Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I gave you several reasons why people didn't want to go up to them at all - all of which are perfectly valid and reasonable.

So are they racist or not - yes or no?

As said, if people don't want to confront the anti-Semites (even with a supposed numerical advantage of 295,000-5,000), then they are free to walk away and not participate in the march.

And, yes, racist by association. If you participate in an overtly anti-Semitic march what else do you expect people to be labelled as?

Someone should let the police know, anytime they want to disperse a crowd, plant a few racist signs among them and they'll all walk off

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I gave you several reasons why people didn't want to go up to them at all - all of which are perfectly valid and reasonable.

So are they racist or not - yes or no?

As said, if people don't want to confront the anti-Semites (even with a supposed numerical advantage of 295,000-5,000), then they are free to walk away and not participate in the march.

And, yes, racist by association. If you participate in an overtly anti-Semitic march what else do you expect people to be labelled as?

I didn't ask if they were racist by association, I asked if all 300,000 were racist. One word answer - yes or no?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I gave you several reasons why people didn't want to go up to them at all - all of which are perfectly valid and reasonable.

So are they racist or not - yes or no?

As said, if people don't want to confront the anti-Semites (even with a supposed numerical advantage of 295,000-5,000), then they are free to walk away and not participate in the march.

And, yes, racist by association. If you participate in an overtly anti-Semitic march what else do you expect people to be labelled as?

I didn't ask if they were racist by association, I asked if all 300,000 were racist. One word answer - yes or no?

Racist by association in this instance is racist (because you empower racists). You disagree with this idea, as shown previously. That's fine. I don't think we have anywhere else to go with this conversation.

A whole lot of words and yet none of them were 'yes' or 'no'. Quite an achievement.

Samo wrote:A whole lot of words and yet none of them were 'yes' or 'no'.  Quite an achievement.

I'm not compelled to follow his rules on how to answer questions, just like Julius isn't compelled to answer my questions.

"Our brave police officers deserve the thanks of every decent citizen for their professionalism in the face of violence and aggression from protesters and counter protesters in London yesterday. That multiple officers were injured doing their duty is an outrage. The sick, inflammatory and, in some cases, clearly criminal chants, placards and paraphernalia openly on display at the march mark a new low. Antisemitism and other forms of racism together with the valorising of terrorism on such a scale is deeply troubling. This can’t go on. Week by week, the streets of London are being polluted by hate, violence, and antisemitism. Members of the public are being mobbed and intimidated. Jewish people in particular feel threatened. Further action is necessary."

Completely correct again from the Home Secretary, but for now it is just words.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:A whole lot of words and yet none of them were 'yes' or 'no'.  Quite an achievement.

I'm not compelled to follow his rules on how to answer questions, just like Julius isn't compelled to answer my questions.

True, you can answer however you want, in order to avoid a positive discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:A whole lot of words and yet none of them were 'yes' or 'no'.  Quite an achievement.

I'm not compelled to follow his rules on how to answer questions, just like Julius isn't compelled to answer my questions.

True, you can answer however you want, in order to avoid a positive discussion.  

I'm not avoiding a positive discussion. I've answered your question numerous times and given reasoning for it. Much better than a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:A whole lot of words and yet none of them were 'yes' or 'no'.  Quite an achievement.

I'm not compelled to follow his rules on how to answer questions, just like Julius isn't compelled to answer my questions.

True, you can answer however you want, in order to avoid a positive discussion.  

I'm not avoiding a positive discussion. I've answered your question numerous times and given reasoning for it. Much better than a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

It's not much better - such smugness is beneath you.
Anyway I've moved on to worrying how I raised a racist for a daughter.

I think I'm done with this board, to be honest.

Duty, you're vile. Absolutely vile. You're aware that Brexit marches have also been held on Armistice Day in the past. We're all well aware that Brexit support comprises A LOT of racists, so all those marching were racists, according to your quite ridiculous logic.

The UK has lost the plot, and so has this board. While Duty is still here spewing this hateful, deliberately misrepresentative nonsense, I'm out.

Well, Israels army have said "anyone who hasnt moved into southern Gaza will be indentified as Hamas accomplices", so Duty isnt the only one to partake in guilt by association.

