6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yet you celebrate the Islamification of Britain. 

 

I guess it's easy to have the double standard when you don't have to live there. 

I do not celebrate this ‘Islamification of Britain’ thing of yours.

 

So yet another fail Jonny, you’re on a roll.

1 hour ago, Scouse123 said:

 

So you do not find Child marriage offensive?

You don't find forced marriage offensive?

You don't find FGM offensive?

Furthermore, you don't find threat of death for leaving a religion offensive?

You don't find terrorist acts of indiscriminate bombings to further an ideology offensive?

 

All the above are not committed by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, are they?

 

Right now, we have rampant murders and attacks against Christians taking place throughout Northern Nigeria, but that isn't considered newsworthy?

 

Yes, I find that entire ideology offensive, along with a fake prophet and radical extremists that refuse to accept this is 2025.

You’ve listed a series of horrors and then pretended they belong to an entire religion rather than to specific cultures, governments, or extremist groups. That’s not an argument - that’s intellectual laziness dressed up as moral outrage.

Child marriage? Forced marriage? FGM?
These are cultural practices, not religious pillars. They exist in Hindu, Christian, animist, and atheist communities across Africa and South Asia. Child marriage still happens in rural Thailand, especially in Isarn.

Pretending they belong exclusively to one faith isn’t righteous - it’s deliberately misleading.

Punishment for apostasy?
That’s state law in certain countries, not a universal religious command. Do you apply the same logic to Christian-majority countries that criminalised blasphemy or executed “heretics” well into the 20th century? Or does historical amnesia help the argument?

Terrorist extremists?
Every major religion - and every non-religious ideology - has produced violent extremists. Christianity had the IRA, the KKK, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and countless militias. Buddhism has the genocidal movements in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Hindu nationalism is committing violence right now.
Selective memory doesn’t strengthen your point; it exposes your bias.

As for Nigeria:
Violence there is driven by ethnicity, land disputes, militia power struggles, and corrupt governance, not some cartoonish “religion vs religion” fantasy. If you genuinely cared about the victims, you’d analyse the causes honestly instead of using them as props for your argument.

And your closing line about “fake prophets” and “refusing to accept it’s 2025”?
That’s not critique. That’s just bigotry wrapped in self-importance.

If your position needs oversimplification, misrepresentation, and historical blind spots to survive, then the problem isn’t the religion you’re attacking.
The problem is the weakness of your reasoning.

39 minutes ago, JimCM said:

You’ve listed a series of horrors and then pretended they belong to an entire religion rather than to specific cultures, governments, or extremist groups. That’s not an argument - that’s intellectual laziness dressed up as moral outrage.

Child marriage? Forced marriage? FGM?
These are cultural practices, not religious pillars. They exist in Hindu, Christian, animist, and atheist communities across Africa and South Asia. Child marriage still happens in rural Thailand, especially in Isarn.

Pretending they belong exclusively to one faith isn’t righteous - it’s deliberately misleading.

Punishment for apostasy?
That’s state law in certain countries, not a universal religious command. Do you apply the same logic to Christian-majority countries that criminalised blasphemy or executed “heretics” well into the 20th century? Or does historical amnesia help the argument?

Terrorist extremists?
Every major religion - and every non-religious ideology - has produced violent extremists. Christianity had the IRA, the KKK, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and countless militias. Buddhism has the genocidal movements in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Hindu nationalism is committing violence right now.
Selective memory doesn’t strengthen your point; it exposes your bias.

As for Nigeria:
Violence there is driven by ethnicity, land disputes, militia power struggles, and corrupt governance, not some cartoonish “religion vs religion” fantasy. If you genuinely cared about the victims, you’d analyse the causes honestly instead of using them as props for your argument.

And your closing line about “fake prophets” and “refusing to accept it’s 2025”?
That’s not critique. That’s just bigotry wrapped in self-importance.

If your position needs oversimplification, misrepresentation, and historical blind spots to survive, then the problem isn’t the religion you’re attacking.
The problem is the weakness of your reasoning.

---

You’re massively overstating what was said. No one claimed every Muslim, or the entire religion, is responsible for these issues — the point was that in many Muslim-majority countries,

 

LGBT rights, child marriage laws, and women’s autonomy are still restricted more heavily than in most non-Muslim countries.

 

That’s an observable legal and social pattern, not “blaming an entire religion.”

 

No one denied that these problems also exist elsewhere, or that culture and government play a role. But you’re pretending that mentioning problems within Muslim societies automatically means someone is attacking all Muslims everywhere. That’s your exaggeration, not what was actually said.

