London Mayor Asked About 400 Jihadis Still In London. His Answer Is A Disaster.

[Chris_Michael]

First of all, thank you Sargon of Akkad for doing the research for me. I heard about this through his video This Week in Stupid (11/6/2017)

I'm really just reiterating Sargon's points here, but talk about hypocrisy. Mayor of London says they cannot afford to keep an eye on 400 Syrian BATTLE TRAINED SOLDIERS... but they put 1.7 Million funny dollar sign looking things into TWITTER.

If that's the case, I would like all the people who are harassing me by not agreeing with me put in prison because they hurt my fee-fees. And since London can find those people, I'd like it to happen sometime soon because I have a hot date tonight with my left hand.

Source: Daily Wire

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is convinced London is "the safest global city in the world."

Yes, that would be the city where seven innocents were murdered in cold blood at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists with backgrounds filled with glaring red flags, including an appearance on the British documentary The Jihadis Next Door — and no, that's not hyperbole.

Speaking with Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, London's first Muslim mayor struggled to give coherent answers pertaining to the safety of his city from radical Islamic terrorists.

Morgan specifically asked Khan what London was doing about the reported 400 jihadis who have taken up arms, actually fought for the Islamic State, then journeyed back to city.

"I can't follow 400 people," answered Khan, before listing budget cuts as a rationale for these potential killers to be on the loose, unfollowed.

"What could be a bigger priority than people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens?" Morgan pressed. "Why is it not the number one priority? Why are these people just allowed to come back in in the first place, and then the London mayor doesn't appear to have a clue to where any of them are? No disrespect to you, but where are they?"

Khan: "That's one of the questions that, obviously, police —" "

But you're the mayor!" interrupts an irate Morgan.

Alright, so there's that. Now, let's look at this.

Sadiq Khan launches London online hate crime hub

Source: BBC

A police unit to help tackle online hate crime and provide better support for victims in London has been launched by the capital's mayor.

The Online Hate Crime Hub is made up of five specially trained Met police officers who will try to identify, prevent and investigate online abuse.

Sadiq Khan said officers would "work with community experts to develop the police's understanding of online hate".

It is the first hub of its kind in the UK and will cost £1.7m over two years.

It is being funded by the Met and the Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC), with £452,000 also being contributed by the Home Office Police Innovation Fund.

Any online hate crimes reported to police in the capital, including abuse posted on Twitter and Facebook, will be looked into by the unit.

Officers will provide referrals to victim support groups and work with police in relevant boroughs to investigate.

City Hall said discussions were also under way with social media companies "to develop appropriate online sanctions for perpetrators of online hate".

Victoria Wright, a disability and disfigurement rights campaigner in London, who has been subjected to online abuse, called the hub "a much needed initiative that will make a real difference".

"It's vital that those of us who are victims of online hate crime receive a robust response from the police," she said.

 

[oggbashan]

Again - The London Mayor does not have responsibility for Policing or anti-terror activities. Piers Morgan knows that.

What he has done is pledge money from his personal budget to an initiative to reduce hate crime and that includes terrorism. The Metropolitan Police (NOT controlled by London's Mayor) is doing it.

He is helping those whose responsibility it is. What is wrong with that? As a prominent Muslim, associating himself with the activities against extremists carries weight in Muslim communities.

And yes, he is right. London is still a safe city despite the recent attacks. It is much safer than (list a number of US cities here)...

 

[Wrong Element]

And yes, he is right. London is still a safe city despite the recent attacks. It is much safer than (list a number of US cities here)...

Might as well just list them all.

Why do people assume that the mayor of London has control over British immigration policy? It's almost as if there's some hidden reason why his name keeps coming up ...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Again - The London Mayor does not have responsibility for Policing or anti-terror activities. Piers Morgan knows that.

What he has done is pledge money from his personal budget to an initiative to reduce hate crime and that includes terrorism. The Metropolitan Police (NOT controlled by London's Mayor) is doing it.

He is helping those whose responsibility it is. What is wrong with that? As a prominent Muslim, associating himself with the activities against extremists carries weight in Muslim communities.

And yes, he is right. London is still a safe city despite the recent attacks. It is much safer than (list a number of US cities here)...

