PIG of the week
Bakri dons another impenetrable disguise.
We haven't heard much from this ugly mother
fucker for a while, maybe he has slipped back into the UK to pick
up his Ford Galaxy, that was so kindly supplied by disability
mobility. One thing these scumy fundamentalist
are very good at, is milking the UK state benefit system, siigh!.
One of Omar Bakris long term friends, creepy Ken
Livingstone caught on Camera.
A furtive, dirty Mac Iguana
Ken Livingstone, hungrily clutching the latest video release,
"caught" as he leaves the Blue Lizard Video Shop in
We have viewed several of these vile videos in
the name of research - We are shocked at the depths these little
green bastards will sink - The people who make this filth, and
the perverts who watch it should face the full force of the law.
Unfortunately, due to a legal loophole, the law is powerless to
act. email your protest to:- firstname.lastname@example.org
We confronted creepy
Ken Livingstone on his sick behavior. He smugly droned,
" I need the videos to improve my skills as a vivi.. err!
I mean animal technician" He added, that when he leaves Politics
and returns to the real world. He intends to build on his past
experience as an animal technician. Ken aims to specialize in
the Sexual dysfunctionality of the post porn gay Iguana.
(Ed. A generous Lottery good causes grant has already
been allocated to fund this project)
Animal technician = Vivisectionist Ken worked for
8 years at the Chester Beatty Cancer Research, Institute, London
- Monkeys, dogs, rabbit's, rats and mice. (What no kittens .Ed)
To be honest, I was taken aback when I discovered this, while
reading Kens Bio. I took Animal technician to mean Vets assistant,
or maybe something to do with Pet shops. How naïve of me.
Ken was the man that put the catheters into the monkeys eyes.
Forced the cigarettes into the Beagles mouth. Exposed the live
monkeys brain. Maybe doing this for a few months could be justified,
especially if you are thick Trotskyite - but 8 years No! No! something
is not right here.. The Iguana thing, was supposed to be a joke
relating to Kens fascination with newts. Now we feel a chill running
down our spines. The whimpering of those pups, the poor little
chimps, crying in the night for their mums, and all the while
Ken worked happily away for 8 years. Kens callous wholesale slaughter
of the little pigeons now falls into perspective.. He f**ing well
enjoys it - We are now scared..
.(Ed. Calm down, Trafalgar square is a much nicer place without
the pigeons. That is apart from the traffic lights that are on
green, for only seven seconds)
Bus R US
& transport for London
contrevention codes Record
About this Website
This website came into existence on 05 February 2004 - 5pm GMT
Your editor spent most of this night, venting his spleen, in a
spontaneous, and manic outpouring, that went on till the early
This websites purpose
To fight back against extortion.
To keep the car driver informed about the law, and latest legal
To publish your grievance and experiences.
To unmask the faceless beurocrats, behind this out of control
To start a campaign of civil disobedience. To publish every trick
obstructing the tow truck,
Deactivation of meters &
Destruction of speed cameras
Lastly, to try & restore a balance of sanity and fairness
in the way the motorists is treated by the state, the police,
and local authorities.
A conduit for all the anger that has been rising up in me of late.
For what I see as the betrayal of the great silent majority in
this country & great city of ours, dare I say it in the political
correct mad house that "England" has become.
Letter to exfl.com
I recently got a bus lane fine which I wanted to appeal until
I was informed by London Borough of Brent that the fine would
go up from £50 to £100 if I lost my case. This I feel
needs reviewing as lower income families and pensioners should
be given the chance to appeal without the threat of added fines.
Time has come to discuss, and consider implementing, the argument made by Karl Popper that we should claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. How do we stop young men and women from becoming jihadist terrorists?
A new depressing incident on June 13, 2015 involving a native British Muslim has ignited painful discussion as well as anxiety in the UK.
The incident concerned a 17 year-old teenager, Talha Asmal, a very good A level student in Dewsbury, near Leeds, in West Yorkshire. He left his hometown to go to Turkey, then to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS). He took part in the attack that killed 11 people by detonating a vehicle filled with explosives near an oil refinery south of Baiji, Iraq.
Asmal is Britain’s youngest suicide bomber, two years younger than another Islamist teenager from West Yorkshire who was killed during the attack on a London bus on July 7, 2005.
The town of Dewsbury is now regarded as one of the UK’s centers of Islamist extremism. It was the home of a previous notorious terrorist, Mohammas Sidique Khan, who on July 7, 2005 bombed the London underground station Edgware Road, killing himself and five others.
