Chomper Higgot

I didn’t suggest they should go to your country. They have a home in Palestine, I thought I had been clear on my of that matter.

Murray is smart enough to know precisely what he is doing as he plays to gallery and lends his name in support of islamaophobia and any other phobia that gets the cheep seats jeering.

Because, not surprising that you focus on the UK’s Labour Party and their winter fuel policy in a thread discussing (big hint here): “Three Palestinian babies freeze to death in Gaza as winter sets in” Stuck record comes to mind.

Said without an iota of introspection.

Circumvent the propaganda from both sides. Give the world’s news reporters free access to report independently and directly from the camp. Surely they’re not going to be in the way of any military action or betraying the location of troops while reporting from a refugee camp.

I would agree that both sides are operating a propaganda campaign but that isn’t a reason to disbelieve everything except what your preferred side has to say. A new born child in a tent encampment dying of hyperthermia is not at all unbelievable and masks other obscenity of a civilian population being displaced into a camp by military attacks on their homes. Anyway, it’s Christmas, don’t let me interrupt the flow of callous spleen venting.

This baby or this baby’s parents took and are holding hostages?

They are Palestinians, quit your gaslighting. I’m also reading certain that if they turned up en masse in your home country seeking sanctuary you’d be demanding they be sent back to where they came from.

I guess denying the report helps you avoid dealing with the obscenity of a baby freezing to death.

Can you please provide a link to back up your claim that “It's the Palestinian leadership that are denying them access to shelter.”

Palestinians have a home, in Palestine.

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.