RuamRudy

1 small correction - they didn't leave 'like' thieves. They were thieves. The British empire became so rich because of thievery and exploitation.

If you want to place your hopes on a council by-election which got a 25% turnout then by all means go for it. Whilst the pervasive creep of Farage's lies and racism is undoubtedly attractive to some, I am confident that the decent majority will continue to show him and Reform PLC the contempt they deserve.

Care to elaborate?

He's not the messiah; he's a very naughty boy (mortgage fraud, beating up women and police etc...)

Just like yourself.

No, that's why I wrote 'I assume'. But if you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to post it because your argument thus far is not persuasive.

Appears to be a 2 horse race according to Tice. Hamilton by-election a two-horse race between SNP and Reform, claims Tice https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/richard-tice-reform-hamilton-scotland-holyrood-b1228332.html

I have no idea. Maybe the same as how Scottish and Irish immigrants to England were treated? Regardless, I still would assume much they all fared much better then darker skinned immigrants.

Although, to be fair, immigrants tended to get a much harder time than white people in the UK.

Not a bad move by Yousaf. Farage is widely despised in Scotland. We see him for what he is.

Has anyone mentioned Larkin yet? https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse This Be The Verse By Philip Larkin They <deleted> you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. But they were <deleted> up in their turn By fools in old-style hats and coats, Who half the time were soppy-stern And half at one another’s throats. Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can, And don’t have any kids yourself.

And that's relevant to this thread because... why?

There are 195 countries in the world. Homosexuality is illegal in 64 - that's not a majority. Religion? Why should people live their lives according to ancient fairy stories? Have you canvased all residents of the cities you mentioned to confirm that the events are widely hated? You were scandalised the first time but you were still compelled to go back a second time? The sounds like the basis of a joke...

I am giving you a simple example of where the law provides positive discrimination for a minority. Your initial statement asked why minority groups should have special arrangements made for them under the law and I have explained to you that minority groups have long had special arrangements made for them. It is not a new situation you are getting worked up about.

But English Law says different.

What is normal? In this case, homosexuality is a deviation from the statistical norm so it could be defined as being abnormal, but the same could be said about ginger haired people or left handed people. Do you harbour an irrational hatred of left handers too?

Certain groups already have different rights. Practicing Sikhs who ride motorbikes, for example, don't need to wear helmets. The notion that we are all subject to the same rules is a nonsense.

Television doesn't have an agenda to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality so your retort fails even the most basic of common sense tests.

So if it what you saw wasn't sufficiently potent to turn you gay, why does TV have anything to answer for? Or is it that you are made of sterner stuff than most other guys?

So is Khan; he was born in Tooting.

It's a long time since I read a post as disturbing as yours.

Good to see common sense prevail in Romania. It was looking concerning for some time, but the decent majority came together to keep out a kremlin backed puppet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk2xxzxkzxo

It looks like the total electorate is hard to pin down - 245 million according to this site: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election But despite both of us being incorrect, I was much further away from that number than you were. The number we a both in agreement about, however, is the 77.3 million who voted for Trump. So the picture is actually even less impressive than I had erroneously suggested - he didn't even get a third of the electorate to back him.

Which numbers did I make up?

Thanks for the link because context is everything. Far be it from me to suggest that the OP is being manipulative with the actualite, but I think this would have added much needed background to the issue: "A large number of Afghans, who collaborated with the British forces during the occupation of their country, fled to neighboring states for international refuge after the Taliban swept back to power two years ago."