Andy Choudary finally where he belongs

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary is understood to be one of nine men arrested today as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism.

Choudary, 47, and eight other men aged 22, 31, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39 and 51 were arrested by Metropolitan Police officers in London this morning, and have all been taken to police stations - where they remain in custody.

Some 19 residential, business or community premises were also being searched today as part of the investigation, Scotland Yard said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769098/BREAKING-NEWS-Nine-men-arrested-counter-terror-police-London-suspicion-encouraging-terrorism.html#ixzz3EK99sQx5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Puzzler wrote:

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary is understood to be one of nine men arrested today as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism.

Choudary, 47, and eight other men aged 22, 31, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39 and 51 were arrested by Metropolitan Police officers in London this morning, and have all been taken to police stations - where they remain in custody.

Some 19 residential, business or community premises were also being searched today as part of the investigation, Scotland Yard said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769098/BREAKING-NEWS-Nine-men-arrested-counter-terror-police-London-suspicion-encouraging-terrorism.html#ixzz3EK99sQx5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Been waiting for this day for so, so long.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Big deal.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Big deal.

So catching suspected terrorists  is not a big deal to you?
I though you would be happy, as he is a stain onto society and creates much problems for many Muslim in this country by inflaming anger.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So catching suspected terrorists  is not a big deal to you?
I though you would be happy, as he is a stain onto society and creates much problems for many Muslim in this country by inflaming anger.

No, I have no problem with arresting (catching is such a silly term in this case) a suspected of committing any crime.

Do you know what crime he has committed? Being a stain on society is not a crime.

According to media reports, he was arrested for being a member of a proscribed group. Let's see what evidence they have and if he did actual commit a criminal act.

I'll tell you what I suspect (and I could be wrong): this is a message to all those who are 'undesirable' before the UK commits to fighting ISIS.

I don't think he'll be in custody for too long.

That's the problem with people who are 'angry' - they lose grasp of the rational self.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No, I have no problem with arresting (catching is such a silly term in this case) a suspected of committing any crime.

Do you know what crime he has committed? Being a stain on society is not a crime.

According to media reports, he was arrested for being a member of a proscribed group. Let's see what evidence they have and if he did actual commit a criminal act.

I'll tell you what I suspect (and I could be wrong): this is a message to all those who are 'undesirable' before the UK commits to fighting ISIS.

I don't think he'll be in custody for too long.

That's the problem with people who are 'angry' - they lose grasp of the rational self.

Being a stain is not a crime Zack but inciting terrorism to me is and have read many accounts on hope not hate about their view of his connection to terrorism, which is nothing to do with being angry:


http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/am/

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Being a stain is not a crime Zack but inciting terrorism to me is and have read many accounts on hope not hate about their view of his connection to terrorism, which is nothing to do with being angry:


http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/am/

You have no idea what terrorism he's incited to be arrested.

You are speculating because you are emotional.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Being a stain is not a crime Zack but inciting terrorism to me is and have read many accounts on hope not hate about their view of his connection to terrorism, which is nothing to do with being angry:


http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/am/

You have no idea what terrorism he's incited to be arrested.

You are speculating because you are emotional.

oh my, I would be happy if such people were off our street, this includes those who incite racism, it has nothing to do with emotions but having decency in our society where hate is not allowed to flourish and spread.
It seems your bog standard answer is emotions, people would like some decency where hate is not allowed to thrive and hoping things can be done to stem such hate is to me the best way forward, though if it is practical or able to implement is another matter.
Yes I have no idea if he is linked, I just hope there is evidence to convict him, but I know he incites hatred which is allowed to go unchecked.
He is very much the cause behind the creation of the EDL by his hateful actions, thus we now have two opposing hate groups, not something anyone wants.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


oh my, I would be happy if such people were off our street, this includes those who incite racism, it has nothing to do with emotions but having decency in our society where hate is not allowed to flourish and spread.
It seems your bog standard answer is emotions, people would like some decency where hate is not allowed to thrive and hoping things can be done to stem such hate is to me the best way forward, though if it is practical or able to implement is another matter.
Yes I have no idea if he is linked, I just hope there is evidence to convict him, but I know he incites hatred which is allowed to go unchecked.
He is very much the cause behind the creation of the EDL by his hateful actions, thus we now have two opposing hate groups, not something anyone wants.