Pr4wn wrote:I think I'm done with this board, to be honest.

Duty, you're vile. Absolutely vile. You're aware that Brexit marches have also been held on Armistice Day in the past. We're all well aware that Brexit support comprises A LOT of racists, so all those marching were racists, according to your quite ridiculous logic.

The UK has lost the plot, and so has this board. While Duty is still here spewing this hateful, deliberately misrepresentative nonsense, I'm out.

I'm sorry that calling out hateful anti-Semitism is termed as 'vile' in your books. Once again you resort to your usual abuse/misinformation when you find a disagreement with me, rather than being able to discuss things intelligently and reasonably (as Julius/Navy/JAS in particular are able to do). Perhaps you should just put me on ignore and not respond to me further if it agitates you so much?

On your other point, as I pointed out to Julius in another post, there was a Brexit march in November 2016 (I believe) which was hijacked by the far-right, and so Farage and the rest of Leave.EU didn't partake in the march because they didn't wish to be associated with the far-right.

Again, deliberately misrepresentative nonsense. While you're still here, I'm gone.

Cheers, everyone. It's been a good 12 years, but my wellbeing is far to important to spend my time reading this rubbish.

When this hateful, manipulative, far-right individual finally gets banned, someone please PM me and then I'll come back.

The only one being hateful here is yourself, not me. You're throwing around more pejoratives and abuse that makes zero sense.

If anyone were to refer to me as vile and hateful I would certainly enter a period of self-reflection, especially if I thought that other people might also think about me like that. That's just me, though.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If anyone were to refer to me as vile and hateful I would certainly enter a period of self-reflection, especially if I thought that other people might also think about me like that. That's just me, though.

Yeah, but I'm used to abuse from people who can't debate, so I don't think it requires self-reflection.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If anyone were to refer to me as vile and hateful I would certainly enter a period of self-reflection, especially if I thought that other people might also think about me like that. That's just me, though.

Yeah, but I'm used to abuse from people who can't debate, so I don't think it requires self-reflection.

I would imagine Tommy Robinson takes the same approach.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If anyone were to refer to me as vile and hateful I would certainly enter a period of self-reflection, especially if I thought that other people might also think about me like that. That's just me, though.

Yeah, but I'm used to abuse from people who can't debate, so I don't think it requires self-reflection.

I would imagine Tommy Robinson takes the same approach.

He may well do, but what's the relevance?

If I were debating Robinson, or Hitler, or even Satan himself, I would debate intelligently (I hope) and reasonably (definitely).

That's quite a trio, but yes I believe you would.

I find the politics of division, the dog-whistle rhetoric, of the likes of Braverman to be vile and hateful, and ultimately damaging to this country by fomenting hate. Even her colleagues in the Tory party have refused to back her words. I also think she knows what she is doing, which makes her an even worse person.

I also find the designation of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens as racist (or racist by association, to use your clever-clever terminology) to be vile and hateful.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I find the politics of division, the dog-whistle rhetoric, of the likes of Braverman to be vile and hateful, and ultimately damaging to this country by fomenting hate. Even her colleagues in the Tory party have refused to back her words. I also think she knows what she is doing, which makes her an even worse person.

I also find the designation of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens as racist (or racist by association, to use your clever-clever terminology) to be vile and hateful.

OK. I find anti-Semitism to be vile and hateful (which is strange for a far-right person, I know), and I'm far more disturbed about the open racism and calls of violence that went unchallenged yesterday (and previous Saturdays), by both law enforcement and the supposedly average members of the march, than I am about Braverman.

You, I think, believe the anti-Semitism was just a tiny, insignificant fringe of the march yesterday, but I disagree with that and think it was much more serious (the main point of our disagreement), and you think the anti-Semites in question were infiltrators (even though some of the organisers actually have links to Hamas).

Politics of division? Politics is permanently divided. It always has been and always will be. If you take a stand on anything there will be people that support you and those who don't.

Braverman is a typical scapegoat, in this regard. She points out a problem - different standards of policing towards different groups - and is harangued as being hateful for doing so, even though she was proven entirely correct yesterday. She isn't fermenting hate either. The hate of the far-right for certain people, and the hate from Islamists and the hard left towards Jews/Israel, existed long before she became Home Secretary.

