Law (UK) Conservative MP assassinated in his own offic

People still pretending to argue about religion eh?

LOL, most of the world are mental midgets still arguing about fairy tales. Incredible.

Edgy atheists still exist? lol

Religion is part of the human experience. It will continue to exist as long as humans exist. Get used to it. It's proved to be an invaluable part of human culture.
 
Edgy atheists still exist? lol

Religion is part of the human experience. It will continue to exist as long as humans exist. Get used to it. It's proved to be an invaluable part of human culture.
Its an evolutionary mechanism that has worm out its welcome and is holding man back. Spirituality is a beautiful thing, bastardized Abrahamic stories used for control and oppression are not.
 
Its an evolutionary mechanism that has worm out its welcome and is holding man back.

If religion was relevant just a couple hundred years ago, it wouldn't suddenly be irrelevant today and holding man back. That's not how evolution works. It would happen over a much longer period. And in what way is it holding man back? As man becomes more technologically advanced, he becomes more miserable.

Spirituality is a beautiful thing, bastardized Abrahamic stories used for control and oppression are not.

Define 'spirituality'.
 
If religion was relevant just a couple hundred years ago, it wouldn't suddenly be irrelevant today and holding man back. That's not how evolution works. It would happen over a much longer period. And in what way is it holding man back? As man becomes more technologically advanced, he becomes more miserable.



Define 'spirituality'.

An understanding of creation is inherent, because it's likely. Religions were simply frameworks of morality, interwoven with lore and fable. The fantastic stories are no longer required, only reason and decency. The associated fanaticism is what holds us back, taking it all so seriously.

Religion is an idea, and as such is not bound to the same timeframes as biological evolution. The benefit of such a tool can cease to become useful in very short order.

Technology is merely another game of distraction to provide some tangible process of purpose. Our existence relies on these games, religion is but one of them.
 
An understanding of creation is inherent, because it's likely. Religions were simply frameworks of morality, interwoven with lore and fable. The fantastic stories are no longer required, only reason and decency. The associated fanaticism is what holds us back, taking it all so seriously.

Religion should be taken seriously, or else it has no value.

The "fantastic stories" have great lessons of morality in them.

You haven't really described how man is being held back, just some rhetoric about fanaticism. You also haven't explained what great destination man will reach without religion holding him back. As countries become less religious, they decline and eventually die. We can see that clearly in the West today.

Religion is an idea, and as such is not bound to the same timeframes as biological evolution. The benefit of such a tool can cease to become useful in very short order.

You're the one who brought up evolution, not me. If man evolved to be religious, then nothing has changed in such a short amount of time.

Technology is merely another game of distraction to provide some tangible process of purpose. Our existence relies on these games, religion is but one of these.

You didn't answer my question: what is your definition of spirituality?
 
The BBC, a little more trustworthy than Paul Joseph Watson, is now saying the man is of Somali heritage. Not very surprising.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58922522


Other media is using the opportunity to reminds us of how a right-winger killed Jo Cox.
UK MPs will need to have armed security from now on.
There's not enough coppers to protect the people who pay their wages, never mind do a poor imitation of the US Secret Service. MP's will have to suck it up and accept the risks that come with the perks of the job.

To be honest, it's not realistic for any government to provide a bodyguard to every member of parliament.

Even in the U.S, only the 9 most senior positions in Congress are assigned protection by their traveling Capitol Police bodyguards (Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority leaders of both parties in both Houses, and the party whips who serve directly under the leaders).

The rest have to hire their own protection, and most don't. Their offices are usually in large office buildings with decent private security provided by the building's owner though.

As for the U.K, a metal detector at the door is not a very costly investment for a country known for stabbings, I think.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, it's not realistic for any government to provide a bodyguard to every member of parliament.

Even in the U.S, only the 9 most senior positions in Congress are assigned protection by their traveling Capitol Police bodyguards (Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority leaders of both parties in both Houses, and the party whips who serve directly under the leaders).

The rest have to hire their own protection, and most don't. Their offices are usually in large office buildings with decent private security provided by the building's owner though.

As for the U.K, a metal detector at the door is not a very costly investment for a country known for stabbings, I think.

True, but this was done at a church and the last one in 2016 was also somewhere outside. Not at any official government building.
And the Swedish minister Anna Lind was IIRC stabbed and killed in a mall while shopping.

I dont think metal detectors every where would be possible.
 
There's not enough coppers to protect the people who pay their wages, never mind do a poor imitation of the US Secret Service. MP's will have to suck it up and accept the risks that come with the perks of the job.

I tend to agree. Tragic as this and Jo Cox were there's hardly an epidemic of violence against MPs. 6 killed MPs since 1945 and 4 of them were the IRA.

There's always going to be some extra risk as a public figure in a contentious job but it doesn't need huge changes and funding just because it's affecting people in power.
 
I tend to agree. Tragic as this and Jo Cox were there's hardly an epidemic of violence against MPs. 6 killed MPs since 1945 and 4 of them were the IRA.

There's always going to be some extra risk as a public figure in a contentious job but it doesn't need huge changes and funding just because it's affecting people in power.