Sort of have to agree with didge on this one
there does seem enough reason to arrest this guy and look into charges.. He definitely does not seem like a good guy.

Here we are lucky that we do have a good Muslim community that do report, complain and condemn these false preacher that only want hate

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You have no idea what terrorism he's incited to be arrested.

You are speculating because you are emotional.

oh my, I would be happy if such people were off our street, this includes those who incite racism, it has nothing to do with emotions but having decency in our society where hate is not allowed to flourish and spread.
It seems your bog standard answer is emotions, people would like some decency where hate is not allowed to thrive and hoping things can be done to stem such hate is to me the best way forward, though if it is practical or able to implement is another matter.
Yes I have no idea if he is linked, I just hope there is evidence to convict him, but I know he incites hatred which is allowed to go unchecked.
He is very much the cause behind the creation of the EDL by his hateful actions, thus we now have two opposing hate groups, not something anyone wants.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


oh my, I would be happy if such people were off our street, this includes those who incite racism, it has nothing to do with emotions but having decency in our society where hate is not allowed to flourish and spread.
It seems your bog standard answer is emotions, people would like some decency where hate is not allowed to thrive and hoping things can be done to stem such hate is to me the best way forward, though if it is practical or able to implement is another matter.
Yes I have no idea if he is linked, I just hope there is evidence to convict him, but I know he incites hatred which is allowed to go unchecked.
He is very much the cause behind the creation of the EDL by his hateful actions, thus we now have two opposing hate groups, not something anyone wants.

Don't get me started on the stupid law that is incitement of racism. The worst kind of law ever imagined.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


oh my, I would be happy if such people were off our street, this includes those who incite racism, it has nothing to do with emotions but having decency in our society where hate is not allowed to flourish and spread.
It seems your bog standard answer is emotions, people would like some decency where hate is not allowed to thrive and hoping things can be done to stem such hate is to me the best way forward, though if it is practical or able to implement is another matter.
Yes I have no idea if he is linked, I just hope there is evidence to convict him, but I know he incites hatred which is allowed to go unchecked.
He is very much the cause behind the creation of the EDL by his hateful actions, thus we now have two opposing hate groups, not something anyone wants.

Sort of have to agree with didge on this one
there does seem enough reason to arrest this guy and look into charges.. He definitely does not seem like a good guy.

Here we are lucky that we do have a good Muslim community that do report, complain and condemn these false preacher that only want hate

The was no actual reason to arrest him and nobody seemed to have reported anything.

They seemed to have arrested him to raid his home and 'go fishing' for evidence. that's the way the system works ::dunno:: , which is why you need strict rules around the time between the arrested and charged or let go without charge (which is one of the things they were trying to change here... it is 48hrs already they wanted to change it to 2 weeks, which most people that think instead of fear agree is too long) people forget you can be arrested and innocent it is not until you charged that you are considered guilty by police and you need to be convicted to be legally guilty, like I said "seem enough reason to arrest this guy and look into charges" some of his rants really are hate speech but whether they actually cross the line into illegality if for lawyers and the courts

Unfortunately the security services were not discrete and he had up to a weeks notice. He's most likely cleared any evidence, if there was any. Like here with the raids, it is always a concern when police seem to be following a script for the cameras....I never trust a 'surprise' raid/operation that the media were in place to film.

Like I said, let's see if anything sticks. I suspect he'll be out soon. that is right let the system take is course, as long as we make sure the system stays Fair and Just

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Don't get me started on the stupid law that is incitement of racism. The worst kind of law ever imagined.

Why do you think so?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do you think so?