The neighboring town of Bradford in Yorkshire on June 17, 2015, also saw the departure of three local women and their nine children to go to Syria and fight for IS.
Why would Asmal and Khan, and like-minded young Muslims, become terrorists? Why would young women take themselves and their children to fight for IS? The question of why they become jihadists defies rational explanation.
The more than 2,000 Muslims who have left Britain were not socially deprived since many came from middle class or aspiring families. In the Yorkshire areas where they lived, and where there is a substantial number of Muslims, they did no suffer from any kind of “Islamophobia.”
They were not deprived of educational opportunities since they seem to have done well at school. They were apparently not students of mainstream Islam. For them, the paradox is that they have joined IS, a group that is fighting other Muslims in Syria and Iraq.
Some of those vocal in the anti-western blame game, offer the explanation that the foreign policy of the United States and of European nations is responsible. Two factors are present. The first, an issue of course that is currently disrupting US presidential politics, is the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Irrespective of the answers given by presidential contenders, a specious explanation is that it was the western intervention in these two countries that radicalized the Muslim youngsters.
The second particular factor is the De-Ba’athification policy, the removal of all influence of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party in the Iraqi political system. The American diplomat Paul Brenner, when he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, introduced the policy in May 2003.
That policy led to 400,000 members of the Iraqi army being barred from government employment and from receiving pensions, though they were able to keep guns. The policy was rescinded a year later, but was continued by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who barred Baathists from taking part in the parliamentary elections.
Some argue that this was responsible for the deteriorating security situation. Many of these former Iraqi military officers who had been in the Iraqi intelligence agency now work for the IS security service.
Britain, like other Western countries, is now disturbed both by the increasing number of youngsters, born in Britain, joining the IS and by the likelihood of some of the jihadists returning home and becoming involved in local terrorists acts.
It is worth exploring current thinking on how to deal with both the initial inducement of the young to fight for IS and the problem if they return to their home area.
Britain has taken the lead in presenting ideas to counter extremist views and terrorist actions. The objective is not only a concern with violent extremism but also with non-violent extremism that may create support for terrorist activity.
This takes a number of forms. It is assumed that Islamic leaders, like the rest of society, are concerned not only by the intrinsic appeal of jihadism, but also by the fact that many in the Muslim community either condone or acquiesce in it.
This argument was forcibly made by Shalid Malik, a Labour Party politician, British born of Pakistani descent, who in fact was Member of Parliament for Dewsbury for a number of years. In July 2005, he said that British Muslims must confront the voices of Islamist evil.
After the Asmal incident, Malik in June 2015 said that Muslims must defeat the Islamic State in mosques and communities across the country: “It’s a struggle that can only succeed if it is one which is led by Muslims themselves.”
A stronger case has been made by British political leaders, primarily Theresa May, Minister, Home Secretary since 2010, and by Lord Carlile, former government reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation.
Both stress the need for a Prevent Program, a counter terrorism strategy. Such a program is essentially based on challenging extremist ideas and terrorist actions, and stopping the influence of jihadist influence.
Counter terrorism could take many forms; government authorities working with both mainstream media and educational groups and businesses and Muslim organizations to prevent extremism and to draw attention to the evils stemming from that extremism.
Though it is obviously controversial, since it infringes on the question of free speech, an important concern must be with the Internet. The western democracies should use computer programs to provide a counter narrative, using the same tools, the same thought processes that have radicalized youngsters, to counter the Islamist online propaganda.
There is now abundant evidence that the major factor attracting youngsters to join the jihadist cause has been the Internet. A starting point would be to prevent extreme Islamist imams from preaching their messages of hatred, and to counter that extremism in mosques, schools, and publications. Moderate Muslims should join in this effort.
The issue must be confronted of whether the Internet should be obliged to reveal Islamist information that may be harmful to security. Human rights groups as well as mainstream media should share in dealing with this increasingly important topic and with publicizing the nature of the evil perpetrated by jihadists so that people become aware of it and find jihadist violence less attractive.
Regarding those who have been attracted by IS, it is worth discussing whether democratic countries should block the return of those who have gone to fight for IS.
Evidently, no western security force has the resources to provide surveillance for all those suspected of support for terrorism, either before their departure to join IS or if they were allowed to return. Extremism must be prevented in both cases.
Michael Curtis, author of "Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East", is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in political science at Rutgers University. Curtis is the author of more than 30 books, and in 2014 was awarded the French Legion d'Honneur. This article has also been submitted to The American Thinker, a U.S. outlet we highly recommend