This thread is really interesting. Chizz and Leuth have repeatedly said on this thread that they despise ISIS but that they don't think wearing a flag should be an arrestable offence. The reason being that they worry by publicly and visibly arresting people wearing the flag you give the symbol more power and give pro-ISIS propagandists an opportunity to tell the ill-educated and easily led (so people who might turn to ISIS) that they are being down-trodden by the evil state, just like they've been saying all along.
Chizz and Leuth's opinions are just that. It's not a simple issue. There's different strategies for dealing with these kind of guerilla organisations. Some people think there should be a show of force - arrests, bombings and war abroad - and some people think there should be a more considered approach - stifling their influence, cutting off their ability to preach and supply - and believing one doesn't make you a terrorist sympathiser any more than believing the other makes you a racist.
With that in mind it's incredible to see how people have turned on Chizz particularly and started branding him a terrorist sympathiser. All because he thinks there's a different approach to wiping out ISIS. It's an emotive issue but seeing accusations like is pretty ridiculous. Some people are accusing them of trolling or, again, of sympathising with murdering rapist scum just because they think a more considered approach might work better. A few of you should have a word with yourselves.
For what it's worth, I think the bloke should have been taken to one side by the police and told to remove the flag. The rule of law approach might work in theory but you can see just from this thread how many people have been upset by his actions. He didn't have to be arrested and put away forever but the police could have applied a bit of nous.
I have just read through this and literally cannot believe some of the tripe being banded around. I've tried to stay off this thread because it is very emotive for me.
All I know is a mate of mine was blown to pieces by people who this person with the flag was supporting. Blown to pieces on his way to work. He left behind his mum, disabled sister and fiancee. He'd been on this earth 30 years.
If the two trolls on this thread can't see how what the prick waving the flag was doing is at best offensive and at worst criminal (according to the Public Order Act) and feel we should just mock him or ignore it and hope it goes away I dispair.
Next time I see my friends mum and sister and his mum breaks down when she tells me how upset she was that the police allowed this guy to continue his support for the people who took her son away, I'll be sure to let her know that the best way to deal with it is to ignore it or parody the blokes flag. Or perhaps I should direct her to the trolls on this thread.
Jesus wept.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Horrible and utterly senseless loss.
The threat of extremism should never be ignored and those lost to slaughter should never be forgotten.
The prick waving the flag is awful and my position on this has been consistent. I hope he suffers as a result, whether from police investigators, his family or his employers. He lacks empathy for anything save his twisted cause.
But he is not only awful - he is pathetic, a coward hiding behind his own young child, espousing a cause he would probably shit himself before attempting to die for.
He does not deserve the legitimacy of a powerful response like a flag ban or a head-kicking. He deserves to be scorned by those who have not suffered directly as a result of terrorism, and defiantly stood up to - belittled - by those who have.
If ISIS flags begin to result in rallies, organised violence or terror attacks, then they need to be curbed by law. Until then, while they may inspire fear by their very associations, I just really hope that people try as hard as they can to respond not with fear but with strength and grace. These bastards want us scared. We want them ostracised by their communities and reduced to the nothings they deserve to be.
I can completely accept that point of view and I think that's an excellent post. However, it's easy for you, me and some others to say yep I'm not gonna let these tossers frighten me. But it's not so easy for some. They are scared, they have seen what's happened to Lee Rigby on the streets of London and therefore that flag, as Stig mentions above, should be banned.
We should be honoured to have them on our streets!
Just kidding. I think in practice it won't take too many more public appearances before a fight breaks out and measures are taken to detain and question anyone subsequently caught holding the flag. I don't think it should be an official ban, still, but a case-by-case judgement call by the police (which conveniently treats each case as suspicious, even if - ESPECIALLY if - it's some Bullingdon shits having a larf)
Given all the upset you & Chizz have caused, I'm taken aback, that even now, you joke about it.
Shame on you.
It's not been my intention to cause any upset. And I cannot think of anything I have written that could have caused anyone on here any upset.