In a nut shell - 3 reasons (that I can think of now):

1. For racial hatred, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent
2. Too much power in the hands of the Police
3. Possession of certain material (regardless of reason) is an offence

Further, all such laws do is sweep the problem under the carpet.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

In a nut shell - 3 reasons (that I can think of now):

1. For racial hatred, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent
2. Too much power in the hands of the Police
3. Possession of certain material (regardless of reason) is an offence

Further, all such laws do is sweep the problem under the carpet.

So what is the alternative?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


So what is the alternative?

Abolish it.

There are other laws which can deal with offensive behaviour and discrimination. Although those laws allow for too much police power also.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Abolish it.

There are other laws which can deal with offensive behaviour and discrimination. Although those laws allow for too much police power also.

That is not the alternative to the problem of incitement of racism, that is just scrapping a policy and not dealing with an actual problem when other laws do not work?
So what is the alternative?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is not the alternative to the problem of incitement of racism, that is just scrapping a policy and not dealing with an actual problem when other laws do not work?
So what is the alternative?

I don't think there is a problem. Therefore, abolish it.

There are sufficient laws to deal with discrimination and offensive behaviour.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I don't think there is a problem. Therefore, abolish it.

There are sufficient laws to deal with discrimination and offensive behaviour.

So you do not think Hitler incited people to hate the Jews?
You do not think there has been a rise in racial hatred over he last few years?
There is also lots of antisemitism today, thus you offer no alternative, where are said laws fo not work.

Try again

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I don't think there is a problem. Therefore, abolish it.

There are sufficient laws to deal with discrimination and offensive behaviour.

So you do not think Hitler incited people to hate the Jews?
You do not think there has been a rise in racial hatred over he last few years?
There is also lots of antisemitism today, thus you offer no alternative, where are said laws do not work.

Try again

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you do not think Hitler incited people to hate the Jews?
You do not think there has been a rise in racial hatred over he last few years?
There is also lots of antisemitism today, thus you offer no alternative, where are said laws do not work.

Try again

When you calm down, you will realise there are other laws to deal with discrimination and offensive behaviour.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

When you calm down, you will realise there are other laws to deal with discrimination and offensive behaviour.

Irrational response and a very poor deflection from answering.
The other laws  do not deter the incitement of racism, thus your point is absurd.

Try again

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Irrational response and a very poor deflection from answering.
The other laws  do not deter the incitement of racism, thus your point is absurd.

Try again

I wasn't deflecting. I said I don't think incitement is a legal problem. What part of that didn't you understand?

Read again. Lol!

If you want to amend the current law, I have suggested 3 points that need to be removed.

Now stop being so emotional and get a grip. We all know how you react when you get angry.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I wasn't deflecting. I said I don't think incitement is a legal problem. What part of that didn't you understand?

Read again. Lol!

If you want to amend the current law, I have suggested 3 points that need to be removed.

Now stop being so emotional and get a grip. We all know how you react when you get angry.

I know you said you think it is not a legal problem, that is not what I asked, I asked what is your alternative to this problem.
How many times do I need to ask you until it sinks in?
Your view is there is no problem, which is absurd of course, when we know that racial incitement leads to violence. which is growing year on year at the present.
The only one who is emotional is you by the fact you keep making such poor counters deflecting away from answering a simple question.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


I know you said you think it is not a legal problem, that is not what I asked, I asked what is your alternative to this problem.
How many times do I need to ask you until it sinks in?
Your view is there is no problem, which is absurd of course, when we know that racial incitement leads to violence. which is growing year on year at the present.
The only one who is emotional is you by the fact you keep making such poor counters deflecting away from answering a simple question.

But you asked me about the incitement LAW! Lol! You can have all the social and cultural solutions you want.

And no, incitement doesn't lead to violence. Just as viewing videos about Muslim oppression doesn't make someone a terrorist. I thought you accepted that.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But you asked me about the incitement LAW! Lol! You can have all the social and cultural solutions you want.