Besides that, he has more important things to do: http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/06/mayor-sadiq-khan-and-sharia-law/

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/sadiq-khan-obama-moving-create-new-internet-sharia-law/

If he succeeds in instituting Sharia Law, I wonder if that would require all the tall buildings to be razed so there is no structure taller than the mosques in London.

He used to represent a district named Tooting, which is an American slang word meaning the same as "farting."

 

[HisArpy]

Again - The London Mayor does not have responsibility for Policing or anti-terror activities. Piers Morgan knows that.

What he has done is pledge money from his personal budget to an initiative to reduce hate crime and that includes terrorism. The Metropolitan Police (NOT controlled by London's Mayor) is doing it.

He is helping those whose responsibility it is. What is wrong with that? As a prominent Muslim, associating himself with the activities against extremists carries weight in Muslim communities.

And yes, he is right. London is still a safe city despite the recent attacks. It is much safer than (list a number of US cities here)...

You do realize don't you that there are a lot of metro's in the USA which have NEVER HAD a terrorist attack?

 

[DeYaKen]

He used to represent a district named Tooting, which is an American slang word meaning the same as "farting."

The rest of your post Ian' t worthy of comment but this was mildly amusing. You must, of course, be aware that in Britain Trump is slang for a fart.

 

[DeYaKen]

You do realize don't you that there are a lot of metro's in the USA which have NEVER HAD a terrorist attack?

You do realise don't you that the US is hundred of times larger than Britain. It's population is five times greater and Brits have never sponsored terrorism in your country. We have also never given shelter to terrorists from your country. That being the case what you say is hardly surprising. What may be surprising to you is that there are plenty of cities in Britain that have NEVER experienced a terrorist attack.

 

[about_average]

You do realize don't you that there are a lot of metro's in the USA which have NEVER HAD a terrorist attack?

How many of those cities are global cities referred to by Khan?
What's the murder rate in those cities vs London?

Overall the murder rate in the UK is is less than one per 100,000. In the US it's nearly over 4.75 per 100,000.

 

[DeYaKen]

How many of those cities are global cities referred to by Khan?
What's the murder rate in those cities vs London?

Overall the murder rate in the UK is is less than one per 100,000. In the US it's nearly over 4.75 per 100,000.

Which makes Khan's point. London IS one of the safest Cities in the world. Bristol is even safer. However, I plead with you not to tell the Trumpster that. He is already having second thoughts about coming for his State visit. To be honest the money that visit would cost would be far better spent housing the homeless from Grenfell tower.

 

[phrodeau]

The rest of your post Ian' t worthy of comment but this was mildly amusing. You must, of course, be aware that in Britain Trump is slang for a fart.

Sure it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVWMZwALKyA

 

[HisArpy]

How many of those cities are global cities referred to by Khan?
What's the murder rate in those cities vs London?

Overall the murder rate in the UK is is less than one per 100,000. In the US it's nearly over 4.75 per 100,000.

Ah, so we hide behind overall statistics when discussing London vs. other global cities?

London's total murder count in 2015 was 118.
Denver's total murder count in 2015 was 52.
San Francisco = 52.
Salt Lake City = 73.


These are LESS THAN the London total for "global cities".

Yes, we have cities like Chicago which are much higher. And we have cities which had a spike in 2015 (like Washington DC which went from 105 to 162 and then back down again in 2016) but the running rate for MOST global US cities tends to be LOWER than for London. And we don't have terrorist attacks every other week.

You know why? Because HERE our police and security forces tend to catch them before they do that stuff. Because HERE, we don't mollycoddle them in the name of liberalism.

The UK might want to think about preventing terrorism rather than explaining it after the dead have been bagged and tagged.

 

[phrodeau]

Ah, so we hide behind overall statistics when discussing London vs. other global cities?

London's total murder count in 2015 was 118.
Denver's total murder count in 2015 was 52.
San Francisco = 52.
Salt Lake City = 73.


These are LESS THAN the London total for "global cities".

Yes, we have cities like Chicago which are much higher. And we have cities which had a spike in 2015 (like Washington DC which went from 105 to 162 and then back down again in 2016) but the running rate for MOST global US cities tends to be LOWER than for London. And we don't have terrorist attacks every other week.

You know why? Because HERE our police and security forces tend to catch them before they do that stuff. Because HERE, we don't mollycoddle them in the name of liberalism.

