or otherwise, in the far east, in Europe, or in fact, anywhere. This is another FOoCA.

Also, Shariah Courts in the UK have no legally binding power. Shariah Marriages are not legally recognised and shariah divorces are not legally binding. Furthermore, if a woman is disadvantaged by a 'shariah divorce' she still has the full protection of the normal courts behind them.

To pretend otherwise is a FOoCA.

Shariah Courts, where they do exist, only exist outside of the normal court system and are only as binding as all parties involved are satisfied with the outcome. If not, the decision reached there is not legally binding and all parties involved still have the backing of the official legal system.

A Shariah Court is the legal equivalent of a kid breaking a neighbour's window and agreeing to mow the lawn as punishment.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:05 am

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Helen Grant wrote:“… sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales”.

“… make it absolutely clear that they are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of their decisions or recommendations are illegal or contrary to public policy – including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010 – or national law, national law will prevail all the time, every time. That is no different from any other council or tribunal, whether or not based on sharia law”.

In addition, the use of religious councils or other extra-legal bodies to deal with civil disputes was well established and non-contentious – but such decisions were subject to national law and were not legally enforceable:

“Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English court at any point, especially in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable”.

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/04 ... ents-view/

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Cal** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:45 am

Skarjo wrote:Oh, also, he's making gooseberry fool up anyway.

Nobody supports the type of Shariah Law that is exercised abroad, and given that nobody has produced any evidence that progressive UK feminists do then I'll happily call that another 'Fact Out of Condell's Arse' (FOoCA).

But do they condemn? I think that is the point Pat is making. Feminazis are quick to jump on - and seek to censor - 'Lads Mags' as an example of all that is (in their warped opinion) misogynistic in our society, but less eager to take to the ramparts of professional outrage when it comes to Islam's appalling (and institutionalised) treatment of women - both at home and abroad. Do you understand his point, now?

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:54 am

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:Oh, also, he's making gooseberry fool up anyway.

Nobody supports the type of Shariah Law that is exercised abroad, and given that nobody has produced any evidence that progressive UK feminists do then I'll happily call that another 'Fact Out of Condell's Arse' (FOoCA).

But do they condemn? I think that is the point Pat is making. Feminazis are quick to jump on - and seek to censor - 'Lads Mags' as an example of all that is (in their warped opinion) misogynistic in our society, but less eager to take to the ramparts of professional outrage when it comes to Islam's appalling (and institutionalised) treatment of women - both at home and abroad. Do you understand his point, now?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Islamic+Feminism

AKA; Not only do they condemn, but there is an entire branch of modern feminist theory specifically devoted to analysing feminism in an islamic context.

AKA; Another FOoCA

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Hexx** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:07 am

You know it's not about facts though Skarjo.

It's about appealing to/confirming the opinions of ignorant little berks, who will leap unthinkingly in anything that re-enforces their close minded laughably (and will fully) missinformed world view.

It's not about education, it's building up predjudice in the simpletons.

They're not designed to convert new believers, it's about turning those that do 'believe' into even greater fanatics - all while presenting itself as rationale and factual. Which is why it only tends to work/appeal to a certain type of person.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:16 am

Spot on, Hexx!

Generally I find his videos quite thought provoking if nothing else. Not a fan of this latest one though. Who says feminists aren't looking at Islam? Pat? Feminists? Islam?

To be perfectly fair to the feminists, I think its probably worthwhile trying to change their culture first. Women's rights in Islamic culture is already a pretty hot topic. Nuts and Zoo magazine are not.

PostRe: The Pat Condell Thread by **Skarjo** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:23 am

captain red dog wrote:Generally I find his videos quite thought provoking if nothing else.

And that's great, except that this first thought you should always have when listening to an unreferenced, unsourced opinion piece such as his output is 'Is that actually true?'.

Which, in this case, it isn't.

The Pat Condell Thread [DISCUSSION]

Who is online

Affiliates