In the name of Islam

But does that explain why some of those go "radical"?

And if some burn Morden mosque down. What good is that going to do for diplomatic relations both here and abroad and across the globe. Surely not the way to go. Too broad brush in approach and certainly not the act of a civilised society.

And if we in the UK start pulling stunts like that who amongst us will want to fly Etihad, Emirates or Saudi Airlines to Manila in the future? I am sure we can expect the hospitality to be ramped up reciprocally when we leave our shores. Any guys looking to visit the Philippines after a mosque goes up in the UK might want to stick with KLM.

And if I were this British guy in the UK when he was 16, I would be a bit brassed off about Britain, to say the least:

http://maajidnawaz.com/

Why should non-military options be available? That defeats part of the object of the exercise. I do agree with you that it would be economically difficult and taxation would have to be increased topay for it. Nevertheless, the long term benefits of such a policy would be a good offset although probably not measurable in strict economic terms. But I can see an objection being raised by our European "partners" who might not wish there to be a standing army on their doorstep of (possibly) 2 million after the fourth year following introduction.

Forget EDL, they're totally unelectable and are simply a pressure group. Right now we do not have any political party that could aspire to government were a General Election to be called this year. The best that could be hoped for is another coalition and that would not be good.

UKIP's 2010 manifesto is pretty comprehensive and some parts of it are actually quite sensible. The Tories should under no circumstances underestimate UKIP's draw and dismiss them as simply "swivel-eyed loons". UKIP will take Tory votes at the next election and possibly Tory seats.

Whilst that is true, immigration has really only become an issue following the accession of the first batch of eastern European states into the EU. The UK is a soft touch and only the UK can a Frenchman get unlimited NHS treatment for as long as he chooses to live there - and without making a single contribution. But an Englishman wishing to live in France won't be anything like as lucky: he will get fairly basic cover for one year and then he must purchase mandatory insurance cover from one of three (French) providers. For an average family of four, that's at least 10,000 Euros a year.

The NHS will have to become partially co-pay if it is to survive - elective procedures would not be covered 100%. The State Pension is no longer a tenable undertaking and will disappear within a few years - at the very least the retirement age will have to be raised to 75 or so for both men and women. But the problem with that is that because folk will have to work until much later in life, there'll be fewer jobs available for school leavers.

Governments haven't helped but I put this down to that section of the population that believes in an entitlement society, is lazy and greedy.

So do I. And it is sensible but firm and thorough policies that ought to be used to address the mess.

Help For Heros reject any financial donations from the EDL (sponsored walk across London).

Quite an interesting chap.....

[video=youtube;eQpYCTeKbOY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eQpYCTeKbOY[/video]

I wonder which way his vote will go in the devolution referendum?

But not from this coalition government, I fear. Clegg will veto anything that is "firm" - viz the Communications Bill. Britain needs a strong one-party government - with a huge majority to give it credibility - in order to make effective changes.

Ah. But labour may go with it all the same...

I've got Sky News on here in my office at work (alternative is Al Jazeera in Arabic, and my arabic isn't that good...) and the scenes of the EDL in the UK is horrific. These people are just angry thugs looking for a fight and riot with anyone they can find.... How can they be taken seriously like this.

A strong one party government to effectively make the wrong changes. Not sure that is the best form of government....thats what has got us into a mess over the years.

A selling point for the first past the post system. But not a good one.

I believe it will be another coalition next time around. The stronger the better.

This is so true. And a great reason not to even come close to aligning ourselves with their ideologies.

Imagine if they do succesfully burn down a mosque here in the UK, for example the one in Morden. Imagine the negative spin off from that.

Indeed a number of Labour MPs may very well support this Bill but the problem is that Clegg - Cameron's coalition partner - has vetoed it. I think Cameron would need to be assured that the Bill would have sufficient support from Labour, UDP and independents before he would risk breaking-up the coalition and driving the Bill through with a minority government.

That in itself would be fraught with problems not least of which could be Cameron having to defend a sudden Motion of No Confidence from the Lib-Dems which he is bound to lose. And that would trigger a General Election, of course.

No disrespect to our card-carrying Lib-Dem supporters but it is clear that Clegg is the "****** in the woodpile" by seeking to veto or water-down effective legislation to make the UK a safer and more cohesive place.

Either a strong Labour or strong Tory government is only strong in the sense that it will enable each of them to pass whatever is important to their party. A strong coalition will pass whatever is needed by the country as a whole.

Yes. Keeping the lid on all of this ain't easy. And it is important that we conduct ourselves appropriately in the UK for that very reason.

What has got us into this mess is that all governments have been far too accepting of political correctness and taking it to extremes. Successive governments have granted political asylum to a number of these hate preachers with the result that the present government is powerless to do anything about them.

As I've commented before, no major party is electable on its own so there will undoubtedly be a coalition next time. I rather think that the Lib-Dems will not be "king-makers" again, indeed they may not have too many MPs. If UKIP does exceptionally well - as widely speculated they will - at next year's European Parliament elections, it could translate that success at the national elections in 2015. It may even be a suitable coalition partner for the Tories. Since both parties are to the right of centre, such a coalition would work and be strong.

The alternative - a Labour-Lib-Dem coalition would work in theory - as both parties are to the left of centre - but is unlikely. Remember that Clegg did talk with Brown in 2010 with a view to coalition but there was no common ground. Even the Lib-Lab pact was short-lived and ineffective.

I agree, Dom, and there's a possibility that we are already seeing that. I read that some war memorials have been defaced, including one for animals, and there's speculation that EDL were involved in that with the aim of stoking anti-Muslim sentiments. This government needs to tackle extremists regardless of their creed and political persuasion.

Then we should be able to agree that the present coalition government is not a strong one! Unless coalitions are formed between parties of similar ideologies, "strong coalition" is an oxymoron.

I would not be at all surprised if there's a General Election before the year's end.

It depends on what you mean by strong.

I don't want to see a "strong" conservative government as it will simply ride roughshod all over the vulnerable and poor in this country. That is isnt strong. Thats one sided.