RayC

I agree. However, that's not what it is being implied by some of the other posters as i'm sure you're aware. In many cases, their comments are nothing more than thinly disguised racism.

Says the British bloke who lives in Thailand, vows never to return to his homeland permanently and romanticises a UK free of immigrants. The irony must have got lost on the flight somewhere between London and Bangkok.

Neither were the Romans, Vikings, Normans and countless other white tribes but the overwhelming majority of Brits will have a few ancestors from those tribes. What to do, eh? Send them (me included) back to Italy, Scandinavia, Normandy, etc. At least, it should solve the housing problem in England.

No, as @josephbloggs has pointed out it is not a fact; it is your opinion and an uninformed one at that. You must have missed this example of 'reverse prejudice' on the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvvg337x8o

A bit light on right-wing extremist groups imo.

Discussion of Germany is off-topic but as you brought it up: "Germany saw over a 46% increase in right-wing extremist crimes in 2024, according to a report released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) on Tuesday. A total of 57,701 right-wing extremist crimes were reported in 2024 in Germany, representing a 46% increase, with 2,976 of those categorized as violent crimes, according to the report presented by Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and BfV Vice President Sinan Selen." Worrying times for that country.

Agreed; facts aren't prejudice. Here's a fact: Samir Zitouni - who happens to be a Muslim - shielded people from an attacker wielding a knife on a train last Saturday. Samir Zitouni arrived in the UK in the "Back of a lorry or overstay(ed) a visa" cannot be considered a fact unless you have evidence to support that statement. In the absence of such evidence, the statement is no more than a snide comment from a bigot.

Your prejudice is so deep-rooted that you can't bring yourself to accept that a Muslim can act heroically in defence of others, but instead offer nothing more than a snide comment. I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Zitouni and the others who put themselves in danger to protect fellow passengers, irrespective of their colour, religion, sexuality or any other personal attribute.

Why? I don't know what is a 'Gay' version of Islam. I also don't know what is a 'Gay' version of Christianity. In any event, do you expect 2bn followers of a religion to all think and act in exactly the same way? Christians certainly don't, why should you expect Muslims to be any different? How can you possibly think my inference that individual Muslims might interpret their religion (the Koran) in different ways is " .. prejudiced (even racist)"? No it doesn't. I have no idea how you can possibly come to that conclusion. An atheist is, by definition, not a Muslim. I assume that the same would apply to a 'fake' Muslim, although I don't really understand what this means. If by 'nominal', you mean Muslims who 'cherry pick' which bits of the Koran they believe and act upon then no, I'm not denying that possibility, the exact opposite in fact, I am saying that these individuals exist. You posed the question, "Should this - my insertion: the fact that the train hero may be Muslim - make me reconsider my personal views about the dangers of Islamic ideology?" and I replied, "Assuming Mr. Zitouni is a Muslim and identifies as such then yes, as his behaviour provides an example of an alternative version of Islam to the violent one which you depict". Nothing you have said contradicts my view that you should reconsider your views although - to state the blindingly obvious - it is entirely up to you whether you do so.

Agreed, it's not but what are these facts? That some Muslims commit terrorist attacks in the name of their religion? Yes, they do but billions don't. So how can you conclude that terrorism and/or violence is part of Islamic culture? You selectively cut my previous post, as I pointed out in the part that you omitted both the Koran and the Bible contain contradictions and violence, it's up to the individual to interpret these books as they see fit. Again, to restate what I said previously, the overwhelming majority of people - both Christian and Muslim - reject the 'bad' bits of their respective books.

To quote Brenda from Bristol out of context, 'Not another one!'. How many titles did Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor used to have?

Assuming Mr. Zitouni is a Muslim and identifies as such then yes, as his behaviour provides an example of an alternative version of Islam to the violent one which you depict.

That's an over generalisation. It is much more nuanced than that. Some areas are more dangerous, others much safer. For example, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham are much safer and much better places to live now compared to when I growing up in Brixton in the '70s. On the other hand, areas such as Croydon are a lot worse. For the most serious crime (murder), London is an extremely safe city compared with other major cities (1.2 murders per 100000 population). This figure is way below New York (4.0), Bangkok (2.2) and most European cities e.g. Berlin (3.4).

The need for a licence to rent out property did not exist when Reeves worked for a building society. The legislation itself is ill thought out. A licence is required for all properties housing a family group, 5 or more people but outside of that it is down to the local authority. Therefore, in some boroughs such as Southwark all landlords, irrespective of the size of the property, need a licence while in others, such as nearby Bexley, only some do. Indeed,l within Bexley itself the requirements vary by ward! This is an unnecessary piece of legislation - it serves no purpose - and its' application is piecemeal and confusing.

It is to do with language. However, whatever label is applied, the main point is that you are being prejudice. Presumably, you object to some of the contents of the Koran and see those who follow its' every verse as 'the enemy'? I can see understand why. I also condemn murderers, pedophiles and rapists and care little about their fate. However - notwithstanding the fact that both the Koran and Bible are full of contradictions - do you also object to some of the contents of the Bible and view Christians who follow its' every verse as also being part of the enemy? After all, it's not as if the Bible is short of a verse or two condoning murder, rape and pedophilia with a bit of slavery thrown in for good measure. How about this? “And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.” (Numbers 31:15–18). I am not a believer and imo organised religions such as Christianity and Islam, have caused more problems than they have solved. However, I believe - no pun intended - that the overwhelming majority of devotees - be they Christian or Muslim - are decent individuals who cherry-pick the good bits of the books and attempt to live their lives accordingly, while disregarding the violent verses. The bottom line is, as I said previously, your singling out of Muslims as a group for condemnation is prejudice.

No, being anti-jihad is not bigoted and racist. However, the numerous implications throughout this thread such as yours are. To say that discrimination against all individuals of a particular religion is not racism may be linguistically correct but is merely being pedantic: It is prejudice whatever way you look at it.

So we should assume that every crime is committed by a Muslim? In any event, the person has been named as Anthony Williams. Does that sound like an Islamic name to you?

I agree with all your posts in this thread and admire your perseverance, but my advice is, 'Give it up'. There is little point in stating facts and employing rational argument when addressing out-and-out bigots and racists.

How does EU regulation prevent Ireland deporting illegal immigrants? How has Brexit made it easier for the UK to deport illegal immigrants?

What tax has Reeves avoided? I'm pre-empt a reply about not initially paying a licence fee for renting out her house. This is not tax dodging. Also does anyone seriously think that Reeves would jepodise her political career to avoid paying £900. This is why I - and possibly others - gave your post a thumbs-down.

Truss is deluded. It's as simple as that.

As I said previously, imo annual increases in the state pension should be linked to inflation (and nothing else). However, there is nothing to suggest that the 'Triple Lock' is under immediate threat. I suggest that you write to one or more of the following if you are concerned by this news item: The Police Ombudsman, The Chief Constables of the Metropolitan and/or Kent Police Forces, your MP, the Home Secretary, the PM (I may have missed out a few other interested parties).

I've no idea how you know that to be true but even if that is the case, what difference does it make?

The headline is totally misleading; there is no evidence to suggest that pensions will be cut or the 'Triple Lock' will be dropped although it should be. Link the state pension to inflation only.

I don't see why you consider it a weird question. Do you unquestionably accept anything posted as fact irrespective of the source? No, I'm not claiming that coercion isn't being used in order to get individuals to join the Ukrainian armed forces, I am saying that I don't know if exists i.e. I have an open mind on the issue. However, I'd require much more evidence from more reputable sources than 'Videos from Mariupol' before I was convinced.