Bharat Rakshak

What would motivate British neo-Nazi skinheads to invade a public library and beat up a reading group of retired Pakistani immigrants? And what would motivate half a million British citizens to vote for extreme right-wing parties whose rhetoric fuels such behavior? Trilling traces the rise of the radical right in the United Kingdom and condemns establishment figures for not taking it more seriously. Journalists, he argues, should not stoke prejudice against asylum seekers and multicultural policies. Politicians should not denigrate immigrants, tighten borders, or curtail government spending on housing and welfare. He believes that it is the retreat of government, not its failure, that creates an opening for radicals.

But a memoir by Collins, who spent years as a neo-Nazi and is now the director of Searchlight Educational Trust, a British foundation dedicated to fighting racism and fascism at the community level, inadvertently calls into question the idea that officials in the United Kingdom should ring alarm bells about nativist radicalism. In breathless, awkward prose, he recalls spending his teen years consorting with pseudo-intellectual Holocaust deniers, profane Hitler worshipers, and violent psychopaths armed with heavy chains, hobnailed boots, and switchblades. Although the gratuitous violence is shocking, the overwhelming impression is of a bunch of cranky losers in seedy apartments and cheap pubs quarreling over nothing. Perhaps this explains why out of 100,000 local officials in the United Kingdom, only ten belong to extreme right-wing parties, and why no candidate of the extreme right has ever won office at the national level. Such parties have enjoyed success only in elections for the European Parliament, in which protest voters make up a large proportion of the few people who bother to go to the polls. Perhaps the problem, then, is not that the British have let their guard down but that commentators pay too much attention to sensational but marginal elements.

Mr Lucas said that on one occasion Mohammed Karrar heated a hair pin with a lighter and branded the girl with the letter M on her buttock to show she belonged to him.

"If she had the courage to resist, he beat her. He branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew it."

The court heard Mr Karrar would charge men between £400 and £600 to use the girl.

Another 14-year-old girl was burned with a lighter and threatened if she refused to have sex with men, the court heard.

The court has previously heard the group of men deliberately targeted vulnerable young girls with troubled upbringings which made it less likely anyone would be looking out for them.

The defendants are:

Kamar Jamil, 27, of Aldwych Road, Oxford
Akhtar Dogar, 32, of Tawney Street, Oxford; and his brother Anjum Dogar, 30, of Tawney Street, Oxford
Assad Hussain, 32, of Ashurst Way, Oxford
Mohammed Karrar, 38, of Kames Close, Oxford; and his brother Bassam Karrar, 33, of Hundred Acres Close, Oxford
Mohammed Hussain, 24, of Horspath Road, Oxford
Zeeshan Ahmed, 27, of Palmer Road, Oxford
Bilal Ahmed, 26, of Suffolk Road, Maidenhead

abhishek_sharma wrote:Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right; Hate: My Life in the British Far Right

What would motivate British neo-Nazi skinheads to invade a public library and beat up a reading group of retired Pakistani immigrants? And what would motivate half a million British citizens to vote for extreme right-wing parties whose rhetoric fuels such behavior? Trilling traces the rise of the radical right in the United Kingdom and condemns establishment figures for not taking it more seriously. Journalists, he argues, should not stoke prejudice against asylum seekers and multicultural policies. Politicians should not denigrate immigrants, tighten borders, or curtail government spending on housing and welfare. He believes that it is the retreat of government, not its failure, that creates an opening for radicals.

Lisa wrote: I think that you have to put this in perspective. In the UK in 2001, 8.3% of
the population was foreign born. Add to this UK born children of immigrants
the total would comfortably exceed 10-11% of total population. Remember
this was 2001, we are in 2013.

If compared to India, this would translate into a population of not less than
120-132 million immigrants including their children. In absolute terms
imagine absorbing the population of Bangladesh in its entrety.Can you
picture an India with such a population and the associated ramifications?

Just out of curiosity, what proportion of India's population is foreign born?
Anybody know?

Philip wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... itary.html

US general says Britain risks 'special relationship' if it cuts military
Britain will be shut out of key decisions in the 'Special Relationship' with the US if it does not maintain credible military capabilities, Stanley McChrystal, America's former top commander in Afghanistan has warned.

The high price of detergent

Between now and 2016, Britain must decide whether to replace the four submarines which carry nuclear-tipped Trident II missiles with a like-for-like replacement. The capital cost of replacing the four existing boats, which are ending their service lives, will be £25bn. The construction programme will consume at least one-third of the Ministry of Defence’s equipment budget after 2020.

