RayC

No I won't be accompanying her to the ritual because there will not be a ritual. You've clarified that you are serious. I can't understand how you - and others - can have such a warped view of 25% of the world's population, so there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

If this is a wind-up, it's not very tasteful but you did have me going. If you are serious then I'm lost for words and I'll leave it at that.

Zealots who use religion as an excuse to commit violence are not my friends. Only a simpleton could think that 1.8 billion Muslims are all religious zealots with blood on their hands.

Yeah, I read it. Did you watch the clip? The Bible and Koran are both full of violence and contradiction. Imo both are as bad as one another. You won't get me defending zealots who use religion or the texts to wage war whatever their faith.

Sorry for the delay (see my previous post) Gentle reminder: You haven't answered my previous question. Repeated (paraphrased below for ease of reference) So what's your solution (to achieve world peace)? Forcable conversion of 1.8 billion Muslims? And those that refuse to convert? What happens to them?

Right. So that is a justification for eradicating Islam? How about eradicating Christianity based on this example? (plenty more examples where that came from; skip to 1'05" for the Biblical quote, although imo whole clip worth a watch)

Why don't you spell it out for me? I'm an idiot, remember?

So what's your solution? Forcable conversion of 1.8 billion people? And those that refuse to convert?

Muzzers - Nice derogatory term 1.8 billion people are Muslims and you think that it's perfectly reasonable and understandable to dislike them for that reason? No more questions. You're doing fine incriminating yourself without my help.

Starmer hasn't ruled out tax rises. He has only ruled out increasing income tax rates.

I agree 100% that "Once Brexit passed, disruptions to the British economy were inevitable". However, I don't see how you can possibly absolve the Tories from blame. Look at the evidence: Cameron, Tory PM, called an unnecessary referendum for purely selfish reasons. Nearly half of all Tory MPs campaigned in favour of Brexit. Cameron's replacement, May, ensured that there would be a 'hard' Brexit by effectively ruling out joining the EEA and any continuation of either the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market early in the negotiations ("Brexit means Brexit"). Her replacement, Johnson, made a bad situation worse by continually insulting and antagonising the EU. To give Sunak deserved credit, he has, at least attempted to rebuild our relationship with the EU, and he has had some success. Nevertheless, imo there are plenty of reasons to blame successive Tory governments for the fiasco that is Brexit.

I broadly agree. I think you are correct to suggest that some European nations need to contribute much more, both financially and logistically, to ensure the security of Europe. However, unfortunately, even if all the European NATO members were to meet their financial obligations tomorrow, it will be a long time before Europe is able to defend itself without US assistance. https://riponsociety.org/article/nato-at-75/

Imo Abbott is a fool and has, quite rightly, had the Labour whip removed. Unfortunately, she is still a member of the Labour Party. However, let's not pretend that anti-Semitism is an exclusively Labour Party problem. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of anti-Semitism within the Conservative Party as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party

So to sum up anti-Semitism is wrong (I agree) but Islamophobia is ok?

What will?

Absolutely nothing. (I think that you directed your question to the wrong person. Someone else decided to introduce race into the discussion)

I'm willing to engage in constructive debate with you at any point, Jonny. However, for that to happen you'll need to stop playing the 'race bait' card whenever you are challenged to justify your position.

Not in the slightest. If you look at my exchanges with others I disagree with, accusations of 'race baiting' and 'racism' have never been mentioned. I'd say that anyone who comes to a conclusion based on a false premise and extremely limited information looks a bit stupid.

No idea how you can logically come to that conclusion but then that's nothing new. I'm not trolling you, Jonny, I just won't let your views go unchallenged.

As usual, your "argument" is unable to withstand even the slightest challenge so you resort to insults. Fortunately the overwhelming majority of decent, level headed Brits are not right-wing racists, despite your attempts to redefine and portray us as such.

Assange isn't some persecuted, doe-eyed innocent he's an individual who broke his bail conditions in the UK in order to avoid facing charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden.

Well, your last sentence is incorrect. This Brit - and many others - certainly aren't with Assange. Nothing in your post mentions the legal position. Your sole reason for opposing the US request for co-operation in this, or any other, matter is political.

So your objection to the bill isn't based on the US giving military aid to Ukraine per sec, but the US giving military aid to anyone? In fact, you appear to be against the US producing arms (period)? Noble sentiments but do you really think it is likely that the US defence industry will be dismantled?

It is. I can only suggest that you draw this fact to the attention of the relevant US authority so that they can bring the dastardly Kelce to justice.

So as the saying goes, "Move on. Nothing to see here" despite your best efforts to the contrary. What any of your posts about Kelce's behaviour, domestic violence, etc have to do with the topic of this thread is anyone's guess, but to avoid you accusing me of evasion, here goes with a response. No I'm not fine with that and you are not using my logic. Domestic abuse is a crime (in the UK) which - like any other crime - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will pursue if they think that they have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction. In your example, the only detail is that the wife does not want to support a prosecution. I would suggest that it would therefore be difficult for the CPS to secure a conviction and the likelihood is that the matter would not be brought before a court. Do I find that morally acceptable? No. Do I think that a pragmatic decision given the circumstances? Yes.