Race crime up after terror attack

Racist crime in the west of Scotland had increased after the suspected terror attack on Glasgow Airport, BBC Scotland has learned.

Strathclyde Police have released figures on racist crime and a senior officer confirmed that there had been a noticeable rise.

Well now I warned previously on threads on ATS/News forum that there would be an increase in racial attacks as a result of Glasgow being attacked by so called terroists. According to figures, between the 1st - 27th July, 258 reported racial attacks, 31 of those related to the aiport attack.

So anyone think this is going to continue to rise, or, is this just a couple of wannabes trying to prove something?

Article

Whether it rises or not lets get one thing straight. The kind of people doing this aren't likely to be your average British citizen venting their feelings, these are the chavs, neds and basic scum of the earth who've likely got a string of convictions for assualt and who don't need much of an excuse to lamp someone no matter who they are or what the circumstances.

Just terrorists of anothet type really.

Thinkin maybe I should have posted this in the breaking alternative news section, isnt mutch a political discussion is it really, maybe if the mods sees this can ya move this to the Alternative News Sections please thanks.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

Well now I warned previously on threads on ATS/News forum that there would be an increase in racial attacks as a result of Glasgow being attacked

You’re a prophetic genius!!! With that now established the only question is, is you’re second name Mohammed?

by so called terroists

So called terrorists? Ah, so they’re not real terrorists then, are they? Could they be the "made in China type" that you can stick on you’re windscreen whenever you’re attending Mosque?
Certainly one of them (so called) terrorist looked like he was made of plastic when he stepped out his (stolen) vehicle at Glasgow airport.

But do I care about racist crime going up? Er, um, well...Difficult one.
To be honest I find it kind of amusing how these Chavs see the world. One day she’s a nice old lady selling cakes at the bakery. The next she’s a terrorist working for Osama Bin Laden’s Evil Terror International (Unlimited of course).

I understand it’s bad we’ve got people in this country who equal the worst, of all possible bad immigrants. So deport them is what I say!
P.S Is Christmas Island www.janeresture.com...
Still part the English Empire, and would it make a suitable housing site for Chav’s? Also is there anyway we could get special permission from the U.N to detonate at least one last atomic bomb there? (The type we’re getting rid of anyway of course).

Failing that we could always send the Chavs to a foreign country closer to home E.g. Brixton, Nottingham and colonies in places Manchester-Birmingham come to mind. Nuking those places would obviously be a bit problematic, however I've heard the Americans are developing a new kind of strategic "mini" nuclear bomb. So much for the strategic alliance being useless!!!
The main obstacle I see is human rights lawyers, who would have field day, and of course countries like Nottingham probably qualify for special protection under the U.N's Rights of Nations.

But hearing how racist attacks have gone up is making me extremely pro-immigration. The trade of is that: the more foreigners we have hear, the less my chances of being attacked must be. I guess there's always a chance I might get attacked by one of the foreigners, but most probably only if they can understand what I'm saying to them (in English) of course.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

You’re a prophetic genius!!! With that now established the only question is, is you’re second name Mohammed?

Little sacarsm there? , Being scottish myself knew it wouldn't belong for racial attacks to go on the increase, after the incident @ Glasgow Airport. Does not take a genuis to work that out.

Little sacarsm there?

There shouldn’t be a question mark at the end of that sentence.
What actually irritated me was your use of PC language to talk about a “warning” on a prediction about as prophetic as: “I dropped a coin, it will fall”.

But why did you say “so called terrorists”?
Was this a mistake? Or do really believe there is a lack of evidence that a (v. pathetic) terrorist attack did actually occur at Glasgow airport?

There shouldn’t be a question mark at the end of that sentence

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot put at the end of a sentence? Get a grip already!!!!!!!!

What actually irritated me was your use of PC language to talk about a “warning” on a prediction about as prophetic as: “I dropped a coin, it will fall”.

And why did it irritate you? I have said in previous threads that what happened @ Glasgow airport will lead to a racial attacks against others within scotland so whats the big deal? And if I was being Politcally correct as you put it, I dont see in any threads I have posted comments on have I ever been P/C. So get that one fact correct...

But why did you say “so called terrorists”?
Was this a mistake? Or do really believe there is a lack of evidence that a (v. pathetic) terrorist attack did actually occur at Glasgow airport

And what makes you think they were? (We have not seen no trials as of yet) Amature so called terroists more like it.... 1 of the four arrested was let go... one died... the rest we will know about when they are brought to justice, and may I add those who attacked Glasgow should be tried in a Scottish Court under scottish law,and not a English Court under so called UK Law.....

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot put at the end of a sentence? Get a grip already!!!!!!!!

You can put whatever you like at the end of a sentence, because you are free to be as wrong as you want to be. The word “shouldn’t” is never an order (at least from me).

And why did it irritate you?

Saying that race hate will go up after a terrorist attack is a non-prophecy, using PC language (like addressing it as a “warning”) always irritates me. How can it be a warning if one isn’t that bothered about the interactions between terrorist harbouring Muslims, and Chavs?