Your point still stands but just for clarification Airey Neave was killed by the INLA not the IRA
 
Apologies and you are correct. I felt it was non PC to write "violent Paddies" :p

As it would be indeed lol. The point remains though that’s not a large number. As horrific as (what appear to be) Islamic fascist attacks such as this are it wasn’t that long ago when mortars where being fired at Downing Street. If the politicians that have made millions from pandemic contracts want extra security they should pay for it themselves but personally I feel that a politician that doesn’t feel they can walk the same streets that their constituents walk on without armed guards should quit.
 
UK police have had their numbers and budgets slashed to the bone for years. The Metropolitan Police alone have lost 20,000 officers in the last decade. Across the entire UK, both response times and the number of crimes that actually make it to court are pitiful.

Police should tell politicians,

"This is the world you created. You cut our numbers to the point we cannot perform our core duties: the prevention and detection of crime. And when we complained about it, you accused us of scare-mongering and told us to do more with less.

You lowered the standards to the point where many of our new recruits cannot protect themselves, much less the public. You refuse to allow our officers the ability to protect themselves by carrying firearms. Now you want us to add to our already unbearable workload by providing armed close protection teams for every MP?

Off you fuck!":rolleyes:
 
RIP to this dude. Fucking crazy that some whack job was able to just walk into his office and stab him to death. Really disturbing.

Also found it really sad that, as I was scrolling some of the comments on Facebook and Twitter about this, I noticed so many felt the need to preface their sympathetic messages with some political statement. "Politics aside...", "I may not agree with him politically, but...", "I hate the Conservatives, but..."

It just shows that small brain, tribal chimp mentality that permeates so much of our society where we can't just express sympathy that a human being was brutally murdered at his place of work without prefacing the fact that - my god - we didn't fully agree with the victim politically. Fuckin idiots.
 
Update: There may be police protection for MPs at their constituency surgeries in the future. Can't wait to see the haggling over that budget.
Priti Patel considering police protection for MPs after David Amess killing
Home secretary says safety measures for constituency surgeries under discussion
By Heather Stewart Political editor| Sun 17 Oct 2021



The home secretary, Priti Patel, has said she is considering offering police protection for MPs at their constituency surgeries, as a review takes place to “close the gaps” in security in the wake of the killing of David Amess on Friday.

Patel said local police forces had already contacted all MPs to advise them about measures to improve their safety, and a review is taking place involving the House of Commons authorities and the police.

“We need to close any gaps, basically, where we feel that there are concerns,” she told Trevor Phillips on Sky News.

When pressed about how long the review could take, she said: “This isn’t a case of let’s wait for two weeks, three weeks, four weeks; these are immediate protective measures.”

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, has said he is reviewing MPs’ security “at pace” after the fatal stabbing of the Southend MP on Friday as he held a constituency surgery.

Writing in the Observer, Hoyle said it was crucial to review whether enough was being done to protect MPs, “especially during surgeries”.

A 25-year-old man, the British national Ali Harbi Ali, was arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder. He was still being questioned by police at a police station in London in an investigation led by counter-terrorism officers from the Met.

Police are able to keep Ali in custody until Friday before deciding whether to charge him, under powers granted by terrorism legislation. Three addresses in the London area were searched by police as the investigation unfolded.

The suspect was previously known to the Prevent scheme, the official government programme to stop radicalisation. His involvement was short, according to multiple sources. But he did not appear on any current MI5 watchlist, sources added.

Ali’s father, Harbi Ali Kullane, is a former adviser to the prime minister of Somalia now living in the UK. He told reporters on Saturday he was feeling “very traumatised” by the incident.

Patel listed “practical measures” MPs could already take to reduce the risks they face, including “booking appointments in advance, checking the details of the individuals that you are seeing, checking the locations in advance, making sure that you are not on your own”.

But she conceded tougher measures were also being discussed, including police protection at surgeries, the regular meetings MPs hold to meet their constituents face-to-face.

“There are other options that are being considered, such as when you hold your surgeries, could you have officers or some kind of protection?” she said. She also declined to rule out the use of airport-style security scanners at MPs’ constituency offices.

Security around MPs was tightened in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox five years ago, with many having safety measures such as panic buttons installed at home and in their offices. Constituency surgeries inevitably involve direct contact with voters though, and are often held in community buildings such as churches.

Patel declined to confirm that the suspect was previously known to the Prevent programme. But she stressed that an independent review of Prevent was already taking place.

“It is absolutely right through that review programme, that process that’s in place, that we constantly learn, and we improve,” she said.

The shadow foreign secretary, Lisa Nandy, said the response from local police forces in terms of protecting MPs was “patchy”, and some MPs faced far more threats and abuse than others.

“This just keeps happening. And we keep having this debate, and then nothing very much changes,” she told Sky News.

MPs were given a single point of contact at their local police force in the wake of Cox’s murder, to advise them on security. But Nandy said: “There’s a huge disparity between the advice and support that’s offered by different police services around the country.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...-protection-for-mps-after-david-amess-killing
 
Last edited:
If religion was relevant just a couple hundred years ago, it wouldn't suddenly be irrelevant today and holding man back. That's not how evolution works. It would happen over a much longer period. And in what way is it holding man back? As man becomes more technologically advanced, he becomes more miserable.



Define 'spirituality'.

Religon (some religons) are detrimental to humanity as a whole, even if they can be beneficial to certain groups. It's a bit like trajedy-of-the-commons, where a certain behavior is beneficial to an individual but detrimental to society as a whole.
 
Back
Top