Duty281 wrote:I find anti-Semitism to be vile and hateful.

As do I, and as does Marine Le Pen apparently.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I find anti-Semitism to be vile and hateful.

As do I, and as does Marine Le Pen apparently.

I don't imagine you have many more overlaps with Le Pen, except perhaps on some economic matters.

Duty281 wrote:Braverman is a typical scapegoat, in this regard. She points out a problem - different standards of policing towards different groups - and is harangued as being hateful for doing so, even though she was proven entirely correct yesterday. She isn't fermenting hate either. The hate of the far-right for certain people, and the hate from Islamists and the hard left towards Jews/Israel, existed long before she became Home Secretary.

You'll be saying homelessness is a life-style choice next.

The march yesterday was very well policed. The right-wing thugs who attacked the police were swiftly dealt with. These people were no doubt encouraged by Braverman's reference to 'hate marches' and I believe she wished her remarks to have that effect. Politics being divided is entirely different from the politics of division i.e. deliberately setting out to create division for one's own purposes.

A small number of 'infiltrators' were separated and detained. There was no other violence to speak of and the police are issuing photos of those they wish to investigate for hate crimes.

The Met, of course, have been institutionally racist for a very long time, so in that sense, yes they have always had a two-tier policy.

Duty281 wrote:...that went unchallenged yesterday (and previous Saturdays), by....the supposedly average members of the march

And yet you yourself said that you would not have challenged them. Neither would I have done, for that matter. Nor did you argue against the other reasons I gave why people would not have challenged them. It is totally unrealistic to expect members of the public to challenge terrorist supporters on a one-on-one basis. I find it hard to believe you can't understand that, especially when you would not have challenged them yourself.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:...that went unchallenged yesterday (and previous Saturdays), by....the supposedly average members of the march

And yet you yourself said that you would not have challenged them. Neither would I have done, for that matter. Nor did you argue against the other reasons I gave why people would not have challenged them. It is totally unrealistic to expect members of the public to challenge terrorist supporters on a one-on-one basis. I find it hard to believe you can't understand that, especially when you would not have challenged them yourself.

Well, first of all, I didn't say that I wouldn't have challenged them. You asked me why I wasn't going toe-to-toe with Hamas supporters, and I replied because I wasn't there. But also I didn't say that people *have* to challenge them, neither do I expect members of the public to do so. They could simply leave the march if they wanted to. Just like I wouldn't go on any pro-Brexit march with far-right lunatics, because I don't wish to be associated with them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Braverman is a typical scapegoat, in this regard. She points out a problem - different standards of policing towards different groups - and is harangued as being hateful for doing so, even though she was proven entirely correct yesterday. She isn't fermenting hate either. The hate of the far-right for certain people, and the hate from Islamists and the hard left towards Jews/Israel, existed long before she became Home Secretary.

You'll be saying homelessness is a life-style choice next.

The march yesterday was very well policed. The right-wing thugs who attacked the police were swiftly dealt with. These people were no doubt encouraged by Braverman's reference to 'hate marches' and I believe she wished her remarks to have that effect. Politics being divided is entirely different from the politics of division i.e. deliberately setting out to create division for one's own purposes.

A small number of 'infiltrators' were separated and detained. There was no other violence to speak of and the police are issuing photos of those they wish to investigate for hate crimes.

The Met, of course, have been institutionally racist for a very long time, so in that sense, yes they have always had a two-tier policy.

I disagree with her comments about homelessness.

I don't think the march was very well policed, but you already know that. What evidence is there that these people were encouraged by Braverman, and what evidence is there that this is what Braverman wanted? I believe the EDL and other far-right groups were around and doing this sort of thing long before Braverman became Home Secretary.

There was extraordinary amounts of violence, towards police and the public, as well as extraordinary amounts of racism. This is why it wasn't well policed. What's the point of issuing photos now, when they could have been arrested yesterday? I mean, I think the actual reason is because there were too many for the police to handle and they didn't want to spark a riot, but this flies in the face of you saying it was a small number.