 

Likewise, pointing out that apostasy or blasphemy laws remain on the books in several Islamic states isn’t “historical amnesia” — it’s just acknowledging current reality. Saying “other religions did bad things too” doesn’t erase the fact that some of these laws still exist today.

 

And bringing up extremist groups from every religion doesn’t change the simple fact that groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, or the Taliban justify their actions using specific interpretations of Islam — just like extremist groups in other religions justify theirs. Recognising that isn’t bias; it’s context.

 

You’ve built a straw man version of the argument so you can knock it down.

The discussion wasn’t “all Muslims bad” — it was acknowledging real human-rights issues in certain Muslim-majority countries, issues that LGBT people and women have been highlighting for decades.

 

Calling that “bigotry” is just a way of avoiding the uncomfortable parts of the conversation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15368175/Child-bride-executed-death-abusive-husband-Iran-life-spared-laws-forgive-her.html?ito=social-facebook-uknews&utm_social_post_id=619358154&utm_social_handle_id=627779147727679&fbclid=IwY2xjawOoa4FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF3ekNZTDlnTjA1TVVEUkxGc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHiu2WutHtYxQ6yZTkGUXbhbXO8v8mn4Vb3QRsBquf2pC0bgbN7bMuPmFTfRp_aem_g10pdL4IERks0UV1O_QCEw

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr3vygvyy7o

 

And on and on the list goes!

 

What do they have in common?

 

 

 

On 12/8/2025 at 10:30 PM, trucking said:

I just wonder how Britain fell to such depths where plain truths need to be suppressed in order not to offend the worlds most offensive a religion. 

Where and when will it end ?

 

There was another story in the news last week about a nurse getting suspended for inadvertantly calling a patient  by the wrong pronoun. Walking into the room and seeing a large person with a muscular body and a full beard lying in bed she used the word Mr instead of Ms because she had not had time to read the patients notes. He went balistic and called her a black ......and a lot of other racist slurs but she remains suspended for her innocent mistake.

 

As long as the country allows ultra virtue signaling morons to hold high office there will be no end to this madness.

 

 

 

Your politicians are all controlled by that little country in the Mideast. What is happening there to the Amalek will soon happen to the entire population of Europe. This conflict is being orchestrated by the usual suspects using the international mafia, Judeo Freemasonry. Just by going thru the Epstein clients list, you can see who is controlling who  thru blackmail. They are using the Muslims to do the dirty work for them. They see Christianity as their biggest enemy and they are planning to destroy it completely. They always lived in harmony with the Muslims until the creation of the state of Israel. 

A flame was removed 

Love of one's country - patriotism - is NOT a "right-wing view".

 

So-called 'globalism', a  betrayal of the nation (treason in disguise) has nothing to do with benefitting the global population but instead is exploitation on a global scale.  It is most definitely a right-wing view.

 

A right-wing view favours the rights of a wealthy minority over the well-being of society as a whole.  Although it commonly masquerades behind facades.

 

Beware the distortion of language by political propagandists.

 

George Orwell had something to say about abuse of language in his best known works; and in an essay:

http://public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

 

 

13 minutes ago, ericbj said:

A right-wing view favours the rights of a wealthy minority over the well-being of society as a whole.  Although it commonly masquerades behind facades.

 

   We view it as people who work for their money being able to keep that money , rather than the Government taking all the money and giving it to dossers who don't want to work 

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   We view it as people who work for their money being able to keep that money , rather than the Government taking all the money and giving it to dossers who don't want to work 

‘Dosser’ 

 

Sn interesting word.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   We view it as people who work for their money being able to keep that money , rather than the Government taking all the money and giving it to dossers who don't want to work 

 

You are entitled to your definition of 'right-wing' defining those who work for a living, on the sacrosanct grounds of freedom of expression.

 

But I am not to be included in your royal "We".  🙂 

 

2 minutes ago, ericbj said:

 

You are entitled to your definition of 'right-wing' defining those who work for a living, on the sacrosanct grounds of freedom of expression.

 

But I am not to be included in your royal "We".  🙂 

 

 

    What is your definition of "right wing " (in the context of the discussion)'?

On 12/12/2025 at 10:12 AM, Scouse123 said:

---

You’re massively overstating what was said. No one claimed every Muslim, or the entire religion, is responsible for these issues — the point was that in many Muslim-majority countries,

 

LGBT rights, child marriage laws, and women’s autonomy are still restricted more heavily than in most non-Muslim countries.