And what makes you think they were? (We have not seen no trials as of yet)

They are terrorists because in order for them not be: The footage of them crashing into Glasgow airport, the fact it happened after a bomb was left outside a nightclub, and all the TV-police reports about the context of it all; would need to be about 90-100% fabricated.
If they are fabricated then there would be little point waiting till they had been tried because the chances are that the trial material would also have been fabricated.

The only (other) logic for saying “so called terrorists” is to accuse them of being freedom fighters. Except freedom fighters don’t go out to deliberately kill civilians (especially if the majority of those civilians are against the war in Iraq anyway). Besides deliberately killing civilians is murder, it is murder under U.K law (and under the law of nearly every country that has a law).
Instead freedom fighters merely oppose occupiers, their infrastructure and leadership. Also freedom fighters should be able to claim they are acting with the will of the majority behind them, in Iraq this can hold true, but in the U.K never.

and may I add those who attacked Glasgow should be tried in a Scottish Court under scottish law,and not a English Court under so called UK Law.....

Why?
Because Scotland is a separate country?
It’s not a separate country and hasn’t been for 300 years. It has a separate history, and parliamentary provenience but that’s about it.
I know the majority want independence politics.guardian.co.uk... but they are not a separate country, and as long as they aren’t, the truth is this trial should be held in our capital. We both agree the Act of Union should be abolished (but that doesn’t change the facts as long as it lasts). Also anything less is yet another “in you’re face” accommodation of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom, and I hate those, because I too want to keep hot the Scottish case for independence. Compromises undermine this.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

You can put whatever you like at the end of a sentence, because you are free to be as wrong as you want to be. The word “shouldn’t” is never an order (at least from me).

That is your opinion, your are entitled to it, as am I....

Saying that race hate will go up after a terrorist attack is a non-prophecy, using PC language (like addressing it as a “warning”) always irritates me. How can it be a warning if one isn’t that bothered about the interactions between terrorist harbouring Muslims, and Chavs?

You only have to look at the state of community relations, between asian/ethnic groups and other communities in scotland and else where in the country, Does not take a genius, to work out that there would be an increase of racial attacks, as a result after the attacks at Glasgow. If this irritates you not my problem.

They are terrorists because in order for them not be: The footage of them crashing into Glasgow airport, the fact it happened after a bomb was left outside a nightclub, and all the TV-police reports about the context of it all; would need to be about 90-100% fabricated.

Until they are found guilty in a court of Law, you can class them as terroists all you want. I am classing them as so called terroists until they are found guilty.

Why?
Because Scotland is a separate country?

Stop trying to put words in to my mouth, Have I stated that this is because Scotland is a seperate country? No I have not. What I meant was the Justie system inscotland is independant from english law. Has always been that way.

There's always a fringe thuggish nutter element that takes it's cue from events and the less careful utterances of our public figures.......which is why they have a duty to choose what they say publicly carefully.

Originally posted by Spencerjohnstone

Does not take a genius, to work out that there would be an increase of racial attacks, as a result after the attacks at Glasgow. If this irritates you not my problem.

This thread's getting boring so here’s a little summary from me…
1. I called you a genius because I was being sarcastic, I was being sarcastic because you had stated the aboves obviousness when you started this thread.
2. But you then asked if I was being sarcastic
3. I said there shouldn’t be a question mark at the end of that sentence (this meant i.e. yes I was being sarcastic)
4. You told me not tell you what to put at the end of sentences!!
5. I said I wasn’t issuing orders
6. You now say…

That is your opinion, your are entitled to it, as am I....

How crazy is that? Putting it simply, I alone know whether I was issuing orders or not.

Anyway: Regarding Politics…

What I meant was the Justie system inscotland is independant from english law. Has always been that way.

Sorry, I didn’t realise that. If so I agree with you that the terrorist suspects should be tried in Scotland, but then surely there’s no need to say “they should be tried in Scotland” if they are going to be anyway?

I maintain it would be better for Scottish nationalism if they weren’t tried in Scotland. I can see this making a lot of Scots feel like a colony, and perhaps wanting to do something about it. For me that’s as far as the importance of where they are tried goes; as long as it’s in the UK I view it of only symbolic importance.

I am classing them as so called terroists until they are found guilty.

Calling them “so called terrorists” makes you sound as though you believe they aren’t actually terrorists. Why don’t you just call them “terrorist suspects” next time then everyone will know what you mean?
This is how people normally call those who are awaiting trial.

Sminkeypinky:
What you say has held true in certain circumstances, but regarding this event: which politicians-public figures have (however unwittingly) encouraged a increase in racist crime?
The sorts who are committing this race crime probably wouldn’t know what a politician is (even if they mugged one of them!!!). The one time political candidates really cause trouble is when they're campaigning for the BNP or Islamic Brotherhood (i guess they'd cause trouble anyway).
I sometimes wonder if Westminster politicians worry too much about how much of what they say, reaches the ghettos. Generally it's so small you'll need a magnifying glass (like a tabloid) just to see it. And it's rarely seems to be an accident when a tabloud sinks a particular politicans career. In they're absence, tabloids seem capable enough of finding someone to say whatever they like.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]