RayC

Third time with the gaslighting charge. You're certainly trying to prove that the second of the definitions in the link which I provided is correct! How about the treatment of Bianca Williams and her partner? The use of 'stop and search' where young black males are disproportionately more likely to be stopped? Is that 2-tier justice or solid, common sense policing? Cue, an accusation of 'whataboutery' and a fourth charge of gaslighting. https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-what-does-two-tier-policing-mean-and-does-it-exist-13191977

Then I imagine that it was a fake. If it wasn't it would have been all over the press and TV.

I am usually more than willing to blame Johnson for negative events but there is no evidence to support the notion that he scuppered a Russia - Ukraine agreement, which was " .. initialed and ready to go", for the simple reason that no such agreement ever existed.

If my arithmetic is correct then the UK would lose approximately 1.5 million people from the workforce. (Figure based on data from gov.uk) Well I confess that I did have you down as a Tory. In my defence, I think that it was an easy mistake to make given that you have taken every opportunity from day 1 of Labour taking office to lambast the government. Nevertheless, I apologise for my error. I completely understand why you might feel insulted by the association. I'm not sure that the US considers itself a 3rd world country.

"I believe whatever the law is, it should apply equally to both sides" Both sides? There are no sides other than defence and prosecution in the eyes of the law. "Let's see ..." "Let's see ..." "Let's see ..." ... "None will spend a day in jail". So much for waiting to see what happens. Definition of gaslighting: 1. To psychologically manipulate (someone) usually over time so that the victim experiences doub own emotional or mental stability. 2. : to badly mislead or deceive (someone) especially for one's own advantage. (Source: Merriam-Webster) Where am I guilty of meeting either of those definitions? In fact, the person guilty of gaslighting is yourself. Whenever challenged about anything, you almost invariably accuse your opponents of gaslighting in the hope that the charge will eventually stick. "The justice system is ... currently stacked in (my) favour"? Really? I can't say that I've noticed an uptick in my fortunes as a result of the justice system discriminating in my favour. Your sense of grievance shows signs of paranoia.

If you want to be pedantic, Islam is a religion. It's difficult to find figures detailing the number of white Muslims, but given that 97% of Muslims live in Asia or Africa, and that those who live outside of those continents are usually of Asian/ African ethnicity, I'd suggest that Islam is overwhelming a non-white religion and for that reason alone, a white supremacist might well be opposed to it. Being an atheist who believes that organised religion - whatever its' favour - has caused more problems than it has solved down the centuries, this is a tricky one for me. The best that I can offer is an AI generated list of the benefits of Islam. (An AI generated list would be the most I could offer for Christianity as well). _----++++++++----------- Islam offers a variety of benefits to individuals and communities, including: Spiritual guidance The Shahada, or Declaration of Faith, helps Muslims affirm their faith and find spiritual guidance. Discipline and mindfulness The practice of Salat, or prayer, five times a day, helps Muslims develop discipline and mindfulness. Social justice and compassion Zakat, or almsgiving, helps Muslims redistribute wealth to those in need, promoting social justice and compassion. Self-discipline, empathy, and gratitude Sawm, or fasting during Ramadan, helps Muslims develop self-discipline, empathy, and gratitude. Unity among Muslims The Hajj pilgrimage strengthens unity among Muslims globally and provides a profound spiritual experience. Optimism Islam encourages Muslims to have a positive outlook on life and to trust in Allah's plan. Morality The Quran encourages Muslims to be kind, humble, and honorable to their parents, and to not commit adultery or kill unjustly. Contribution to human civilization During Islam's golden age from the 9th to the 14th centuries, Muslim achievements in science, technology, and intellectual culture influenced the European Renaissance and the birth of the modern scientific method. ------+++++-----_- However, let's not pretend religious atrocities are the sole preserve of Islam. Buddhists in Burma are killing Rohingya simply for being Muslim, and some nations in Africa and deranged sects in the US kill homosexuals in the name of the Christian God. Yes that's whataboutery ,but as I stated at the start of this section, I don't have much time for any form of organised religion, so please don't ask me to explain away acts of terrorism/ murder done in the name of Islam - or any other religion for that matter - as I can't. Given that the incident involving the Batley school teacher happened when the Tories were in power are you now saying that a 2-tier justice system existed before Labour came to power? I thought all the problems of the UK were of Labour's making? I can understand your skepticism about the Aporia article. I too have my doubts. Most of their research appears to be pseudo-scientific nonsense trying to prove the concept of hereditarianism.