 

That’s an observable legal and social pattern, not “blaming an entire religion.”

 

No one denied that these problems also exist elsewhere, or that culture and government play a role. But you’re pretending that mentioning problems within Muslim societies automatically means someone is attacking all Muslims everywhere. That’s your exaggeration, not what was actually said.

 

Likewise, pointing out that apostasy or blasphemy laws remain on the books in several Islamic states isn’t “historical amnesia” — it’s just acknowledging current reality. Saying “other religions did bad things too” doesn’t erase the fact that some of these laws still exist today.

 

And bringing up extremist groups from every religion doesn’t change the simple fact that groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, or the Taliban justify their actions using specific interpretations of Islam — just like extremist groups in other religions justify theirs. Recognising that isn’t bias; it’s context.

 

You’ve built a straw man version of the argument so you can knock it down.

The discussion wasn’t “all Muslims bad” — it was acknowledging real human-rights issues in certain Muslim-majority countries, issues that LGBT people and women have been highlighting for decades.

 

Calling that “bigotry” is just a way of avoiding the uncomfortable parts of the conversation.

Scroll through certain corners of the internet and you’ll find no shortage of self-styled “defenders of Britain” sounding the alarm about Muslim immigrants. The tone is familiar: the country is under threat, its identity is being erased, and only the loudest voices on social media are brave enough to tell the truth.

But if this sounds new, it shouldn’t. Britain has lived through this kind of moral panic before.

Four hundred years ago, the supposed threat came from Catholics. In the aftermath of the Reformation, English Protestants convinced themselves that Catholics were a shadowy internal enemy—agents of foreign powers, plotting to overturn the nation from within. Political tensions and a handful of real conspiracies gave fuel to a fear far larger than the facts, and pamphlets of the time dripped with righteous certainty that the country was on the brink.

Today, the pamphlets have been replaced by memes, but the pattern is strikingly similar. Islamophobic corners of social media frame Muslim immigrants not as ordinary people building lives here, but as part of a coordinated “invasion”. The claims are just as dramatic, and just as thinly supported. The focus is not on lived reality but on the thrill of outrage, amplified by algorithms and tribalism.

What both eras show is that Britain’s greatest religious panics have rarely been about theology. They have been about social change, uncertainty, and the fear of losing control. When people feel destabilised—by war, economic hardship, or simply rapid change—they look for someone to blame. In the 17th century, it was Catholics. Today, it is often Muslims. The target shifts; the anxiety remains.

And yet history also shows something else: these panics pass. Over time, British Catholics became part of the fabric of national life. The same, quietly and steadily, is happening with Britain’s Muslim communities. People work together, live alongside one another, raise families, and share neighbourhoods. The everyday reality of coexistence always outlives the noise of those who insist that the sky is falling.

Panic has a short lifespan. Society does not. And each time Britain survives a wave of fear, it learns again what should be obvious: that ordinary people, whatever their faith, are rarely the threat they are made out to be.

On 12/12/2025 at 10:33 AM, Scouse123 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15368175/Child-bride-executed-death-abusive-husband-Iran-life-spared-laws-forgive-her.html?ito=social-facebook-uknews&utm_social_post_id=619358154&utm_social_handle_id=627779147727679&fbclid=IwY2xjawOoa4FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF3ekNZTDlnTjA1TVVEUkxGc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHiu2WutHtYxQ6yZTkGUXbhbXO8v8mn4Vb3QRsBquf2pC0bgbN7bMuPmFTfRp_aem_g10pdL4IERks0UV1O_QCEw

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr3vygvyy7o

 

And on and on the list goes!

 

What do they have in common?

 

 

 

You are islamophobic, full stop. 

I'm not sure your fear but you should work on it. 

Bigotry is not a quality most men want in t he eir character.

I'll bet my bottom baht you don't have any Thai male friends.

Ironic as you are an immigrant and refuse to integrate.

13 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    What is your definition of "right wing " (in the context of the discussion)'?

 

Please refer to my earlier comment:

 

 

10 minutes ago, ericbj said:

 

Please refer to my earlier comment:

 

 

 

   Aren't you a Leftie ?

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Aren't you a Leftie ?

Depends upon your definition of a leftie.

1 minute ago, ericbj said:

Depends upon your definition of a leftie.

 

   My definition isn't the important point .

How do you define yourself ?

Left wing or right wing ?

9 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   My definition isn't the important point .

How do you define yourself ?

Left wing or right wing ?

