Chomper Higgot

I’ll be polite. Desist from assigning views/arguments to me that I myself have never expressed. Now jog on.

If I had meant to say ‘only young people will be effected’ that’s what I would have said. I didn’t. When you imagine views I have not myself expressed, attribute those views to me and then argue with those same views you are arguing with yourself. Enjoy.

English might not be your native tongue language. Which is fine, but let me help you out. A statement that only addresses young people does not imply that the conditions discussed only apply to young people, it absolutely does not state ‘only young people will be effected’. So who is as it that said ‘only young people will be effected’? It wasn’t me.

Council slums? “The government recognised that the current Affordable Homes Programme is almost fully committed but has asked Homes England and the GLA to prioritise social rent when allocating the remainder of the Affordable Homes Programme funding. The Secretary of State recognised that councils and housing associations need support to build capacity and increase supply. She stated that the government would announce plans to ensure stability around social rents at the next fiscal event, as well as committing to setting out details of future government investment in social and affordable housing as part of the next spending review.” https://www.housing.org.uk/news-and-blogs/news/Government-announces-plan-for-a-long-term-housing-strategy/

Who said only young people will be effected?

I don’t know what anyone else will choose to do, neither do you. I do however know increasing supply reduces inflationary pressures and I do know the Labour Government prioritizing building affordable homes and addressing the problem of tenant insecurity in the buy to let sector. Getting it done: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10106/

Is this you away on one of your pedantry trips, enjoy,

Not buy to let landlords. Hence increasing the supply and reducing the inflationary pressure so that people on low incomes might have a chance to actually afford a home. And ‘affordable homes’ are not just homes for sale, they are also homes available to rent at affordable prices. Where councils and housing associations are the property owners, rented homes become available with open term contracts providing long term security for the renter. It’s well past time to fix the UK housing market, it’s good to see Labour prioritizing affordable and secure homes of the private profit of the but to let landlords.

Of course they will, provided they actually build the homes. What they won’t r doing is leveraging their own wealth to buy properties in competition with young people then make profit be renting to the same young people they’ve priced out of the market.

Your whole post is an amalgamation of pejorative generalizations. Wit respect the ambitions you allege I’ll refer you to my earlier post in which I observe the curious alignment amongst some between fearing a tyrannical theocracy taking over the UK and supporting the abolition of the Human Rights Laws and Conventions that prevent that ever happening. “The behaviour of these groups plays straight into the hands of the racists and provides them with ammunition.” I’ll take your word on what motivates racists, but that reads a lot like blaming the victim of racism for the racist’s hatred.

It’s definitely not part of the UK.

That would be Italy and is almost certainly a misrepresentation of reality.

Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, protects the adherence of all people within the UK to the religion and their religious practices of their choice, just as it protects all people in the UK to leave or not follow any religion or religious practice. The permitting of all ‘religious courts’ while denying them all legal authority is entirely consistent with Article 9. Sensible, equitable and pragmatic.

Either allow all ‘religious courts’ or none at all. The policy of allowing all, while denying all any legal authority is both sensible and equitable. And it’s definitely not confusing.

Non of the various ‘religious courts’ hold any legal authority. There is only one law, the law of the land.

There is no death penalty for adulatory in British law, regardless of the gender of the adulterer. If there ever was then that law has been changed.

Where is the clause in British law that states anything in any religious ruling supersedes British law?

When did any of that happen in the UK?

This isn’t the Dear Deardre page, but thank you for sharing.

I’m not sure when the last time a woman was stoned to death I the UK but I’m quite certain that if ever happened it wasn’t Muslims doing the stoning.

Who said that’s what I was referring to?

Not being content with his support of despots and tyrants, Trump aligns himself as friend of disease and ill health.

In a thread dripping Islamophobia an antisemite shows up.

Either allow all of these or none of these. Allowing all while denying all any supremacy over UK law is a sensible solution, balancing the rights and liberties of each of these religious groups while upholding the supremacy of British law.

I don’t suppose Shapiro asked Waltz about the consequences of cutting up U.S. citizens with a bone saw? Or would that have got I the way of this deal he has in mind for Saudi Arabia?!