Nadine, please do yourself a favour and seek help. You're 67. You're too old to cling to a teenage infatuation. Maybe you could start the recovery process by removing the pictures of Boris from your bedroom walls.

We disagree completely on the fundamentals of this conflict. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact), the newly independent states became sovereign nations who were (should have been) free to choose their alliances. Whether Ukraine was corrupt - imo it was and what's left of it may still be - is immaterial. Internal Ukrainian politics should have remained a matter for Ukraine to deal with. Ukraine was clearly looking towards the EU and NATO. No doubt, this met with the US's approval and, perhaps, the CIA lent a 'helping hand'. However, with or without US involvement, the direction of travel was clear: West not East. Also let's not pretend that Russia was standing idly by during this period, and letting events take their course; she was actively interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs. Russia may have had some cause to try to protect the interests of Russian speakers in the Donbass, but that does extend to invading Ukrainian territory. The idea that Russia was worried that NATO had plans to launch an invasion through Ukraine is imo frankly ridiculous. Russia has a legitimate security concern in protecting its' borders but that does not extend to occupying the territory of adjacent sovereign nations. Russia's sphere of influence should be limited to its' own territory and that of the nations who, willingly, wish to align with her. Imo this conflict isn't just about security. It is also about economics. A more Western (EU) orientated Ukraine poses a grave threat to the Russian economy.

Sadly,no. The products you list are still available, but you will need to adjust your cost estimates upwards by a considerable amount😉

You appear to view everything in 'black and white', 100% or nothing. I've seen fewer reports in the press recently of 'hate speech' related incidents, which is not sufficient to conclude that tough sentencing has had a deterrent effect. That's why I said " .. arguably it has acted as a deterrent". Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. One thing's for sure, one counter-example isn't enough to reject the premise. You're beginning to sound like a White Supremacist. So free speech on your terms? You get to decide what's acceptable and what's not. Once again, it's all or nothing: Ban Islam in the UK - begs the question, 'How'? - presumably, on the basis that all those that practice the religion are evil? The data doesn't seem to support that premise: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/do-british-muslims-commit-less-crime What happened to those little girls was a tragedy. If the perpetrator met with an unfortunate accident, I'd shed no tears.

Really? No! How on earth you can suggest that premise can be logically derived from my previous comments is beyond me! To state the blindingly obvious, it does not need 100% of individuals to act upon "hurty words" to 'Kill Farage', it only requires one. I imagine that it is impossible to prove categorically that a statement was the direct cause of an event, but if professional psychologists and/or psychiatrists deemed it a contributing factor in the hypothetical example cited above, no doubt Farage's family and friends would derive great comfort from the petitioner stating, "I didn't mean that my words should be taken literally". If you were the petitioner, would you still deny any responsibility and accountability for the event? Wrong about what precisely? Wrt Connolly, I stated previously that I had mixed emotions about her sentence. On the one hand, 31 months seems excessive for a first offence. However, if imposing such a sentence is meant to be a deterrent, it has arguably served that purpose. At the other end of the scale, would a £100 fine and/or 60 hours community service have acted as much of a deterrent to Connolly and others? Doubtful. These comments apply equally to the petitioner calling for Farage's execution. In short, I don't know/ am undecided about what a suitable sentence should be. However, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over the plight of a self-professed racist. As an aside, you appear to be in favour of absolute free speech and that the speakers/ writers cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Would you therefore agree those 'mad mullahs', who openly use the more violent verses of the Qur'an, to stir up hatred are guilty of nothing more than spouting 'hurty words' and should bear no responsibility or accountability for any subsequent events?

