Chomper Higgot

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?!

You need to draw a distinction between tween supporting anything and singling out one particular faith to deny it’s adherents to follow their faith. Either allow all faiths or none, all ‘religious courts’ or none. Given that all ‘religious courts’ and any other form of independent arbitration in the UK subservient to British law and the ECHR where is the problem. Non of the ‘religious courts’ in the UK have any authority above the law of the land.

There are members of this board who argue against British law and getting rid of many of the protections it offers individuals. These opinions are mute, British law is not being overthrown, negated or abolished.

Oh

If they have been keeping those bottles standing up all these years the contents are almost certainly Corked.

Any ruling by any ‘Sharia Court’ in the UK, just like any ruling by any other ‘Religious Court’ is subject to and may not infringe UK law OR just as importantly the European Convention on Human Rights. Which raises an interesting question. Why is it that those who are convinced that Sharia law is coming to get them and their rights are the same people, and newspapers, who vehemently oppose human rights laws and the ECHR, both of watch are a protection against tyrannical governments and abusive laws, regardless of those being religious or secular?

The anti Trump rhetoric is coming from Trump himself.

Says the guy who obviously has absolutely no idea what thread he’s posting in.

Superiors?

So off topic by seven decades,

Work place rule #1. Don’t dip your bread in your gravy.

In fairness (let me be polite), you are talking utter nonsense: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

And the absence of both you thought you’d give it a go.

I know it might be a bit of a revolutionary idea but I think they should abide by their own laws and the international conventions they have signed up to.

It’s not going to happen.

It was for generations a bit more than not speaking to Catholics in the work place. They were routinely excluded altogether.

Can you point out the bit where I ‘protect the terrorists’? Give it your best go.

There’s a thin veneer on that.

Because the UK is a signatory to the Convention. You too, and any member of your family in the UK would have the right appeal to the ECHR if you or their rights were being violated.

It’s not a choice made by Government, the matter resides with the courts.

The ECHR can only rule on the administration of law the under the Human Rights Convention that Britain and Winston Churchill in particular helped draught.

He’s a man willing to negotiate for peace even if it meant putting a target on his back. He’s also, unlike me, the subject of the thread.