We are not afraid

Our democracy came under attack yesterday. We must all reject the form of hatred on display at Westminster. The only logical response:

.

YP Comment: Why Britain will always stand firm against terror – direct attack on democracy

Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/yp-comment-why-britain-will-always-stand-firm-against-terror-direct-attack-on-democracy-1-8454149

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Information and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to We are not afraid

  1. Tony Farrell says:

    And what about this, please?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/s-coalition-syria-air-strike-raqq-isis-school-killed-al-mansoura-human-rights-observatory-a7642781.html

    And this?
    https://geopolitics.co/2017/03/23/london-322-false-flag-attack-bores-to-death/

    And this related blatant propaganda stunt by South Yorkshire Police?

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-residents-warned-to-be-aware-of-severe-terror-threat-after-meadowhall-terrorism-drill-1-8448323

    In truth, I think we, as a nation, are afraid. Very afraid.

    We are afraid of facing up to the dreadful truth, which is that we, as a nation, are in the evil ones. The ones who are entirely in the wrong.

    If this is allowed through, I urge all readers to wake up from your slumber and recognise truth from falsehood. We are being duped.

    • Anon2017 says:

      I think, that you do not speak for the nation. You speak for yourself and your beliefs.

      Beliefs which you reinforce with your internet ‘research’ and attach to your post, in an attempt to strengthen your comment.

      Evil is a fluid concept dependent on your beliefs. Santa is a good guy, yet only gives gifts to children who haven’t been naughty. Do you think the ‘naughty children’ think santa is a good guy?

      Deeds are done by every side, why you can’t allow people to pause, consider, reflect and pay their respect?

      Instead you pollute this page with your narrow opinion about the nation.

      • Tony Farrell says:

        However you see it, and we will have to agree to differ, I refuse to hide behind an anonymous name. Who are you please? Or are you afraid to let that be known?

        • Anon2017 says:

          I am a resident of Rotherham for the last 10yrs. I commend you for refusing to hide.

        • Byeck says:

          Tony, why do I sense that you are not totally at ease with the language of Shakespeare? The cause could be exposure to the Rotherham education system, but I have this nagging thought that English isn’t your first language and neither is Tony Farrell your birth name.
          Profuse and abject apologies if I’m, wrong….

        • rothpol says:

          Prepare to apologise!

        • Linda Wheeler says:

          For Anon….Commenting under a nom de plume is clear evidence in itself you do so because you are ‘afraid’…At least you must agree with Mr Farrell on that point.

        • reg reader says:

          Byeck
          Tony Farrell is a very well known personality.
          …and as ever Google is your friend:
          https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Tony+Farrell

          Like Anon2017, I cannot help but feel that he pollutes the pages of this blog with his conspiracy theories – but I stress, that is just my personal opinion.

      • Tony Farrell says:

        Thank you.

        I confess that I am not a resident of Rotherham, but I care deeply about what is happening in your town and still follow certain events very closely indeed, given my previous role working for the police where Rotherham was most certainly part of my intelligence analysis remit. I happen to care deeply about the British nation too, but I don’t like the direction it is being taken in, for one minute.

        You are correct, my post does not represent the views of the nation, but neither did it purport to, but I thank the editor for at least allowing me to express my heartfelt opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to assume represents such a narrow opinion – one that pollutes the page. Personally, I don’t think it does. On the contrary, I think It shows the issue from another’s vantage point which is perhaps very different from yours.

        My motive in posting the article was to encourage us all to pause, consider, reflect and pay respects at this very sad time. Innocent neighbours in lands afar are being killed too, as I am sure you will appreciate.

        So, if I have reasonable cause to suspect that I am being lied to by my so called “democratic” governments and “Peelian principled” police forces, on such important matters, then silence appears not golden to me, it becomes yellow.

        I believe my article was, and is, highly relevant to the bold and audacious “We Are Not Afraid” title given for this particular page, posted earlier today on Rotherham Politics.

        I believe the editor made a correct decision to allow me to post it. What you all subsequently make of it, is your own personal concern, but I hope it stimulates further and deeper thought, regardless of whether you agree with me or not.

        • Anon2017 says:

          Linda,

          not revealing my name has nothing to do with fear generated by what has taken place.