 

Neither left nor right.  Am more interested in studying factual context rather than repeating slogans.  Now where do you stand on contemporary political and economic issues ?

On 12/10/2025 at 11:51 AM, Screaming said:

Silly teacher, does she not know that Britain is a Moslem country now!

You know absolutely nothing, you just vomit this right wing nonsense all over the internet.

Would you like to explain why you used a picture of a small Muslim climate change group (Muslim Climate Action) holding a small protest outside parliament for more action on climate change to try to show Britain is a "Moslem country"?  You have no clue what you are talking about and using such an image shows it - deliberating trying to mislead, or just misleading out of your own stupidity and ignorance (if I am being kind).

Anyway, everyone knows Britain is a Thai Buddhist country now. Look, I have evidence!

 

1 hour ago, ericbj said:

 

Neither left nor right.  Am more interested in studying factual context rather than repeating slogans.  Now where do you stand on contemporary political and economic issues ?

Some can't get their head around that. I get called lefty, as if it's an insult. I vote Reform and like Trump lol.

That guy supports the illegal settlements in the West Bank and justified Israel's destruction of Gaza.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

Some can't get their head around that. I get called lefty, as if it's an insult. I vote Reform and like Trump lol.

That guy supports the illegal settlements in the West Bank and justified Israel's destruction of Gaza.

I appreciate your attitude.

But have diverged (like some better informed than myself whose overall perspective I may not fully share) on certain issues.  Such as Trump.

Supportive of many of his views and declared goals but reticent as regards recklessness likely to raise obstacles.  And in the case of multiple wanton killings of unidentified civilians on the high seas without producing a shred of supporting evidence: outrageous.  Ditto the continuing support for the Zionist regime in Israel.

There are some international norms that need to be respected if the world is not to descend into total chaos.  Which is already threatening because of the state of the global economy
One wonders if some of those around Trump are there to stymie his efforts, as was the case during his first term in office.

 

As regards Reform, I think much of what Farage says makes sense.  But had doubts about him after listening to Ben Habib, who resigned from a leadership position in Reform because of his disgust at Farage's then-current behaviour and his earlier refusal to push for the introduction of Brexit policies immediately the Referendum was over.  Reminds me of how Enoch Powell would not endorse Nigel Farage as a Conservative candidate because he felt him to be "an opportunist".

 

 

 

17 hours ago, ericbj said:

 

You are entitled to your definition of 'right-wing' defining those who work for a living, on the sacrosanct grounds of freedom of expression.

 

But I am not to be included in your royal "We".  🙂 

 

 

    Yes, when i said "we" , I was referring to right wingers .

You indeed are not a  right winger , so the 'we" wasn't referring to you .

So, there was no need for you to dissociate yourself from the selected group

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    Yes, when i said "we" , I was referring to right wingers .

You indeed are not a  right winger , so the 'we" wasn't referring to you .

So, there was no need for you to dissociate yourself from the selected group

 

R.I.P.

1 minute ago, ericbj said:

 

R.I.P.

 

   Are you threatening to kill me ?

6 hours ago, JimCM said:

You are islamophobic, full stop. 

I'm not sure your fear but you should work on it. 

Bigotry is not a quality most men want in t he eir character.

I'll bet my bottom baht you don't have any Thai male friends.

Ironic as you are an immigrant and refuse to integrate.

 

You talk out of your backside.

 

I am a fluent Thai speaker, probably been here a lot longer than you, and have a great many Thai friends.

 

You know nothing apart from your own self-importance and inflated ego.

 

I bet you sit in CM handing out all kinds of advice to newbies with your vast knowledge of nothing.

 

Clown.

 

Also, Islamophobia is a made up word.

 

I will tell you also know all, I came through the front door at immigration 30 years ago, I have created jobs, built houses in numbers, opened and sold businesses, bought at least 7 new cars, I came and still have ample funds, I have full health insurance. I have also had a Thai partner for the last 28 years.

 

That's what sets me aside from the rapists, terrorists and filth coming over and through the Channel throwing away their passports.

 

That's the difference between correct immigration and invasion.

 

BTW, You'll lose your last bottom baht, you are a sad man.

7 hours ago, JimCM said:

Scroll through certain corners of the internet and you’ll find no shortage of self-styled “defenders of Britain” sounding the alarm about Muslim immigrants. The tone is familiar: the country is under threat, its identity is being erased, and only the loudest voices on social media are brave enough to tell the truth.

But if this sounds new, it shouldn’t. Britain has lived through this kind of moral panic before.