The UK might want to think about preventing terrorism rather than explaining it after the dead have been bagged and tagged.

Obama's extreme vetting worked pretty well.

 

[DeYaKen]

Ah, so we hide behind overall statistics when discussing London vs. other global cities?

London's total murder count in 2015 was 118.
Denver's total murder count in 2015 was 52.
San Francisco = 52.
Salt Lake City = 73.


These are LESS THAN the London total for "global cities".

Yes, we have cities like Chicago which are much higher. And we have cities which had a spike in 2015 (like Washington DC which went from 105 to 162 and then back down again in 2016) but the running rate for MOST global US cities tends to be LOWER than for London. And we don't have terrorist attacks every other week.

You know why? Because HERE our police and security forces tend to catch them before they do that stuff. Because HERE, we don't mollycoddle them in the name of liberalism.

The UK might want to think about preventing terrorism rather than explaining it after the dead have been bagged and tagged.

I'm sure that everyone understands that before we can make sense of your figures we have to balance them against the population of the cities. It's pretty obvious that the more people in a city, the more murderers there will be. So let's adjust your raw data for populations of the said cities.

Population of Denver 3,418,876, Population of London 8.600,000 Murders per 100,000 in Denver 1.52 Murders per 100,000 in London 1.37 murders per 100,000. (London 1.11 times safer.)

Population of San Francisco 874,000 Population of London 8,600,000. Murders per 100,000 in San Francisco 5.94 Murders per 100,000 in London 1.37 (London 4.3 times safer)

Population of Salt Lake City 193,794 Population of London 8,600,000. Murders per 100,000 in Salt Lake City 37.62 Murders per 100,000 in London 1.52 (London is 27.5 times safer)

If you are going to use statistics at least learn how to use them properly. However, I have to thank you. Without you data, I would never have guessed that London was almost 28 times safer than Salt Lake City. Perhaps that is something London should use in its promotional material.

It would seem that in the US the bodies are bagged and tagged and no one wants to hear an explanation let alone do anything about it.

 

[about_average]

Ah, so we hide behind overall statistics when discussing London vs. other global cities?

London's total murder count in 2015 was 118.
Denver's total murder count in 2015 was 52.
San Francisco = 52.
Salt Lake City = 73.


These are LESS THAN the London total for "global cities".

I wasn't "hiding" behind overall statistics, I was just too lazy to look up individual cities. I figured someone like you would try to prove me wrong and make it easy for someone in turn to prove you wrong.
And I was right.

But I do admire your ability to just use actual numbers of murders to make Denver (“a competitive middleweight” global city) look safer than London, rather than more accurate ratio.

Oh, and BTW, Kahn never said London had fewer terrorist caused deaths, he just said it was still safer in spite of the them.

 

[HisArpy]

If you are going to use statistics at least learn how to use them properly.

*shrug* I'm not a math wizard. I just report the data I find. What that data tells me is that there are GLOBAL CITIES in the US which have a lower homicide number than London. That was the criteria I searched for. Any manipulation of the raw data is not my deal.

If required to do so, I would rather live in a "Global City" with 52 homicides than one with 118. YMMV.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, and BTW, Kahn never said London had fewer terrorist caused deaths, he just said it was still safer in spite of the them.

For now. Who knows what tomorrow brings. In my opinion the odds for increased violence and crime are better when you welcome the violent criminal element into your neighborhood.

My hope is that the UK wakes up before it gets to that point. Brexit was hopefully the beginning of that wakefulness.

 

[DeYaKen]

*shrug* I'm not a math wizard. I just report the data I find. What that data tells me is that there are GLOBAL CITIES in the US which have a lower homicide number than London. That was the criteria I searched for. Any manipulation of the raw data is not my deal.

If required to do so, I would rather live in a "Global City" with 52 homicides than one with 118. YMMV.

In that case, live in the smallest city you can find. St Andrews would probably suit you fine.

 

[DeYaKen]

For now. Who knows what tomorrow brings. In my opinion the odds for increased violence and crime are better when you welcome the violent criminal element into your neighborhood.

My hope is that the UK wakes up before it gets to that point. Brexit was hopefully the beginning of that wakefulness.