Why do you insist on calling the anti-Semites infiltrators, when some of the organisers have links to Hamas? What evidence is there of them being infiltrators, and not just an accepted part of the march? I believe, not 100% sure, placards were inspected by stewards at the event before people were allowed to enter the march. Peter Tatchell appeared to have issues entering with his anti-Hamas placard, but others carrying racist imagery seemed to have no problem. I wonder why this was?

And the two-tier policing we're referring to is not the same as the Met's historic racism.

Duty281 wrote:They could simply leave the march if they wanted to.

Or they could stick to their beliefs of having a peaceful march in the hope that it might somehow save a number of innocent lives. Perhaps they think that being incorrectly labelled as racists is worth it if it contributes to saving innocent lives.

I would reiterate that I find labelling them as racists (even by association) to be vile and hateful. Not as vile and hateful as anti-semitism, but it is nevertheless your own little contribution. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:They could simply leave the march if they wanted to.

Or they could stick to their beliefs of having a peaceful march in the hope that it might somehow save a number of innocent lives. Perhaps they think that being incorrectly labelled as racists is worth it if it contributes to saving innocent lives.

I would reiterate that I find labelling them as racists (even by association) to be vile and hateful. Not as vile and hateful as anti-semitism, but it is nevertheless your own little contribution. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

And I think marching with racists is vile and hateful. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection, in this regard, seemingly. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

Duty281 wrote:What evidence is there that these people were encouraged by Braverman

it was predicted it would happen as a result of her article, and guess what, it happened. Is that incontrovertible evidence? No, just as you have no actual evidence that all 300,000 of the marchers are racist, just an argument.

Duty281 wrote:what evidence is there that this is what Braverman wanted?

That is my gut feeling, which I'm allowed to have, whilst recognising that it is just a gut feeling. If nothing else, it helps her political ambitions.

Duty281 wrote:I believe the EDL and other far-right groups were around and doing this sort of thing long before Braverman became Home Secretary.

This is true. As I mentioned, even the Met have been institutionally racist for years. This country has had a lot of systemic racism for years, mainly against blacks and Asians. If we had tackled it more as a society instead of tolerating it, and made racism unacceptable, then most likely we would not be seeing the current increase in anti-semitism and, to a lesser but significant extent, Islamophobia.

Duty281 wrote:There was extraordinary amounts of violence, towards police and the public.

We must have a different definition of extraordinary. Even then, nearly all the violence towards the police was from the far-right counter protestors.

Duty281 wrote:Why do you insist on calling the anti-Semites infiltrators, when some of the organisers have links to Hamas? What evidence is there of them being infiltrators, and not just an accepted part of the march? I believe, not 100% sure, placards were inspected by stewards at the event before people were allowed to enter the march. Peter Tatchell appeared to have issues entering with his anti-Hamas placard, but others carrying racist imagery seemed to have no problem. I wonder why this was?

Just as you 'believe' one thing, so I 'believe' another. What I am sure of is that neither of us has experience of policing such a march and thus our ideas on how it should be best policed are based on ignorance.

Duty281 wrote:And the two-tier policing we're referring to is not the same as the Met's historic racism.

No, but see my point above about how allowing racism in one form emboldens it in others.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:They could simply leave the march if they wanted to.

Or they could stick to their beliefs of having a peaceful march in the hope that it might somehow save a number of innocent lives. Perhaps they think that being incorrectly labelled as racists is worth it if it contributes to saving innocent lives.

I would reiterate that I find labelling them as racists (even by association) to be vile and hateful. Not as vile and hateful as anti-semitism, but it is nevertheless your own little contribution. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

And I think marching with racists is vile and hateful. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection, in this regard, seemingly. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

As I have said, I find your argument that they were 'marching with racists', as though they somehow shared their values, to have no weight whatsoever. It is personally insulting to a member of my family, and by inference, to me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What evidence is there that these people were encouraged by Braverman

it was predicted it would happen as a result of her article, and guess what, it happened. Is that incontrovertible evidence? No, just as you have no actual evidence that all 300,000 of the marchers are racist, just an argument.