          For reasons I will not go into and will appreciate no attempts to draw me into discussing. I cannot reveal my real name

    • reg reader says:

      Your Indie link leads to an article titled “US-led coalition air strike in Syria kills more than 30 people in school near Isis-held Raqqa, says human rights watchdog”
      That “human rights watchdog” is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights , a Sunni Muslim in Coventry,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights
      The article goes on the quote “the activist group” Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa_Is_Being_Slaughtered_Silently again Sunni.
      Neither of these organisations should be seen as objective.

      In the near identical story in the Telegraph, they do at least make mention of another organisation – AIrwars – an organisation that does work hard on objectivity ( https://airwars.org ).
      In their note on that strike they write:
      March 21st 2017: المنصورة Al Mansoura, Raqqa governorate, Syria
      Summary: An alleged Coalition strike on the al Badiya school – reportedly being used by Syrian refugees – was said to have killed as many as 18 civilians.
      Civilians reported killed: 18
      Civilians reported injured: 2-10
      Sources: Baladi [Arabic], [Archived], Alsouria [Arabic], [Archived], Jisr TV [Arabic], Madar Daily [Arabic], [Archived], Qasioun [Arabic], [Archived], Syrianpc [Arabic], [Archived], Zaman Alwasl [Arabic], [Archived],
      Quality of reporting: Fair
      (https://airwars.org/coalitioncivcas2017mar-apr/)

      I won’t bother to even click on your link to https://geopolitics.co/ – an utter nutter site.

      Btw I completely and utterly disagree with your conclusions.

  2. reg reader says:

    Rothpol,
    Thanks for adding the YP article to the header piece. It is a fine piece of writing.
    Days like yesterday are never easy, and we have to stay strong and positive.
    (My son got caught up in the lockdown in Westminster, and sure as a parent, my thoughts were with him,)
    … but I felt far more for the parents of the little kids at Herringthorpe Junior School whose little kids got caught up in it:. and for the kids themselves:
    Rotherham school cuts short London trip after Westminster terror attack
    http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rotherham-school-cuts-short-london-trip-after-westminster-terror-attack_21997.htm
    _____________________________
    What I find hard to take today is the way that the whole story is being turned into an anti-immigration rant when the perpetrator was hardly an immigrant – like, he was born in Kent (!):
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3162970/london-terror-attack-terrorist-named-khalid-masood-westminster-latest/
    Yet we have Farage and Katie Hopkins, and as ever Delingpole and Bannon:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-parliament-resumes-tributes-keith-palmer-live?page=with:block-58d3e703e4b007e8557eede6#block-58d3e703e4b007e8557eede6
    and now Europe’s far right are jumping on it:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/anti-immigrant-politicians-link-london-attack-migrant-policy
    …along with more alt-truth from the Trump family business:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/22/donald-trump-jr-tweet-london-mayor-sadiq-khan
    Reg

  3. Caven vines says:

    Yes he was a so called British Muslim if that is so then he was guilty of treason like all those British born muslims who go to fight for IS then want to return to the uk they are trators was it not Tony Blair who abolished the death penalty for treason when he opened our borders
    When are our political masters going to wake up to the reality of what’s happening
    These cowards go to war in civilian clothes they brain wash children they have totally different values to the western world they die they beleive that they are the chosen ones they are pure evil cowards
    How many British service Personel lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan only to move them to another place
    That is the true facts and before you start I am not a racist I have seen this for my self in many Muslim countries that I have worked in
    Like him or not the only political leader to.address this on the world stage is Trump

    • Cliff Topp says:

      “Yes he was a so called British Muslim if that is so then he was guilty of treason” You make it sound like being a British Muslim is treasonous. No, it wasn’t Tony Blair who abolished the DP for Treason, whilst he was PM at the time, it was an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill and was proposed by Lord Archer of Sandwell (This eventually became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998). But it is moot anyway as the UK ratified the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits the restoration of the DP whilst we are a signatory to the Convention.

      As for Muslims believing they are the chosen ones, it can be said the same of any theist. And, like most theists, they pick and choose which passages of their “holy book” to follow.

      • Tony Farrell says:

        So talking of treason, is not breaking her Coronation Oath, on a daily basis, which Elizabeth swore on The Holy Bible to maintain to the utmost of her power (fact), tantamount to treason also, please?

        If that is somehow not treason, what then on earth is treason in the British nation then, please? Can anyone answer that question for me, honestly?

        By the way, seeing as the “Holy Books” have been mentioned, contrary to popular belief, The Holy Koran and The Holy Bible, are far from incompatible with each other. Details can be provided upon request.

        False teachers throughout the ages, on all sides, have made it appear so, but that’s an entirely different topic, and most probably, readers won’t want to entertain such a notion, well not yet, anyway.

