Coronavirus

[Drummond]

I can think of few things more foolhardy than having a Muslim in charge of safety for a large modern western city.

He doesn't need to strap on the old vest. He can achieve a better result by forcing you all into crowded public transportation. Legally.

I believe I can provide you with unquestionable proof of what you say !! This was Khan's attitude, earlier this month. See:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coron...FrKt7rnsJLEVi4

Sadiq Khan has said there is ‘no risk’ of people catching coronavirus while travelling on buses or trains in the capital. The Mayor of London has urged people to continue to use the Tube and go to concerts despite the outbreak of the disease.

So far in the UK, 39 people have tested positive to the virus. Mr Khan said it is ‘important we don’t spread panic or alarm’ and urged politicians to ‘reply upon the best advice we have from the public health experts and from the chief medical officer’. He told Good Morning Britain today: ‘There is no risk in using the Tube or buses or other forms of public transport or going to a concert.’

It comes as a City Hall source said the mayor was unhappy to have been excluded from the government’s emergency Cobra meeting to discuss coronavirus yesterday. The source said people might think it was ‘a bit strange’ he was not invited, given the size of London, its status as a global travel hub, its large transport network and its sport and entertainment venues.

Mr Khan is due to meet senior officials and health specialists from across the capital to review preparations for dealing with the outbreak, but said: ‘I want to reassure Londoners that although the risk of coronavirus to individuals remains low, we are not complacent. ‘I’m in regular contact with Public Health England to ensure we have the latest advice and to monitor the impact on our city.’

Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan accused the London mayor of ‘spreading mixed messages’ over his relaxed tone. He interrupted Mr Khan and said: ‘No disrespect but how on earth can you say in a city of 12 million people there is no risk given that we know it’s here and it’s beginning to spread here?’ The Mayor of London answered: ‘Because I rely upon the advice I receive from Public Health England the chief medical officer and the advice is you’re not going to catch it if you’re washing your hands regularly. ‘On the Tube, on a daily basis, there are five million journeys and on our buses, six million. Many of the concert venues in London have crowds of between 5,000 and 20,000.

Khan has persisted with his 'relaxed' attitude to human life, evidently, by maintaining 'sardine tin' conditions on those trains still operating ... and refusing all criticism of his actions.

[NightTrain]

I believe I can provide you with unquestionable proof of what you say !! This was Khan's attitude, earlier this month. See:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coron...FrKt7rnsJLEVi4



Khan has persisted with his 'relaxed' attitude to human life, evidently, by maintaining 'sardine tin' conditions on those trains still operating ... and refusing all criticism of his actions.

That's.... appalling.

You have a jihadist running the show. Has no one sounded the alarm?

Or is everyone in your media afraid of being labeled an Islamophobe?

[Drummond]

That's.... appalling.

You have a jihadist running the show. Has no one sounded the alarm?

Or is everyone in your media afraid of being labeled an Islamophobe?

They'd be afraid, but for good reason. No media outlet could possibly afford to be seen as taking a stance suggestive of outright anti-Islamic 'prejudice'. If such a charge were made, and if it could be made to stick ... that would be actionable in law. Public anti-Islamic stances, or statements made attributable from such a motivation, are illegal here.

All that can be done is to question Khan from a purely pragmatic stance, on a case-by-case basis.

[NightTrain]

They'd be afraid, but for good reason. No media outlet could possibly afford to be seen as taking a stance suggestive of outright anti-Islamic 'prejudice'. If such a charge were made, and if it could be made to stick ... that would be actionable in law. Public anti-Islamic stances, or statements made attributable from such a motivation, are illegal here.

All that can be done is to question Khan from a purely pragmatic stance, on a case-by-case basis.

You guys really need to adopt the equivalent of our 1st Amendment for yourselves.

It comes in real handy when you need to call a spade a spade.

[Drummond]

You guys really need to adopt the equivalent of our 1st Amendment for yourselves.

It comes in real handy when you need to call a spade a spade.