Duty281 wrote:what evidence is there that this is what Braverman wanted?

That is my gut feeling, which I'm allowed to have, whilst recognising that it is just a gut feeling. If nothing else, it helps her political ambitions.

Duty281 wrote:I believe the EDL and other far-right groups were around and doing this sort of thing long before Braverman became Home Secretary.

This is true. As I mentioned, even the Met have been institutionally racist for years. This country has had a lot of systemic racism for years, mainly against blacks and Asians. If we had tackled it more as a society instead of tolerating it, and made racism unacceptable, then most likely we would not be seeing the current increase in anti-semitism and, to a lesser but significant extent, Islamophobia.

Duty281 wrote:There was extraordinary amounts of violence, towards police and the public.

We must have a different definition of extraordinary. Even then, nearly all the violence towards the police was from the far-right counter protestors.

Duty281 wrote:Why do you insist on calling the anti-Semites infiltrators, when some of the organisers have links to Hamas? What evidence is there of them being infiltrators, and not just an accepted part of the march? I believe, not 100% sure, placards were inspected by stewards at the event before people were allowed to enter the march. Peter Tatchell appeared to have issues entering with his anti-Hamas placard, but others carrying racist imagery seemed to have no problem. I wonder why this was?

Just as you 'believe' one thing, so I 'believe' another. What I am sure of is that neither of us has experience of policing such a march and thus our ideas on how it should be best policed are based on ignorance.

Duty281 wrote:And the two-tier policing we're referring to is not the same as the Met's historic racism.

No, but see my point above about how allowing racism in one form emboldens it in others.

Not quoting it like this, are we?

1) What in Braverman's article (I'm presuming the one in The Times) encouraged the far-right to act as they did?

2) Fair.

3) Yes, I agree. That's why I think it's so important to not march with racists. Many of the overt anti-Semites on the march will have been emboldened by those marching with them. It's the same reason why I wouldn't want to march with far-right people.

4) This is incorrect. The majority of the violence and racism came from those on the pro-Palestine march. There were, perhaps (not 100% sure), fewer arrests among the pro-Palestine lot, but this was because the police were reluctant to actually arrest them at the time.

5) Yes, but I believe the people you refer to as 'infiltrators' are no such thing because of some of the organisers' links to Hamas, and the willingness of everyone else to march alongside them. I wasn't actually referring to the police in Tatchell's example, I was referring to 'Stop the War' stewards.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:They could simply leave the march if they wanted to.

Or they could stick to their beliefs of having a peaceful march in the hope that it might somehow save a number of innocent lives. Perhaps they think that being incorrectly labelled as racists is worth it if it contributes to saving innocent lives.

I would reiterate that I find labelling them as racists (even by association) to be vile and hateful. Not as vile and hateful as anti-semitism, but it is nevertheless your own little contribution. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

And I think marching with racists is vile and hateful. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection, in this regard, seemingly. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

As I have said, I find your argument that they were 'marching with racists', as though they somehow shared their values, to have no weight whatsoever. It is personally insulting to a member of my family, and by inference, to me.

Yes, I know, we disagree on this. I think marching with racists is bad, you don't.

1) Maybe not the article. Wherever the reference to wholly inaccurate 'hate marches' came from, which was a deliberate choice of words to actually stir up hatred.
3) If you abandon your principles, abandon the march, then the racists win. They will have prevented the right of people to protest. You are not marching with them, you are marching in spite of them. I can absolutely assure you that my daughter is neither racist not 'racist by association' whatever the hell that means. I am very confident that she is a better person than either you or I and she will not let racists prevent her from expressing her opinion in a peaceful manner, much less embolden them. I utterly refute your offensive opinion on that.
Fringe elements are in every large march. It does not mean that everyone on the march is marching with the fringe elements. You seem to want some sort of utopian march scenario that does not exist in the real world.
4) Statistical evidence?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:They could simply leave the march if they wanted to.

Or they could stick to their beliefs of having a peaceful march in the hope that it might somehow save a number of innocent lives. Perhaps they think that being incorrectly labelled as racists is worth it if it contributes to saving innocent lives.

