Forgive my extension of roomy's thread. I just didn't want my stance lost in a mire of repetitive insults. Note: This OP will address the subject in the form of point-by-point statements. The article itself Before you get entirely carried away by Andy Bloxham's piece in the Telegraph; a right-wing, Tory allied broadsheet (as a result, it's often called the 'Torygraph'), you need to look at the bigger picture and ask yourselves why the Telegraph dedicated so much attention to such an insignificant (in size) protest in the first place. In my opinion, that apart from selling copy, it's in the Telegraph's interest to whip-up a storm of outrage because it makes the government, half of which the Telegraph strongly sympathises with, appear much stronger. And in return, the owners of sympathetic media will be owed favours by those in power who they've helped. Exactly the same relationship existed between Tony Blair's Labour government and Rupert Murdoch's publications, mainly The Sun. Supposed Police inaction over confronting protesters Many of you have asked and opined on why the MET (Metropolitan Police) took little action and committed less resources than expected. Well, the MET took a real bashing after it took offensive action against anarchists and the great unwashed during the 2009 G20 summit held in London; during which, an innocent bystander was - unintentionally - killed by a police officer. They also came under fire for employing (supposedly) dubious tactics, known as 'kettling' which involve holding large crowds of people in makeshift detention and deprive them of sanitary conditions as well as roughing them up when and where they please. Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about. If you start rampaging through a public place causing hundreds of thousands of pounds in damage and disruptions and the police bash a few and stop them from going to the toilet, then boo fucking hoo. So, on this occasion, the police downscaled their presence so as to avoid another showdown with smelly protesters who seem to protest over the most trivial things these days, and subsequent trial by a blood thirsty tabloid press. A lack of judgement, if you ask me. The growth in support of far-right parties This isn't an isolated occurance, it's happening all over western Europe. And I agree with California Girl, if unchecked, it will only end in disaster. Far-right parties like the British National Party (which is soon to be declared bankrupt, might I add) are growing in numbers and attracting more votes partially because of the frenzy the gutter press has whipped-up, but mainly because of the emergence of Islamic isolationism in the form of the headscarf (which I want banned) and more prolific promotion of radical muslim fundamentalists via the internet, it's becoming easier for them to communicate. Holland is now leaning towards the far-right. Hungary is now run by the far-right. France and Belgium are both taking measures against islamic headscarves that, quite frankly, don't have a place in western society. It's spreading across Europe faster than this so-called "creeping Sharia" everyone seems so afraid of. But is it a bad thing, some will undeniably ask, myself included. This will coincide and be answered in my next point. Political correctness: and how it's accomodated growing Islamic influence in western society. Before I start, allow me to refer to points made by California Girl and Bootneck: WTF indeed. But Bootneck's reply is both blunt, yet admirably succinct: As a continent of once proud empire builders, we've now had our hands tied by petty, largely liberal eurocrats who are hellbent on promoting equality in an indifferent world. It's a futile concept, but the emergance of 'political correctness' has accomodated far more bizarre casualties in its war on common sense. But before I address the Abu Hamza disgrace, allow me to explain my stance on political correctness. Political correctness is an attempt to limit people being offended, and through an unscrupulous legal system that see's libel trials as an easy buck, it's got out of control. The truth is that you can't go throughout life without being offended, it makes you stronger; but over the last two decades, Europe has been lead by weak men and women who are too scared to speak-out against intrusions on our (western) way of life. For fear of being summoned to account for their 'offensive' behaviour up in front of the beak. Abu Hamza was a joke that made Britain look weak amongst her allies and enemies. But if we had sent him back to the middle east, the Court of Human Rights claimed that he would be tortured, so we had to allow him to remain (in a country he supposedly despised). Personally, if I were in charge I would have, like a leader of a strong country, told the Court of Human Rights and their boyfriends in Brussels to fuck themselves. He and his hook would've been on the first available flight. But then that would be be deemed offensive, incurring the almighty wrath of Brussels that Westminster seems to be so afraid of. So, now that we have a culture preventing offending and punishing any 'offenders', a culture that aren't afraid to offend their host nation/continent get away with murder, in some cases. I don't hate muslims, but I don't love them either. The fact of the matter is that the Europe they want to establish themselves in is historically white and christian. In short, if they want to make a decent life for themselves and practice their customs, they're going to have to take their host nations laws and customs into consideration beforehand. That said, I don't think this notion of 'creeping sharia' will have any last effect or impact and that most moderate muslims don't hold any grudge against the west. They just want to get on with their lives. Phew, sorry for dragging that out. And thank you for having the patience to read it through to the end. Questions and answers will be held in the next room where Madeline and California Girl will be serving tea and biscuits (two institutions the muslims will never interfere with, hopefully).