And no, incitement doesn't lead to violence. Just as viewing videos about Muslim oppression doesn't make someone a terrorist. I thought you accepted that.

I am afraid incitement it does, showing you do not understand anything, how do you think the French revolution started?
With incitement, which can lead to any violence, showing you are just talking complete horseshit.
Are you claiming Hitler did not incite people to target Jews ad Jewish property and works?
Do you understand what incitement means?
This goes back to the EDL how it was formed, which you seem to miss.

Try again, what is your alternative?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am afraid incitement it does, showing you do not understand anything, how do you think the French revolution started?
With incitement, which can lead to any violence, showing you are just talking complete horseshit.
Are you claiming Hitler did not incite people to target Jews ad Jewish property and works?
Do you understand what incitement means?
This goes back to the EDL how it was formed, which you seem to miss.

Try again, what is your alternative?

I've already told you how the act (if not abolished) should be amended.

And was the legal act put in place because of Hitler, the French Revolution, etc? No, it wasn't. Which is why I suggest you are ranting.  

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I've already told you how the act (if not abolished) should be amended.

And was the legal act put in place because of Hitler, the French Revolution, etc? No, it wasn't. Which is why I suggest you are ranting.  

That is not going to be an alternative to the problem of incitement to racism, which I already told you, so you need to give me an alternative.
There was no legal act in either time which thus goes in favour of my point.
Seriously, how old are you?
You think your claims to on me are making a point.
You poor child.

Once again, try again, what is the alternative and glad to see you lowed out of trying to back an absurd view that incitement does not lead to violence, because you have no clue on history, and never have.

In your own time

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is not going to be an alternative to the problem of incitement to racism, which I already told you, so you need to give me an alternative.
There was no legal act in either time which thus goes in favour of my point.
Seriously, how old are you?
You think your claims to on me are making a point.
You poor child.

Once again, try again, what is the alternative and glad to see you lowed out of trying to back an absurd view that incitement does not lead to violence, because you have no clue on history, and never have.

In your own time

Let's not forget the 2 times you threatened me with violence. Did I or someone incite you?

Address my 3 points and tell me why you think they are a problem. That's the real debate.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Let's not forget the 2 times you threatened me with violence. Did I or someone incite you?

Address my 3 points and tell me why you think they are a problem. That's the real debate.

Copout alert.
I thought we had moved on from that and it was only banter, guess i was wrong where you also agreed of which you seem now to want to start another, sorry not interested, be immature if you so wish that is your prerogative.
Incitement is a factor in violence, there is no denying that and when you have the time, I would like to see an alternative

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Copout alert.
I thought we had moved on from that and it was only banter, guess i was wrong where you also agreed of which you seem now to want to start another, sorry not interested, be immature if you so wish that is your prerogative.
Incitement is a factor in violence, there is no denying that and when you have the time, I would like to see an alternative

0/3 points addressed. Yes, you did cop out.

Seriously dude, it seems you have a problem with me.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

0/3 points addressed. Yes, you did cop out.

Seriously dude, it seems you have a problem with me.

Incorrect, I never made any point on them, I replied with asking you to give me an alternative to the present  problem with racist incitement.
I have none accept you seem to hate difficult questions.

Try again

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Incorrect, I never made any point on them, I replied with asking you to give me an alternative to the present  problem with racist incitement.
I have none accept you seem to hate difficult questions.

Try again

You asked me about the law and I told you 3 problems with them. I'm glad you've admitted you never addressed them.

I would be happy to keep the incitement law with those 3 issues removed, if it makes you sleep better at night.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You asked me about the law and I told you 3 problems with them. I'm glad you've admitted you never addressed them.

I would be happy to keep the incitement law with those 3 issues removed, if it makes you sleep better at night.

I did ask you about why you disliked the law, then I asked for an alternative to the problem, which it seems you keep avoiding as other laws do little to stem racial incitement.