What I've learnt from this thread: Chizz and Leuth are both terrorist sympathisers. Probably the type of people that cycle their bike to work with a camera on top and submit videos to pages like 'britains dangerous drivers' but then at the same time run red lights and blame everyone else.
Also did someone really try to challenge my old man on world war knowledge Ffs stop the world I want to get off
Can I encourage you to rescind that ridiculous comment?
No
So, to be clear, you're saying that I am a terrorist sympathiser?
Let me take this one !
I've not seen any evidence that you think this scumbag has done anything wrong
He is promoting terrorism
You are sympathetic to him
Couldn't have put it better myself
I haven't posted anything, anywhere that could be construed by a right-thinking person as being sympathetic to terrorists or terrorism. If you think I have, point it out. Otherwise, let's just agree you're mistaken.
Cheers Garrymanilow! You're right about 'nous' - were I the Met commissioner I'd have simply gotten a couple of coppers to stand very near the guy, maybe one on either side, without saying anything to him or doing anything to him. Would have been fitting, classy and reassuring for passers-by IMO. But a flexible approach always best for situations like this.
To be clear... for my part, I totally disagree with accusing anyone on here of being terrorist sympathisers. And whilst I completely and totally disagree with the views of Chizz and Leuth I do respect that they have those views and have stuck to them in the face of criticism, however justified that criticism was.
ON THE OTHER HAND... I cannot possibly agree with the apparent view they seem to be proposing that if someone is doing something that very clearly and understandably can cause offence, knowingly and deliberately - in this instance carrying the flag of a terrorist organisation - the onus should be on us to take the 'moral high ground' and forego being alarmed/offended instead of on the person to not do the offensive thing in the first place.
So close to the anniversary of a terrible and destructive terrorist act, the police should absolutely step in to remove the flag of ISIS from anyone carrying it. Whether a permanent ban is the answer long term I guess is a different but related debate, but right here and now, anyone showing support for ISIS could and really should be arrested on anti-social behavioural grounds if nothing else.
To be clear... for my part, I totally disagree with accusing anyone on here of being terrorist sympathisers. And whilst I completely and totally disagree with the views of Chizz and Leuth I do respect that they have those views and have stuck to them in the face of criticism, however justified that criticism was.
ON THE OTHER HAND... I cannot possibly agree with the apparent view they seem to be proposing that if someone is doing something that very clearly and understandably can cause offence, knowingly and deliberately - in this instance carrying the flag of a terrorist organisation - the onus should be on us to take the 'moral high ground' and forego being alarmed/offended instead of on the person to not do the offensive thing in the first place.
So close to the anniversary of a terrible and destructive terrorist act, the police should absolutely step in to remove the flag of ISIS from anyone carrying it. Whether a permanent ban is the answer long term I guess is a different but related debate, but right here and now, anyone showing support for ISIS could and really should be arrested on anti-social behavioural grounds if nothing else.
That's a reasonable position to take. And I am sure you won't be surprised that others have a different view.
I'd like to focus on the difference between "knowingly and deliberately causing offence" and wanton acts of murder, violence and terror. In my view, no-one has the right not to be offended; but everyone has the right not to be subjected to murder, violence and terror.
Some people think that the ISIS flag is offensive; some don't. For what it's worth, I do. But that's all it is - offensive. And I have no right not to be be offended by it. In the same way I think Bernard Manning; homophobic "jokes"; people wearing IRA uniforms; Millwall shirts; gun ownership; capital punishment; and smoking in front of small children are all offensive. But just because I find them offensive, it doesn't mean they should all be illegal. (In fact, I think only two of that list are).
Banning the flag makes it more important: that's why it shouldn't be banned. Supporting the organisation should be.
So, in short, the guy wearing the flag should not have been arrested for wearing the flag. But should have been, if he was promoting the organisation.
So, in short, the guy wearing the flag should not have been arrested for wearing the flag. But should have been, if he was promoting the organisation.
Indeed. However in this new reality the guy wearing the flag causes offence, even if the offenders ought to rise above it, many, understandably will not. In my opinion the guy was a risk, and at risk, and I kind of agree with Leuth that he ought not to have the protection of the law, but ought to heed the advice or instruction of the law enforcers who (as is often the demand on the police) would apply basic common sense to maintain the peace.
