Petty revenge?

The saying used to go “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” but it equally seems to apply too ousted district council members too. Council leader Fred Brown ex of East Cambridgeshire District Council was ousted in the last local elections for what he claimed were the budget deficits and cut-backs in which he ultimately paid the price for the difficult decisions made by the ruling Conservative group. Of course it might just have been the fact that he had awarded himself a huge pay increase soon after arriving in office in May 2009 and people have long memories when it comes to that sort of thing.

Still what better way to put the boot into your locals than to propose this…

Ely Weekly News.

Ousted council leader Fred Brown wants to help Ely Muslims build a miniature mosque, the Weekly News can reveal.
The former leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council, right, says he has a property in central Littleport which would be “ideal” for Muslims to convert into a prayer centre.
Mr Brown, who lives in Littleport and owns several properties in the village, says he wants to meet up with the group and show them around the building.
Speaking to the Weekly News, Mr Brown, who lost his seat during the elections in May, said: “I want to get in touch with the Ely Muslims and have a chat with them.
It was earlier this year that the Ely Muslims, who currently meet each week at the Paradise Centre in Ely, announced that they wanted to build a miniature mosque in the city.
The management committee of the Paradise Centre had told the group that they would lease them an area of their sports fields, close to the junction with New Barns Road and Deacons Lane, to build the facility if they gained planning permission.
However, the discussions have been put on hold following uproar from many locals, who insist the Muslims should not be allowed to build a new prayer centre.
Since then the debate has intensified with more and more people speaking their minds over the proposals.
The English Defence League (EDL) has even threatened to protest in the city if the plans come into fruition.

Now, it’s his land and he can do what he wants with it so long as he isn’t breaking any laws, however I suspect that this is either an attempt to offload a badly performing business property he owns or a way to stick two fingers up to the people who decided that they didn’t want him to represent them any more. Judging by Mr Brown’s history it’s a possibility of both being the case. Fact is, despite the attempts by media, government, other (foolish) religious types, socialists and bleeding heart liberals, Muslims are about as welcome as pork pies at Jewish weddings in most communities these days. Although they may appear to blend in at first, as soon as their numbers reach a certain critical mass then they start to “demand” that things go their way and once the first domino falls it just carries on until you end up with some form of ghetto filled with Muslims who don’t integrate and who live separate lives to the rest of the community including the usual homophobia, misogyny and religious intolerance that characterises that totalitarian, fascist ideology.

As a way of sticking two fingers up at your community, I can’t think of anything better really, well not with any hope of getting planning permission.

I doubt Mr Brown will be standing for election again…

6 comments for “Petty revenge?

  1. September 24, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Ultimately, though, that it’s his gaff, and he can do what he wants with it, nails it really.

  2. DaveP
    September 24, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    I have no faith in the so-called moderate Muslims. The distinction is meaningless for all practical purposes. It is the number that counts. Once Muslims are a near majority, they will declare it to be a Muslim area, and enforce sharia, either illegally if they don’t have the numbers across the nation, or legally if they have the numbers. In either case, the distinction between the radicals and moderates is meaningless.

    Faith is one thing, but to stake the existence of the nation on a good feeling is insane.

  3. nisakiman
    September 24, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    Longrider has the right of it. Like it or loathe it, petty vengeance or whatever, if that’s what the guy wants to do, then that’s his right. If you support freedom of choice, you can’t be selective about it.

  4. Edgar
    September 24, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Exemplifies perfectly what is wrong with the idea that private individuals can ‘own’ land.

  5. john in cheshire
    September 25, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    nisakiman, I would suggest that yes, you can be selective when an option will result in the destruction of something that is worth keeping. There is no equivalence in islam; they want everything and will give nothing in return because they don’t believe they have to. We are totally wrong and they are totally right. If we give in to them then we are only acknowledging the validity of their claims. Some stupid Scandinavian politician said something recently along the lines of : we had better be nice to the muslims while we are in the majority, because soon they will be in the majority and we want them to be nice to us. Well, if that’s perverted logic I don’t know what is. When you are more powerful than your enemy, it is wise to keep it that way, and not allow him to overpower and defeat you. All demands from muslims should be resisted, without exception.

  6. nisakiman
    September 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    john in cheshire, I essentially agree with all you say regarding the doctrinaire and unrelenting aspects of Islam – I came to the same conclusions forty years ago, having travelled fairly extensively in Muslim countries. (And I would make the point that when I first embarked on my travels, I had no knowledge nor preconceived notions of Islam – my opinions were formed by my personal experiences.) I an also loath to extend any further succour to those who would establish a Caliphate to dominate us. But Edgar’s comment (which I don’t agree with) notwithstanding, if the property is owned by this guy, then what he proposes to do with it is his affair, and as per Voltaire, I defend his right to dispose of his assets as he sees fit. However, there are more ways than one to skin a cat. Do his proposals conform to local planning law? Can the local residents oppose the change of use? Would a Molotov Cocktail through the letterbox solve the problem?

    The point I’m making is that regardless of his intentions (and Islam is not, remember, illegal), this guy has property rights, which, like freedom of speech, must be defended. If we accede to demands that government can dictate what he can and can’t do with his own private property, then we admit defeat on the property rights of pub owners who are forced to ban smoking on their premises; a totalitarian diktat if ever there was one.

Comments are closed.