Four hundred years ago, the supposed threat came from Catholics. In the aftermath of the Reformation, English Protestants convinced themselves that Catholics were a shadowy internal enemy—agents of foreign powers, plotting to overturn the nation from within. Political tensions and a handful of real conspiracies gave fuel to a fear far larger than the facts, and pamphlets of the time dripped with righteous certainty that the country was on the brink.

Today, the pamphlets have been replaced by memes, but the pattern is strikingly similar. Islamophobic corners of social media frame Muslim immigrants not as ordinary people building lives here, but as part of a coordinated “invasion”. The claims are just as dramatic, and just as thinly supported. The focus is not on lived reality but on the thrill of outrage, amplified by algorithms and tribalism.

What both eras show is that Britain’s greatest religious panics have rarely been about theology. They have been about social change, uncertainty, and the fear of losing control. When people feel destabilised—by war, economic hardship, or simply rapid change—they look for someone to blame. In the 17th century, it was Catholics. Today, it is often Muslims. The target shifts; the anxiety remains.

And yet history also shows something else: these panics pass. Over time, British Catholics became part of the fabric of national life. The same, quietly and steadily, is happening with Britain’s Muslim communities. People work together, live alongside one another, raise families, and share neighbourhoods. The everyday reality of coexistence always outlives the noise of those who insist that the sky is falling.

Panic has a short lifespan. Society does not. And each time Britain survives a wave of fear, it learns again what should be obvious: that ordinary people, whatever their faith, are rarely the threat they are made out to be.

 

You live in cuckoo land.

 

Absolute cuckoo land.

 

When was the last time you were in Northern towns and cities in the UK?

 

OR have you spent your time playing the moral high ground whilst sat on your backside in front of your computer in CM?

22 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   We view it as people who work for their money being able to keep that money , rather than the Government taking all the money and giving it to dossers who don't want to work 

 

Fabulous statement and factual.

2 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    Yes, when i said "we" , I was referring to right wingers .

You indeed are not a  right winger , so the 'we" wasn't referring to you .

So, there was no need for you to dissociate yourself from the selected group

 

I am right wing and very proud of it, I am also a Thatcherite.

 

She got a few things wrong, but by hell, she got most of it right.

4 hours ago, JimCM said:

Some can't get their head around that. I get called lefty, as if it's an insult. I vote Reform and like Trump lol.

That guy supports the illegal settlements in the West Bank and justified Israel's destruction of Gaza.

No blindness like fools like you who refuse to see.

 

Who started the mass killings on October 7th two years ago?

 

The kids in Palestine, as you like to call it, are brought up from 3 years old to hate Jews and Christians and become martyrs to a corrupt ideology, but you refuse to see it.

 

You are just a closet left/libtard/woke/ idealist, who refuses to accept reality.

 

Palestinians have been offered statehood possibilities multiple times, notably with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the 2000

Camp David Summit (offering significant West Bank/Gaza territory), and the 2008 Arab Peace Initiative (tied to a two-state solution), though precise counts vary, often cited around 3-5 key moments, all ultimately rejected or failed. International aid to Palestinians has been substantial, with estimates exceeding $40 billion between 1994-2020 from various donors, funding governance and development, though figures vary by source and timeframe. 

 

 

Offers of a Palestinian State (Key Moments)

 

• 1947 UN Partition Plan: Proposed dividing Mandatory Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem internationalized; rejected by Arab leaders.
• 2000 Camp David Summit: U.S. President Clinton, Israeli PM Barak, and Palestinian leader Arafat discussed a final deal; Barak offered significant land (up to 91-95% of West Bank + Gaza) with land swaps, but talks failed.
• 2008 Arab Peace Initiative: Proposed full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, which Israel didn't fully accept.
• Other proposals: Some counts include the 1937 Peel Commission (partition recommendation) and later negotiations under Oslo Accords (leading to limited self-rule) as steps towards statehood. 

•  

 

International Aid to Palestinians

 

• 1994-2020: Over $40 billion provided by international donors (OECD figures), including significant amounts for governance and development.
• UN Agencies: Spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza from 2014-2020.
• Sources: Aid comes from individual countries, the EU, UN, and other bodies, with figures reflecting different reporting periods and categories

And what was this money spent on?

 

Not schools and hospitals, but bombs and tunnels.

1 hour ago, Scouse123 said:

 

I am right wing and very proud of it, I am also a Thatcherite.

 

She got a few things wrong, but by hell, she got most of it right.

And you call yourself a Scouser?