To be clear... for my part, I totally disagree with accusing anyone on here of being terrorist sympathisers. And whilst I completely and totally disagree with the views of Chizz and Leuth I do respect that they have those views and have stuck to them in the face of criticism, however justified that criticism was.
ON THE OTHER HAND... I cannot possibly agree with the apparent view they seem to be proposing that if someone is doing something that very clearly and understandably can cause offence, knowingly and deliberately - in this instance carrying the flag of a terrorist organisation - the onus should be on us to take the 'moral high ground' and forego being alarmed/offended instead of on the person to not do the offensive thing in the first place.
So close to the anniversary of a terrible and destructive terrorist act, the police should absolutely step in to remove the flag of ISIS from anyone carrying it. Whether a permanent ban is the answer long term I guess is a different but related debate, but right here and now, anyone showing support for ISIS could and really should be arrested on anti-social behavioural grounds if nothing else.
That's a reasonable position to take. And I am sure you won't be surprised that others have a different view.
I'd like to focus on the difference between "knowingly and deliberately causing offence" and wanton acts of murder, violence and terror. In my view, no-one has the right not to be offended; but everyone has the right not to be subjected to murder, violence and terror.
Some people think that the ISIS flag is offensive; some don't. For what it's worth, I do. But that's all it is - offensive. And I have no right not to be be offended by it. In the same way I think Bernard Manning; homophobic "jokes"; people wearing IRA uniforms; Millwall shirts; gun ownership; capital punishment; and smoking in front of small children are all offensive. But just because I find them offensive, it doesn't mean they should all be illegal. (In fact, I think only two of that list are).
Banning the flag makes it more important: that's why it shouldn't be banned. Supporting the organisation should be.
So, in short, the guy wearing the flag should not have been arrested for wearing the flag. But should have been, if he was promoting the organisation.
Going round and round in circles here but there's also a diffference in causing offence and making people fear for their safety. With the recent events and the location of where the guy was walking, it wouldn't have suprised me at all if people felt threatened just by the flag and what it represents. Therefore, the police should have the power to confiscate it and even arrest him for anti social behaviour.
Imagine after the Soho nail bombings a bloke walked around Brighton waving a extremest right wing swastika flag. People would be scared, just because of what that flag represents and the recent events. I'm sure the police would step in then.
I do wonder what more he can have done then to 'promote' the organisation if wearing the flag doesn't count? Especially in that place on that date. It seems pretty clear to me he was promoting a pro-ISIS message, which by your own definition should therefore be an arrestable offence.
Where I differ from you is that for me, to carry the flag of ISIS is to specifically condone all the acts that organisation commits, that includes the murder of innocents of all races and religions. If you carry the flag, you are saying that there are people who SHOULD be subjected to violence and even death for not sharing your own beliefs. And for me? That should be illegal. It's that simple. Why carry the flag if NOT to support the organisation? The man should have been arrested. Nothing you can say is going to alter my conviction on that.
You draw a line between the people who actually commit all those vile acts, and people like this idiot who simply support and condone them but refrain from committing said acts themselves. But whilst one is worse than the other, it's not a case of making the lesser crime not a crime at all. It should still be a crime to preach hatred. It should still be a crime to do something that can only be interpreted as an act of support to a proscribed terrorist organisation. The man should have been arrested. For me, it really is that simple.
To be clear... for my part, I totally disagree with accusing anyone on here of being terrorist sympathisers. And whilst I completely and totally disagree with the views of Chizz and Leuth I do respect that they have those views and have stuck to them in the face of criticism, however justified that criticism was.
ON THE OTHER HAND... I cannot possibly agree with the apparent view they seem to be proposing that if someone is doing something that very clearly and understandably can cause offence, knowingly and deliberately - in this instance carrying the flag of a terrorist organisation - the onus should be on us to take the 'moral high ground' and forego being alarmed/offended instead of on the person to not do the offensive thing in the first place.