That's not exactly likely here ... any law or stricture carrying legal weight, surely couldn't be adopted, without first eradicating any law that would stand in its way ? That kind of action would create civil unrest, I'd think ... if anyone dared try it. Unfortunately, our politicians want votes. Any measure such as that would be a vote loser.

Civil unrest - in these, of all times, is the last thing we need (all you'd need was a crowd of protesters capable of breathing heavily ..).

I'm not even sure it'd work. Opponents would accuse anybody attacking anybody else on grounds having as their origin any form of religion, could be accused of doing so to promote their own, as 'superior' in essence to the one targeted .. which would surely defy the 1st Amendment, if we ever instituted it ourselves, since doesn't that Amendment guarantee parity of religions in the eyes of the law ?

With all due respect, if we ever did come up with our own first Amendment (not likely !) ... we'd have to frame it so that it wasn't open to that sort of challenge.

[NightTrain]

That's not exactly likely here ... any law or stricture carrying legal weight, surely couldn't be adopted, without first eradicating any law that would stand in its way ? That kind of action would create civil unrest, I'd think ... if anyone dared try it. Unfortunately, our politicians want votes. Any measure such as that would be a vote loser.

Civil unrest - in these, of all times, is the last thing we need (all you'd need was a crowd of protesters capable of breathing heavily ..).

I'm not even sure it'd work. Opponents would accuse anybody attacking anybody else on grounds having as their origin any form of religion, could be accused of doing so to promote their own, as 'superior' in essence to the one targeted .. which would surely defy the 1st Amendment, if we ever instituted it ourselves, since doesn't that Amendment guarantee parity of religions in the eyes of the law ?

With all due respect, if we ever did come up with our own first Amendment (not likely !) ... we'd have to frame it so that it wasn't open to that sort of challenge.

Oh, undoubtedly it would render many anti-free speech laws you have on the books invalid.

Honestly, it's such a natural thing for we Americans to say what we think that it's kind of mind boggling that other 'free' nations don't have that basic right.

I mean, there are limits to our Free Speech, such as yelling 'Fire!' in a theater or threatening the President's life or terrorist threats... but calling out the Mayor of London for being a Muslim bent on killing the very infidels he's supposed to be trying to protect would be perfectly legal.

Yeah, it would be a large undertaking for you, but I think it's the right thing to do.

Maybe now that you're free of the EU, you guys can discuss something like that.

[Drummond]

Oh, undoubtedly it would render many anti-free speech laws you have on the books invalid.

Honestly, it's such a natural thing for we Americans to say what we think that it's kind of mind boggling that other 'free' nations don't have that basic right.

I mean, there are limits to our Free Speech, such as yelling 'Fire!' in a theater or threatening the President's life or terrorist threats... but calling out the Mayor of London for being a Muslim bent on killing the very infidels he's supposed to be trying to protect would be perfectly legal.

Yeah, it would be a large undertaking for you, but I think it's the right thing to do.

Maybe now that you're free of the EU, you guys can discuss something like that.

A nice thought. Me, I'd be all in favour of it.

Unfortunately, being shot of the EU and its suffocating control-freakery still doesn't nullify our own laws. We'd still have to go through the process of making the necessary changes. Just trying would undoubtedly create the civil unrest I'm talking about. Just our own, 'home grown' Muslims (i.e those on our territory) would make sure of it (backed by every Leftie out there !).

A pack of aggravated heavy-breathing Muslims descending on peoples' neighbourhoods, is something we don't need right now.

Sadiq Khan wouldn't even need to pitch it on a religious level, anyway (he probably WOULD, for maximum effect ... he just wouldn't have to). All he'd need do is take out a civil action for defamation of character, putting his accuser in the position of proving that Mr Khan's motivations, whether misguided or not, were intentionally harmful, and not just poor judgment.

He wins that case (?) .. he gets a big payout !!

This is the UK. I promise you, we take slander, libel, very seriously here. Sadiq Khan might not only profit from taking his accuser to court, but end up ruining the reputation of the accuser, too. At minimum, our Lefties would villify the accuser in perpetuity.