Put what to the test? I have deliberately not commented on the length of sentences imposed as I have mixed feelings about them. You argue that these are "just words". What if some deranged maniac tried to act upon this "advice" and try to execute Farage. Should "I didn't think that anyone would take me seriously. I didn't mean that Farage should actually be executed", be an acceptable defence and free the petitioner of all responsibility? My point - and only point - is that words may have consequences and that individuals need to be accountable and responsible for their words.

And you are starting to sound like an egoistical - in the philosophical sense of the word - free speech zealot, who will not accept accountability or responsibility for the consequences of their words.

I didn't say anything about Leavers. I made a comment which could, rightly, be interpreted as implying that the 'Vote Leave' campaign were unprofessional, as they hadn't safeguarded their website as securely as they might have done. Based on this one occurrence, I'd conclude that you'd rather not open links to websites, which your anti-virus software suggests might be suspect. Imo a wise precaution. I should consider upgrading my own.

I'm sure that many Labour supporters are displeased with (some of) Starmer's policies. I'm one of them. For example, I think that increasing employer's NI contributions was a bad move. However, if you look at the heatmap, which shows the number of signatures by constituencies for this petition, the majority of signatories are found in Tory voting constituencies. Correlation on its' own doesn't prove anything but it does give an indication. https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=700143

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that one referendum and that's it? No more referendums ever on changing the electoral system, Scottish independence or rejoining the EU?

I'm not sure that the result would have been any different but Merkel's actions wrt illegal migration - well intentional as they might have been - have had catastrophic consequences for all of Europe.

Hypocrisy doesn't appear to be the sole preserve of the Left given the call to rerun the General Election from those on the Right simply because they don't like the result.

Rather like the General Election which returned a Labour government earlier this year then.

We can but hope that is the case. That rather says it all about the 'Vote Leave' Campaign😂 Here's the headings from that Vote Leave link. We will be able to save £350 million a week: (We haven't) We'll be in charge of our own borders: (In theory perhaps) We can control immigration: (I'll just leave that there) We'll be free to trade with the whole world: (That rather depends on the rest of the world. The signs, to date, aren't great) We can make our own laws: (Not if we want to trade with the rest of the world we can't) Throw in a few blatant lies e.g. Turkey will join the EU; the European Court determines our tax laws, and I'd say that there were plenty of broken promises and more.

I'm being mischievous in pointing out the irony that some of those dissatisfied with this year's GE result are employing the same justification i.e. broken promises for a re-run as some of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Where, when and by whom was a promise made before the Brexit referendum that there would be no second referendum? May ruled out a second referendum after the result not before. Maybe Cameron's government didn't break any promises wrt Brexit but the Leave Campaign certainly did http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

I'd agree with much of what you say but not with the implication that Biden is - or has been - the only player guilty of irrational acts. Russia invaded Ukraine, which shares a border with, amongst others, Poland, a country with a long history of conflict with Russia. Did Putin really believe that Poland - and by extension, the other EU member states, could and should have stood idly by while he pursued his expansionist policy?

Ahh ... predictions. Where's TransAm's crystal ball when you need it?

Talking of broken promises, maybe we could re-run the Brexit referendum in that case.

Notwithstanding the fact that your reply is 'whataboutery' at its' finest, perhaps thousands of trans activists should be in jail for their comments towards Rowling. You would, no doubt, argue that the words of Connolly - and if you are being consistent, Jones - shouldn't be taken literally. The problem is that it only requires one nutter to actually take their words at face value and we are then talking about (attempted) murder being committed. No doubt, you would wash your hands of the matter by claiming that Connolly or Jones can't held accountability or responsibility for others' actions. Therein lies the problem with you absolute free-speech advocates; the notion that words can lead to actions and the concepts of accountability and responsibility are alien to you.