walkman85

Peckham is certainly over rated and this kind of event should come as no surprise at all around there.

Got to say I?m with VelvetBlueberry on this one. It seems that people on here were more outraged by her description of the perps rather than the crime itself. If she considered their accents to be whiny then that?s up to her. You sensitive types need to toughen up a bit!

Being unwell doesn't entitle you to be an arse.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And here I?m ending my participation in this > thread. > > I?m ex-Army, I have a ?robust? attitude towards > grown people who decide to join organisations such > as ISIS, and I do not feel myself to be naive. > However the idea that a one-week old infant has > been deemed a terrorist already leaves a frankly > bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. > > We separate children from parents (and the rest of > their family) for less, and the father can easily > be denied entry to the U.K.. The kid didn?t ask to > be born and the fact that you?re already telling > it that it?s an enemy of the state is something > you might want to think about. Or not. It?s up to > you. > > Either way I?ll leave you to it. No, the baby isn?t a terrorist and hasn?t done anything wrong, and if he?d had the choice he probably wouldn?t have chosen to be born in a refugee camp in a war-torn country. I just think he should be kept with his mother as far away from here as possible.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > walkman85 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were > let > > back into this country. > > The child is barely a week or two old. It?s > commited no crime, and did not ask to be born. Why > should the sins of the parent be visited on that > poor infant? > Be all means separate them - an argument can > certainly be made that she should not be allowed > to raise the kid only to hate this country. But > don?t punish a newborn for the hatred of the > parent. I understand this argument and but personally I would prefer for terrorist progeny not to be shipped to the UK despite how young or innocent they are. Although she doesn't strike me as being an ideal mother or role model, separating mother and child has its own issues. > The right message should > > be that if you want to leave the country to > > support a terrorist organisation then don't > expect > > to come back. > > Part of me (a big part) has no problem with the > idea of banning her from returning. But the idea > of creating a precedent for making someone > stateless because they don?t agree with our ideals > is somewhat trickier - a slippery slope perhaps. > Also, I?m very ok with her returning, being > arrested and interrogated robustly (and no that is > not a euphemism for torture). Another message > worth sending is treat you can come back but we > will make damn sure you face the consequences, > gloves very much off. I wish the system here was capable of that but it could easily be the case whereby there is not enough evidence to prosecute and she walks free. Everyone lives happily ever after...

I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were let back into this country. The right message should be that if you want to leave the country to support a terrorist organisation then don't expect to come back.

This is very sad to hear but unfortunately this type of crime is particularly common so the best advice would be to minimise walking around with something valuable in your hand that can easily be swiped.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how is it an accident pray? Stupid driver intent > on getting kid into school doesn't check mirrors > etc.....NOT a bloody accident imvho Are you suggesting the person in the car did this intentionally? Obviously I'm unaware of all the details but I'd be surprised if the door was opened on purpose in order to hurt the cyclist. It's true this sort of incident is easily preventable and deserves some punishment but losing their license is extreme.

Blah Blah Wrote: > See, you are making the same mistake as everyone > else of actually believing at face value that > anyones life was in danger. This is not about what > ifs. The OP does not say at any point that anyone > was nearly hit by a car or that a car was forced > to emergency stop. The whole account is outrage at > someone jumping a red light and having their > children do it too. This is further shown by his > admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for > doing the same thing. It really is hard to understand why you object so much to someone reporting a parent for putting their child's lives at unnecessary risk. If anything the OP is at least useful for raising awareness to bad parents that their potentially dangerous actions actions are being observed by others. So this to me is an > obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go > through red lights irregardless of whether there > is any danger in doing so. Does the OP reprimand > drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross > anywhere but at designated crossings (because that > surely is wreckless too)? And I still maintain > that no five year old is capable of speed, > wreckless or otherwise. The OP was about a specific incident and not a general post on poor / selfish road users. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've lost the plot on this. > > From my narrow take, in sweeping generalisations, > the typical cyclist is probably a nicer person > than the typical driver in terms of the things > that concern me. It's no doubt a class and > education thing. Hence when people post about > cyclists jumping red lights I see this as a > Daily Mail narrow point of view. And no doubt > most cyclists voted to stay in the EU. This comment got me scratching my head a bit! I didn't realise there was a class / education divide between car users and cyclists. What about those that do both? If I have a PhD should I ditch my car?