If you are hoping that we batten down the hatches and take an isolationist stance like that of Mr Trump, you will wait a long time. Britain is a very small nation, with a very small home market. We have always had to depend on open links with other countries. The days of imposing our will on countries by sending a gunboat are long since gone.

We have followed the US example of cutting back on education, so now we have to import a lot of our skilled people from other countries. All the time business wants the skills we will continue to let people in. We could train our own but the public has consistently voted for governments that don't want to educate our own people to the necessary standard.

Brexit will make little difference to terrorism. The terrorists we have don't come from the EU and it is only EU immigration that is affected by Brexit. In fact, the Manchester Bombing was the first act we've had where the attacker wasn't home grown.

 

[about_average]

*shrug* I'm not a math wizard. I just report the data I find. What that data tells me is that there are GLOBAL CITIES in the US which have a lower homicide number than London. That was the criteria I searched for. Any manipulation of the raw data is not my deal.

If required to do so, I would rather live in a "Global City" with 52 homicides than one with 118. YMMV.

That would explain why you'd rather live in a city where you have a significantly greater chance of being murdered.

 

[Hard_Rom]

For now. Who knows what tomorrow brings. In my opinion the odds for increased violence and crime are better when you welcome the violent criminal element into your neighborhood.

My hope is that the UK wakes up before it gets to that point. Brexit was hopefully the beginning of that wakefulness.

They should most definitely exclude white-supremacist groups, neo-Nazis and outlaw biker clubs. All known to have a heavy hand in the drug trade such as meth-amphetamines and such. And the mob too. They smuggle it in and the bikers distribute them to low level street gangs. Low level street gangs do not usually get involved with importation. They don't have the international connections.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They should most definitely exclude white-supremacist groups, neo-Nazis and outlaw biker clubs. All known to have a heavy hand in the drug trade such as meth-amphetamines and such. And the mob too. They smuggle it in and the bikers distribute them to low level street gangs. Low level street gangs do not usually get involved with importation. They don't have the international connections.

Most nations try to avoid letting in known criminals such as those you describe. However, there are many potential criminals who get let in. In the USA, the courts have overturned laws that are intended to prevent this.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In that case, live in the smallest city you can find. St Andrews would probably suit you fine.

The size of the city doesn't mean that much. Some (relatively) small cities, such as this one, have very high crime rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton,_California#Crime

Other factors, such as high unemployment and prevalence of drugs have more of an effect.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Liberals are cool with terrorism because it's highly unlikely to happen to them. I bet the dead victims of those bombings disagree.

Liberals also like to conveniently forget about the absurd and extreme conservatism of Islam, which is worse than all hate groups put together, and they beat/cover their women, kill gays/trans, and kill any non believers.

It's really easy to sit in a country not majority Muslim and talk shit because you have rights. Try doing it in the Middle East and you probably have your own head handed to you on a silver platter, and it wont be considered a terrorist attack.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Liberals are cool with terrorism because it's highly unlikely to happen to them. I bet the dead victims of those bombings disagree.

Liberals also like to conveniently forget about the absurd and extreme conservatism of Islam, which is worse than all hate groups put together, and they beat/cover their women, kill gays/trans, and kill any non believers.

It's really easy to sit in a country not majority Muslim and talk shit because you have rights. Try doing it in the Middle East and you probably have your own head handed to you on a silver platter, and it wont be considered a terrorist attack.

I have never been able to figure out why Liberals are so pro-Muslim. Even non-terrorists are extremely rigid toward anybody who does not agree with them. It is probably the most repressive major religion in history. Christianity was pretty bad at one time, but that was long ago, and I am referring to here and now.

 

[Chris_Michael]

I have never been able to figure out why Liberals are so pro-Muslim. Even non-terrorists are extremely rigid toward anybody who does not agree with them. It is probably the most repressive major religion in history. Christianity was pretty bad at one time, but that was long ago, and I am referring to here and now.

Yep, I can argue with Christians all I want without having to worry about my head being cut off. Liberals can talk all the shit they want without having to worry about their heads being cut off.

Put those same Liberals in a Muslim country and I bet you anything they won't say a fuckin' word. hahaha All these people will just sit there, nodding, and agreeing no matter how badly they want to fight it.

That's really all there is to say about Liberals. They love to use their free speech for stupidity and we all know they would either be dead or slaves if they actually got what they really wanted in society.