        • Cliff Topp says:

          You clearly have no idea of Constitutional Law, I suggest that rather than believing in conspiracy theories that you start to deal in fact (typing fact in brackets does not make something fact!).

          Under UK Law the offence of High Treason (usually what is meant when people say Treason) is disloyalty to the Crown (to charge the Sovereign with high treason would be inconsistent, as it would constitute accusing her of disloyalty to herself!) and Petty Treason is an offence against a subject of the Crown but was abolished in 1828.

          I never said that the bible or the qur’an were incomaptible with each other. I mentioned all theist “holy books” not just those of the Abrahamaic religions.

        • Tony Farrell says:

          So, are you denying that the queen swore an oath to God to uphold God’s Law to the the utmost of her power on her Coronation day, please?

          Before such making accusations against me, it happened. I can easily give the link on here, if you wish to see the conclusive proof that this is indeed a fact. However, there are some on here who find truth polluting, and I assert are afraid of it. I am not accusing you of that. So, my question to you is this.

          Do you wish to see the proof, about the Coronation Oath, please from clear footage taken on 2nd June 1953 at the coronation ceremony? I promise it is no conspiracy theory. It happened.

          If you answer yes,you would like to see the proof, then, I will provide it on return. If not, then what point are you really trying to make about me?

          Regarding the Holy Books, I was merely making an additional point. I was not disputing the validity of what you had said about them. I happened to agree with you on that point.

        • Anon2017 says:

          The truth is an interesting concept. There are versions of the truth.

          Two people see the same event and write down their recollections. They may differ but to each individual they are the truth.

        • Cliff Topp says:

          “So, are you denying that the queen swore an oath to God to uphold God’s Law to the the utmost of her power on her Coronation day, please?”

          No, I’m not saying that, I asserted that the Queen cannot be guilty of High Treason and gave you the reasoning behind my assertion. I’ll state it again for reasons of clarity (although I do believe it was clear enough), the Queen cannot be guilty of Treason as treason is disloyalty to the Crown (in the person of the Monarch) ergo one cannot be disloyal to oneself. Treason under UK Law is NOT disloyalty to the country (as may be the case elsewhere).

        • Tony Farrell says:

          Thank you for your reply, Cliff Top.

          My returning point to you on this, is that the queen, on her oath, did not swear to maintain “Constitutional Law” to the utmost of her power. On the contrary, she swore to maintain “God’s Law” to the utmost of her power. There is a difference. She swore her oath on The Holy Bible, not on The Koran, not on the Talmud, and not on the back of a fag packet.

          The queen’s oath.

          Given that, Elizabeth broke her oath from day one, and has continued to do so, on a daily basis, throughout her entire reign. Breaking her Coronation Oath in this way, in effect, invalidates her, as queen of the country. God’s Law, to which she promised to maintain to the utmost of her power, is given in The Bible, which she clearly used as part of her Coronation ceremony. God’s Law is given in The Torah which I am fairly sure you will know is the first five Books of The Bible.

          Therefore, contrary to what you might claim under “Constitutional Law”, Elizabeth is not only disloyal to herself because she breaks her promises, but she is disloyal to God, to whom she made her promise in order to become queen. That is the truth.

          She would not have been allowed to be crowned queen, had she not made such a promise on The Bible under her sworn oath. Breaking her oath is treasonous under God’s Law. That is the whole point. That I assert is a matter of the some considerable importance.

          The Truth about The British Monarchy

          http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm

          Does her sworn oath not matter to the people of the British nation then?

          Seemingly not, and if that’s the case, how hypocritical does that make us, as a once great nation?

          It is a serious question for you to ponder, as I can see you are not without knowledge of related matters.

  4. Linda Wheeler says:

    Teresa May telling British people to stay strong and positive won’t do it I am afraid. It takes somebody with the spine and oratory of the likes of Winston Churchill to fortify the public in times like these..
    What the h..l does it mean to stay strong and positive in real terms to the average citizen who is afraid to go out after dark….nowt.

    • Anon2017 says:

      She’s hardly going to come out and say be weak and negative is she?

      The vast majority of people will go about their business as normal, as they already are doing.

  5. Tony Farrell says:

    At the risk of further polluting this blog for some, it can be roughly translated as ‘trust us, we always tell you the truth’, and some on here, evidently and uncritically believe that what we have been told by the state apparatus, is the truth.

  6. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 25th March 2017 | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s