I would reiterate that I find labelling them as racists (even by association) to be vile and hateful. Not as vile and hateful as anti-semitism, but it is nevertheless your own little contribution. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

And I think marching with racists is vile and hateful. It is a shame you're not given to self-reflection, in this regard, seemingly. It is a difficult trait to obtain, but it is quite useful.

As I have said, I find your argument that they were 'marching with racists', as though they somehow shared their values, to have no weight whatsoever. It is personally insulting to a member of my family, and by inference, to me.

Yes, I know, we disagree on this. I think marching with racists is bad, you don't.

Yes, but I think you are either wilfully or ignorantly misrepresenting those on the march as 'marching with racists' - see my previous replies.

I'm not going to reply further on this, because I find your position so offensive that at best I can only view it as hopelessly naive and at worst to be....let's just leave it at that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:1) Maybe not the article. Wherever the reference to wholly inaccurate 'hate marches' came from, which was a deliberate choice of words to actually stir up hatred.
3) If you abandon your principles, abandon the march, then the racists win. They will have prevented the right of people to protest. You are not marching with them, you are marching in spite of them. I can absolutely assure you that my daughter is neither racist not 'racist by association' whatever the hell that means. I am very confident that she is a better person than either you or I and she will not let racists prevent her from expressing her opinion in a peaceful manner, much less embolden them. I utterly refute your offensive opinion on that.
Fringe elements are in every large march. It does not mean that everyone on the march is marching with the fringe elements. You seem to want some sort of utopian march scenario that does not exist in the real world.
4) Statistical evidence?

1) Yes, that was in the article. It was 'hate marchers', which I think is perfectly fair because there were many hateful people on the march. In any case, the article was directed at the police, not at far-right elements, who Braverman dismissed as being 'rightly met with a stern response' when engaging in acts of aggression. Do the far-right really take instruction from a brown woman, in any case?

3) You don't have to abandon the march. Set up a different one if you wish, preferably one that isn't organised by people linked to Hamas.

You continually try to make this personal, but you don't seem to grasp that while you may be offended by what I and others are saying about this, that the march and your viewpoints can equally be construed as offensive to others. Many Jewish people, including friends of mine, are utterly terrified about what has happened. Do you consider those people? You seem to only be looking at it one way.

I did ask this before, and you didn't answer, but how many of the 300,000 attended the solidarity rally with Israel in Trafalgar Square a few weeks back, which called for a release of hostages? This rally, as far as I'm aware, was extraordinarily peaceful (almost utopian!). Yet it seems many of the 300,000 were more interested in attending a rally with a far more sinister undercurrent.

Fringe elements - again, the source of our disagreement is you think the overt anti-Semites were some tiny fringe. I disagree, because of some of the organisers' links to Hamas and how their behaviour was tolerated.

4) If you mean in terms of violent incidents and racist imagery, just look on Twitter. Dozens and dozens of appalling incidents and that's just after a brief look.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not going to reply further on this, because I find your position so offensive that at best I can only view it as hopelessly naive and at worst to be....let's just leave it at that.

As you wish. I have no hard feelings against you.

Some excellent polarising debate above.

You guys must be exhausted! Well, maybe not Duty so much...

I'll go get Galted's towels for you both...
Don't worry, they've hardly ever been used and Galtova still washes them regularly.

Pal Joey wrote:Some excellent polarising debate above.  

You guys must be exhausted! Well, maybe not Duty so much...

I'll go get Galted's towels for you both...
Don't worry, they've hardly ever been used and Galtova still washes them regularly.

Yes, defending a family member against entirely false accusations of racism can be tiring.

I only hope his Jewish friends don't believe his lies as it will unnecessarily add to their fears.

Looks like Braverman's been given the heave-ho. See what all your bickering's done.

I have no hard feelings against her.

Don’t worry lads, David Camerons making a comeback.

You vote for a party that includes a pig f*cker...

Cameron must be bored

superflyweight wrote:You vote for a party that includes a pig f*cker...

I think it's a crackling appointment.

Anyway I wish Braverman well in her future role on GB News

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

superflyweight wrote:You vote for a party that includes a pig f*cker...

I think it's a crackling appointment.

I disagree. I think it's ham-fisted.