I refer you to a post at 09.47 today.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The majority of these foreign born rapists are from a larger group from rural pakistan and are poorly educated.

With the governments new immigration rules on restricting low skilled labour that larger group should not be coming.

If we continue to import them I would ask the government why as they have no discernable skill sets.

One more point

There is a difference between deselecting people on religious grounds and selecting people who the government deems suitable for British citizenship.
No conventions need to be breached. Britain as a sovereign nation can deny entry to anyone it likes.

We need to lead by example rather than kowtow to other countries with equally stupid immigration policy.

Again you are more interested in protecting your precious ideals as are too many politicians and assorted apologists.

I present a practical solution that is just that. Nothing to do with race or religion but simply about probability and facts.
People like you will keep telling us it can't be done and meanwhile, these kinds of criminality and anti Western attitudes will multiply in Western countries.

Thank you for the response.

I do agree with some of what you are saying and also I understand where you are coming from with your points.

I have highlighted in bold where I see some problems however.

Essentially, a lot of what I think you are expressing, whilst hypothetically valid in it's aspirations as an ideology, is folly.

The reliance on people to change their culture regarding an assortment on things ranging from treatment of others who are different, abiding by laws of a foreign land and most pertinently women will always be difficult and in this instance almost guaranteed as impossible.

For some context, I have a a few people of eastern/asian and islamic heritage, who sit in categories between colleagues and mates, in my life who I have quite openly discussed things of this sort with. I am no expert myself but would consider that somewhat close to the horses mouth. Almost all are children of immigrants if not immigrated young themselves.

I would certainly describe each of them as about as much of a Muslim as I am, hence why I have a relationship with them. I met one the other day who was eating a combined bacon and sausage baguette and had a roll up behind his ear as he was waiting for me. He's also a Reading FC season ticket holder despite being from East London (I can't remember why). They routinely mock their elders in their beliefs but more importantly attitudes towards the western world.

From my discussions with them, I would be quite sure in saying that true adherence to their religion, which is virtually a prerequisite of membership, does not provide any wiggle room to adapt to our society - hence why they do not do it almost to the point of abandoning it in all but name. I would add that they are all male as I have learned that any female who would attempt to do so would risk serious if not fatal consequences.

Therefore in essence, I would suggest it is perhaps even more offensive to take a stance of 'I will not persecute you because of your religion and respect what you believe but.... you will have to change some elements of it to fit in'. This is something I find quite ludicrous about current policy.

I respect your stance but I would argue it had no application whatsoever in a practical reality. I have opened up this conversation as I accept I will never have a 100% sure answer on this or any other problem so am open to any counter arguments but have never really found anything to change my mind.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I have long argued that faith schools are an anathema in today's society. Not just Islamic ones. All of them. Every child needs to be taught the standards and expectations of our society and, where practical, for them to mix with children from other communities.

Sharing the national curriculum is not enough. We need to remove not just religious teaching but religious influences from every school. The places where children are taught and experience religion ought to be only in their family, church, temple, mosque or synagogue. At school they need to experience alternative thinking so they can begin to think things through for themselves.

I would go further and ensure that all religious teaching and preaching be subject to periodical unannounced inspection which would only be actually applied if there was a suspicion that hate speech was present.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes, I agree with you. It would be interesting to see what happened to religion if children weren’t exposed to its tenets at all. Anyone of sixteen or older can make their own decisions of course it’s not likely to happen.