So close to the anniversary of a terrible and destructive terrorist act, the police should absolutely step in to remove the flag of ISIS from anyone carrying it. Whether a permanent ban is the answer long term I guess is a different but related debate, but right here and now, anyone showing support for ISIS could and really should be arrested on anti-social behavioural grounds if nothing else.
Banning the flag makes it more important: that's why it shouldn't be banned. Supporting the organisation should be.
So, in short, the guy wearing the flag should not have been arrested for wearing the flag. But should have been, if he was promoting the organisation.
Absolute nonsense.
You say, "Supporting the organisation should be banned".
Would love to ask that 'far left politician' why i was asked in my Country to take down a non-offensive flag of the Country of my birth - i presume he would be on my side. lol.
The reason the scumbag should have forcibly had the flag taken off him is the same reason that loyalist and republican flags are taken off people at football matches north of the border - because it's provocative and inflammatory.
I presume however that both Chizz and Leuth would agree that supporters of both old firm teams should be allowed to display such flags going forward - after all - they're not attacking each other - they're just displaying flags.
There needs to be consequences for publicly supporting a terrorist organisation in this country, but publicly arresting someone for carrying a flag obviously makes a martyr of them and gives the flag power as a symbol to be feared, as others have pointed out.
Why not simply treat those who support terrorists as those who are under surveillance of being terror suspects? 4am raid from OB, put them on the list of people who get flagged instantly if they buy plane tickets, get social services involved if they have kids (one family had their kids taken away by a Labour council because they were UKIP supporters so it does and can happen in this country), restrict their Internet services or prevent them from sending money abroad etc. . It might make people think twice before supporting ISIS if their lives are made a living hell by the state.
Would love to ask that 'far left politician' why i was asked in my Country to take down a non-offensive flag of the Country of my birth - i presume he would be on my side. lol.
The reason the scumbag should have forcibly had the flag taken off him is the same reason that loyalist and republican flags are taken off people at football matches north of the border - because it's provocative and inflammatory.
I presume however that both Chizz and Leuth would agree that supporters of both old firm teams should be allowed to display such flags going forward - after all - they're not attacking each other - they're just displaying flags.
No??
I'd also like to ask him why in a 'free country' a Christian baker does not have the right to refuse to ice a cake with slogans and images that contradict his religious beliefs.
He'd almost certainly be at the front of the lynch mob prosecuting the baker.
Hypocritical, politically correct double standards and he claims to be a Conservative!
BoJo? He'd probably say that the cake maker's views were unfortunate and outdated, but that the gay couple should rise above it and take their custom elsewhere. While I violently disagree with him on most matters environmental or concerning financial regulation, he's an old-school Liberal (like Fiiish), so his views on freedom of expression and prejudice probably aren't far from those of the non-loony left (we exist, maybe)
I've just entered this thread. @Chizz I understand and respect your thoughts/views on how to combat terrorism through ignoring this incident, but like the majority of the people (from what I can see) on here I can't agree with your stance. As others have mentioned, that flag is a symbol of hate and the people that bear it are scum. They aren't under a nationalistic movement (in this country) like the citizens of Germany were under the Nazis where it would've taken a very brave individual to stand up to the status quo. They have made a choice to wear that flag knowing exactly what it means and what it is associated with in this country.
I would expect the police to take action if it were a white skin head carrying the EDL of BNP flag and the public to be suitably disgusted as well. It doesn't matter what the cause, who they represent, whether it be a white supremacy group or an Islamic terrorist group, they are pushing/provoking hatred.
Your point about inclusion and wider conversation with the Islamic community is spot on - we do need to try and work with all groups to help improve the situation. It is just that the people who represent ISIS do not care. They imo, are beyond ever being brought back to the negotiation table. Is preventing a man bearing the ISIS flag in London going to stop terrorist acts, probably not, would it encourage more, maybe, maybe not.
I like to think of myself as quite left leaning and socialistic in my political opinions, but would agree with others on here that the hardest line possible be taken, not because it may do anything practically to deter any atrocities, but because it's the right thing to do.
For me the issue is not so much the fact that he was carrying the flag per se as I too instinctively favour freedom of expression in normal circumstances.