Given such costs, Britain’s nuclear deterrent will be the subject of heated arguments this year. While the government is ultimately likely to approve the full project, it must make its case in the face of a growing chorus of politicians and analysts who are considering whether the country should go for cheaper alternatives, such as submarines armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Some are asking whether Britain and France should work jointly on a nuclear deterrent rather than pour money into separate, parallel programmes. A few well-known public figures question the sense of the UK having nuclear weapons at all. “I think [the UK nuclear arsenal] is completely past its sell-by date,” says Michael Portillo, defence secretary in a previous Conservative government. “It is neither independent, nor is it any kind of deterrent because we face enemies like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. It is a tremendous waste of money and is done entirely for reasons of national prestige.”

“The British debate is being followed here [in th US]. If the UK Trident programme sucks up so much money that the British military is denuded of expeditionary capabilities that are far more likely to be used than nuclear weapons, the US military will not be happy about that,” Mr Pifer says.

In Britain, however, the pressure on defence spending appears especially acute. The number of regular soldiers in the British Army has been slashed from 102,000 in 2010 to 82,000, its lowest level since the Napoleonic wars. The Royal Navy will have no aircraft carriers or fixed-wing aircraft for the next six years at least.

The cuts could bite deeper. George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor, indicated last year that public spending cuts will go on until at least 2018. That will put new pressure on defence spending, raising more questions about how and whether the UK can continue to act as a power with global ambitions.

He [Michael Portillo] believes the notion that the UK’s deterrent is independent is a myth. “We couldn’t conceivably use our nuclear weapons without US permission. Can anyone imagine us nuking North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan without US agreement? Of course, if there were any firing to do the USA would do it.”

Despite these arguments, most experts predict that the UK will stick to a full replacement of Trident, even if that could put pressure on other defence projects. The Labour party was committed to unilateral disarmament in the early 1980s. But since the era of Tony Blair, the prime minister from 1997 to 2007, the party has resisted any calls to compromise on issues of defence. All three main political parties are committed to nuclear disarmament solely through a process of multilateral negotiation. If the US and Russia – which have 95 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons – make further deep cuts in their arsenals, then Britain, along with other states, will continue to follow suit. Otherwise, any adjustment to Britain’s nuclear posture is likely to be limited.

As a result, even if Britain is now confronted with a decision that will define strategy for the next half-century, there are limits to how far the argument will go. “The debate is pointless because no government will change the position,” says Mr Portillo. “I reached the view after I was defence secretary. We maintain the capability partly for industrial and employment reasons, and mainly for prestige. In my view, thinking has not caught up with the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Surya wrote:here is one reference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/18/lukeharding

here is another

http://www.firstpost.com/business/repub ... 21982.html

India bought 21 Westland 30s in 1985 after Margaret Thatcher persuaded Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister, to ignore the advice of his aviation experts, who were against the sale. The money came out of Britain's aid budget and was given to India on condition it bought the helicopters.

The 14-seater Westland 30s proved to be highly unreliable and a commercial disaster. Soon after their arrival in India in 1987 two crashed - one in the north Indian state of Jammu, and another in Nagaland killing 10 people. They proved to be unsuited to the tropical climate, needed constant servicing and repairs, and were flown only sporadically.

In 1991 the helicopters were withdrawn from service on safety grounds. Two years later, after obtaining permission from the British government under the original 1985 "sale" agreement, Pawan Hans invited global tenders for the Westland 30s. But no one wanted to pay the £1.9m reserve price. Eventually AES Aerospace emerged as sole bidder. So far it has paid £450,000, half the sale price.

Since the helicopters' purchase price was paid for using British aid, the Indian government is obliged to return the £900,000 to the UK's department for international development.

abhishek_sharma wrote:

Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right; Hate: My Life in the British Far Right

..

vishvak wrote: Can not the Govt. of UK stop this racist misuse of Hindu swastik as an excuse for nefarious activities and make these bald people and other hateful people from UK use symbolism from their own Christian religion?

RajeshA wrote:This whole stuff about banning the use of Swastika and all that is really going about it the wrong way.

What British Hindus should do is use huge banners of Swastikas in any processions through British streets and in their festivals. First make the Swastika your own! And then ridicule the Neo-Nazis that they are trying to be Hindus when the use the symbol!

sanjaykumar wrote:That is the nature of academic debate; that is, every finding poses another problem. It is known that jade was imported from China and there is no logical reason to not question whether silk could also have been. Although it is not defeinitevely established that Chinese silk was contemporaneous with Indus Valley product. Thus China could conceivably have obtained the technology from India.


Why does an Indian not do a mass spectrum analysis of this silk, a stochastic analysis of the protein sequence? Or look for preserved DNA to do a sequence comparison. My prediction is that they can not be bothered.


The world does not see itself as owing India anything, Indians need to make their own claims on solid foundations.

RajeshA wrote:This whole stuff about banning the use of Swastika and all that is really going about it the wrong way.

What British Hindus should do is use huge banners of Swastikas in any processions through British streets and in their festivals. First make the Swastika your own! And then ridicule the Neo-Nazis that they are trying to be Hindus when the use the symbol!