Try again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


I did ask you about why you disliked the law, then I asked for an alternative to the problem, which it seems you keep avoiding as other laws do little to stem racial incitement.


Try again.

The alternative if the law was to be abolished, would be to have social and cultural programmes/forums where issues that incite hatred can be addressed and hatred itself can be rejected. The law is sweeping racial hatred under the carpet. That may make you feel better but that doesn't address the problem either.

But like I said, if the non legal alternatives are not acceptable to you - I given you 3 points by which the law should be amended.

There really is no need to be so arrogant Didge.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The alternative if the law was to be abolished, would be to have social and cultural programmes/forums where issues that incite hatred can be addressed and hatred itself can be rejected. The law is sweeping racial hatred under the carpet. That may make you feel better but that doesn't address the problem either.

But like I said, if the non legal alternatives are not acceptable to you - I given you 3 points by which the law should be amended.

There really is no need to be so arrogant Didge.

Again none of them have worked because racism is on the rise as well as hate violence, (though still small overall) shows such conceptions are not working.
For a start, like I said the EDL was formed basically as a response to a hate croup inciting violence, which proves again how such views do incite violence, in fact we have seen how countless EDL demos end with violence, because now others counter the EDL as well.
This is why your answers have no relevance, because as seen you are failing to understand the problems of hate incitement.

Thus what is the alternative?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again none of them have worked because racism is on the rise as well as hate violence, (though still small overall) shows such conceptions are not working.
For a start, like I said the EDL was formed basically as a response to a hate croup inciting violence, which proves again how such views do incite violence, in fact we have seen how countless EDL demos end with violence, because now others counter the EDL as well.
This is why your answers have no relevance, because as seen you are failing to understand the problems of hate incitement.

Thus what is the alternative?

You're never going to expunge hatred. Surely your evening history class has taught you that.

Has the current legal act stopped groups like the EDL forming?

Then look at what stopped the BNP and the EDL (or their leadership) - had nothing to do with the algal act and all to do with social and cultural engagement.  

You say my answers have no relevance? Recent history proves you wrong.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're never going to expunge hatred. Surely your evening history class has taught you that.

Has the current legal act stopped groups like the EDL forming?

Then look at what stopped the BNP and the EDL (or their leadership) - had nothing to do with the algal act and all to do with social and cultural engagement.  

You say my answers have no relevance? Recent history proves you wrong.

I disagree, in time humans will reach enlightenment, one without man made myths ruling their lives and one where as is already happening many youth growing up without past hates and discrimination which we grew up with in ours.
Perceptions change but it is what we do now to stop incitement off hatred, where as seen the current laws do not deter violence.
You keep basing your replies off the current law, where I am not, I keep asking for an alternative in the present, of which you seem to have none, just say so if you do not

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I disagree, in time humans will reach enlightenment, one without man made myths ruling their lives and one where as is already happening many youth growing up without past hates and discrimination which we grew up with in ours.
Perceptions change but it is what we do now to stop incitement off hatred, where as seen the current laws do not deter violence.
You keep basing your replies off the current law, where I am not, I keep asking for an alternative in the present, of which you seem to have none, just say so if you do not

You asked me about the current law.

HELLO!

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You asked me about the current law.

HELLO!

Agreed and made no point other than to ask what your alternative is to the problem, which it seems is like gettig blood out of a stone.
Hey ho, you have no answer which could have saved countless posts lol

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Agreed and made no point other than to ask what your alternative is to the problem, which it seems is like gettig blood out of a stone.
Hey ho, you have no answer which could have saved countless posts lol

I gave you 3 changes to the law and non legal alternatives.

But it seems you've returned to being a sanctimonious, arrogant dick again. I used to like the humble Didge.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I gave you 3 changes to the law and non legal alternatives.

But it seems you've returned to being a sanctimonious, arrogant dick again. I used to like the humble Didge.

Ad again they do little to stem racial incitement, the point you keep missing.
Seems you are wound up lol, that you need to resort to abuse, never mind bro.

So again what is the alternative?