However the TIMING of blatantly displaying an islamic terrorist flag when the 10th anniversary of another islamic terrorist atrocity was being commemorated is beyond the pale in my eyes which is why I feel the police should have intervened.
Had it been anybody other than a muslim carrying out such an act they would have done too.
There needs to be consequences for publicly supporting a terrorist organisation in this country, but publicly arresting someone for carrying a flag obviously makes a martyr of them and gives the flag power as a symbol to be feared, as others have pointed out.
Why not simply treat those who support terrorists as those who are under surveillance of being terror suspects? 4am raid from OB, put them on the list of people who get flagged instantly if they buy plane tickets, get social services involved if they have kids (one family had their kids taken away by a Labour council because they were UKIP supporters so it does and can happen in this country), restrict their Internet services or prevent them from sending money abroad etc. . It might make people think twice before supporting ISIS if their lives are made a living hell by the state.
You should realise that UKIP are much worse than ISIS or child abuse.
Rotherham was the Labour council to which you refer.
Cheers Garrymanilow! You're right about 'nous' - were I the Met commissioner I'd have simply gotten a couple of coppers to stand very near the guy, maybe one on either side, without saying anything to him or doing anything to him. Would have been fitting, classy and reassuring for passers-by IMO. But a flexible approach always best for situations like this.
Cheers Garrymanilow! You're right about 'nous' - were I the Met commissioner I'd have simply gotten a couple of coppers to stand very near the guy, maybe one on either side, without saying anything to him or doing anything to him. Would have been fitting, classy and reassuring for passers-by IMO. But a flexible approach always best for situations like this.
One copper either side, grab edges of the flag, sharp upward tug and WEDGIE...!
No one can justify or reason for anyone carrying an ISIS flag in public is not doing it to intimidate and aggravate, I can honestly say that should someone walk towards me with any of the above I would not be a silent standby I would make sure that they knew the message was wrong and that their intimdation has failed and they would feel the full force of my anger, the fact his Child was on his shoulders was an attempt for people with morales to not knock his head off , the only thing stopping that happening was the child, that's how low and cowardly these isis scum and their supporters are ,
The second that kid was off his shoulders the man would be chewing concrete
Two years since I started this thread. I know a lot of the debate is being covered in other threads but unfortunately I think we know the answer to the question in the title after recent events...
Comments
Chizz and Leuth's opinions are just that. It's not a simple issue. There's different strategies for dealing with these kind of guerilla organisations. Some people think there should be a show of force - arrests, bombings and war abroad - and some people think there should be a more considered approach - stifling their influence, cutting off their ability to preach and supply - and believing one doesn't make you a terrorist sympathiser any more than believing the other makes you a racist.
With that in mind it's incredible to see how people have turned on Chizz particularly and started branding him a terrorist sympathiser. All because he thinks there's a different approach to wiping out ISIS. It's an emotive issue but seeing accusations like is pretty ridiculous. Some people are accusing them of trolling or, again, of sympathising with murdering rapist scum just because they think a more considered approach might work better. A few of you should have a word with yourselves.
For what it's worth, I think the bloke should have been taken to one side by the police and told to remove the flag. The rule of law approach might work in theory but you can see just from this thread how many people have been upset by his actions. He didn't have to be arrested and put away forever but the police could have applied a bit of nous.
ON THE OTHER HAND... I cannot possibly agree with the apparent view they seem to be proposing that if someone is doing something that very clearly and understandably can cause offence, knowingly and deliberately - in this instance carrying the flag of a terrorist organisation - the onus should be on us to take the 'moral high ground' and forego being alarmed/offended instead of on the person to not do the offensive thing in the first place.
So close to the anniversary of a terrible and destructive terrorist act, the police should absolutely step in to remove the flag of ISIS from anyone carrying it. Whether a permanent ban is the answer long term I guess is a different but related debate, but right here and now, anyone showing support for ISIS could and really should be arrested on anti-social behavioural grounds if nothing else.
I'd like to focus on the difference between "knowingly and deliberately causing offence" and wanton acts of murder, violence and terror. In my view, no-one has the right not to be offended; but everyone has the right not to be subjected to murder, violence and terror.
Some people think that the ISIS flag is offensive; some don't. For what it's worth, I do. But that's all it is - offensive. And I have no right not to be be offended by it. In the same way I think Bernard Manning; homophobic "jokes"; people wearing IRA uniforms; Millwall shirts; gun ownership; capital punishment; and smoking in front of small children are all offensive. But just because I find them offensive, it doesn't mean they should all be illegal. (In fact, I think only two of that list are).
Banning the flag makes it more important: that's why it shouldn't be banned. Supporting the organisation should be.
So, in short, the guy wearing the flag should not have been arrested for wearing the flag. But should have been, if he was promoting the organisation.
In my opinion the guy was a risk, and at risk, and I kind of agree with Leuth that he ought not to have the protection of the law, but ought to heed the advice or instruction of the law enforcers who (as is often the demand on the police) would apply basic common sense to maintain the peace.
Imagine after the Soho nail bombings a bloke walked around Brighton waving a extremest right wing swastika flag. People would be scared, just because of what that flag represents and the recent events. I'm sure the police would step in then.
Far left politician caught, on video, saying that it's ok to carry an ISIS flag, because "we live in a free country".
VIDEO (bloody lefties)
Where I differ from you is that for me, to carry the flag of ISIS is to specifically condone all the acts that organisation commits, that includes the murder of innocents of all races and religions. If you carry the flag, you are saying that there are people who SHOULD be subjected to violence and even death for not sharing your own beliefs. And for me? That should be illegal. It's that simple. Why carry the flag if NOT to support the organisation? The man should have been arrested. Nothing you can say is going to alter my conviction on that.
You draw a line between the people who actually commit all those vile acts, and people like this idiot who simply support and condone them but refrain from committing said acts themselves. But whilst one is worse than the other, it's not a case of making the lesser crime not a crime at all. It should still be a crime to preach hatred. It should still be a crime to do something that can only be interpreted as an act of support to a proscribed terrorist organisation. The man should have been arrested. For me, it really is that simple.
You say, "Supporting the organisation should be banned".
He is wearing a flag supporting them !
The reason the scumbag should have forcibly had the flag taken off him is the same reason that loyalist and republican flags are taken off people at football matches north of the border - because it's provocative and inflammatory.
I presume however that both Chizz and Leuth would agree that supporters of both old firm teams should be allowed to display such flags going forward - after all - they're not attacking each other - they're just displaying flags.
No??
Why not simply treat those who support terrorists as those who are under surveillance of being terror suspects? 4am raid from OB, put them on the list of people who get flagged instantly if they buy plane tickets, get social services involved if they have kids (one family had their kids taken away by a Labour council because they were UKIP supporters so it does and can happen in this country), restrict their Internet services or prevent them from sending money abroad etc. . It might make people think twice before supporting ISIS if their lives are made a living hell by the state.
He'd almost certainly be at the front of the lynch mob prosecuting the baker.
Hypocritical, politically correct double standards and he claims to be a Conservative!
I would expect the police to take action if it were a white skin head carrying the EDL of BNP flag and the public to be suitably disgusted as well. It doesn't matter what the cause, who they represent, whether it be a white supremacy group or an Islamic terrorist group, they are pushing/provoking hatred.
Your point about inclusion and wider conversation with the Islamic community is spot on - we do need to try and work with all groups to help improve the situation. It is just that the people who represent ISIS do not care. They imo, are beyond ever being brought back to the negotiation table. Is preventing a man bearing the ISIS flag in London going to stop terrorist acts, probably not, would it encourage more, maybe, maybe not.
I like to think of myself as quite left leaning and socialistic in my political opinions, but would agree with others on here that the hardest line possible be taken, not because it may do anything practically to deter any atrocities, but because it's the right thing to do.
These people are scum, end of
However the TIMING of blatantly displaying an islamic terrorist flag when the 10th anniversary of another islamic terrorist atrocity was being commemorated is beyond the pale in my eyes which is why I feel the police should have intervened.
Had it been anybody other than a muslim carrying out such an act they would have done too.
Rotherham was the Labour council to which you refer.
I'll second that.