Jamie123

47 minutes and counting! To be honest, I'm a teeny-tiny bit worried since you said that. Also, I've been playing devil's advocate with myself: we know that people who read the Bible are not the sort of folks who crash aeroplanes into buildings, but could they potentially become so? How often do we see a Bible burning compared to a Koran burning? My gut says: "no it would never happen" but are there "Christian radicals" hiding in the woodwork, waiting to commit acts of terror should there ever be a Bible-burning? I still think Islam gets special protection, while Christianity gets sat on. A few years ago Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine got arrested and charged for daring to tell a gay PCSO that homosexuality was a sin. (It's not even as if he preached it: he said "it's a sin" in response to a direct question from the PCSO!) Admittedly the police eventually backed down and apologized, but not before McAlpine had spent hours in police custody. Have you ever heard of that happening to a Muslim? Around the same time a pair of Christian innkeepers were arrested for suggesting to a Muslim guest that Muhammad was "a warlord". That one got all the way to court before the judge threw it out as "ridiculous" but it still destroyed their business.

I don't think it was anything so sophisticated. It was just pure smartypantery.

I've thought this for a long time. Christians won't stab you if you burn the Bible. Latter-day Saints won't shoot you if you burn the Book of Mormon. (And before you start, yes I know Latter-day Saints are Christians, but not all Christians are Latter-day Saints, so let's not go off on that tangent.) Jews won't strangle you if you tear up the Torah. Hindus won't disembowel you if you use the Mahabharata as a fire-lighter. Some Muslims on the other hand will cause you a lot of of pain, destruction and death if you burn, desecrate or even insult the Koran. And that's why snotty little district "judges" (who are actually just jumped-up stipendiary magistrates) virtue-signal by giving you a visit-to-the-principal's-office-style dressing down if you ever do it. Continuing with the school principal analogy, you might as well have a codified rule forbidding any criticism of the school bully (who's known for his psycho-temper and his carrying of knives) but making it fine to pick on mild-mannered Jeremy Smith or Susie Walters who always turn the other cheek.

I've just come out of a meeting. I'd seriously like to know if anyone has ever achieved anything by going to a meeting. Everyone sits around a table and the chairman goes through the agenda items one by one, and sometimes says "Now item four, blah blah blah... I'll hand over to Julie for this." And Julie gets up and says "Blah blah blah blah..." - to which (almost) no one one listens to a word - "...blah blah blah blah. Thank you very much." and the chairman says "Thank you very much Julie, does anyone have anything to add..." and the one person who was listening gets up and says "Yes I'd like to add that..." blah blah blah blah blah..., while everyone else reads e-mails on their iphones or looks out of the window at birds circling against the grey overcast, or watches the hands of the clock and thinks about the piles of work on their desk which isn't getting done because they have to be at this stupid meeting listening to the chairman and Julie spouting stuff no one will listen to or remember five minutes on from now. I can think of only two exceptions: The Council of Elrond During the war, the meetings that bomber pilots, navigators, bombardiers etc. would have with their commander before flying off on a mission to make sure they bomb the right place at the right time etc. There are two consolations to going to a meeting: Coffee or tea (though this naturally doesn't apply if you're LDS. Sometimes orange juice too.) Biscuits (I like the ginger ones) (Sometimes) Cake and sandwiches OKOK that's three. Cake and sandwiches do kinda make all the difference - if they have them. But apart from them, meetings are an unproductive drain on your time, which could be put to something far more productive (like sleep). I daresay I'm going to be flamed now by all the meetings fans out there!

Deleted. Too nasty. Starmer is... not a very nice man. But that's all the more reason to pray for him.

That's exactly what most British people said when David Irving was thrown into prison by the Austrians. Nowadays, according to the lefty-wokey pseudointelligencia Starmerites who govern this country now, the truth or falsehood of an idea is less important than the groups of people it is likely to offend. As J.R.R. Tolkien wrote: "I bow not yet before your iron crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down." Discretion may be the better part of valour, but let's not forget there's another part too. (I've woken up a little bit Henry V this morning!)

Grannyopterix is always worth listening to... The Glorious Revolution again, with Trumpety-Trump as William of Orange? (At least he's the right colour for it!)

Like I'd ever resort to violence!

Oh plenty of politicians are! It's just that there aren't enough of them in Parliament to oppose Starmer-Schmarmer and his merry men, since we stupidly voted them all in. Our best hope is a rebellion in the Labour back benches. They can't all be under the Starmer spell!

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow. I can well imagine consenting adults making porn without being trafficked or subjected to violence. If people are being trafficked or attacked to make porn then by all means arrest the porn-makers for that, but not for the porn itself.

The la-and of the freeeee...and the home of the...brave! (I used to know all the words to that song, though I sometimes inserted silly words of my own. Not everyone appreciated my humour.)

I agree pornography ought to be destroyed, but I don't agree that the government, courts and police should be the ones to do it. It's the people "using" it (and I've been as guilty as anyone in this respect!) who need to wake up, see what damage it's doing to them, and do the destroying themselves. A tyrant who tyrranizes other people "for their own good" is still a tyrant. Whatever Mr Starmer and people like him might say, that doesn't apply to Lucy. She made that comment directly after the murders and long before the riots had even started. The judges stuck their fingers in their ears and went "lalalalala" when that was pointed out. They didn't care about facts. All they cared about was having Lucy Connolly's head on a stick. I am by no means ashamed to be British, but right now Britain has a goggly-eyed stupid-haired silly-faced problem living in No. 10 Downing Street.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-starmer-lucy-connolly-free-speech-b2757856.html I'm normally the last person to say "US good UK bad" (there's plenty of bad in both) but in this matter I'm right behind Trump. Starmer won the election last year on a protest vote, and he's turning our to be twice as bad as the people voters were protesting against. If Trump wants to give Starmer a "kick up the arse" that's fine by me! I'll probably be arrested now for "incitement to kick the Prime Minister up the arse" - even though I've crossed it out already!

Haha I'd almost forgotten about Henry! Poor fella!

A bit like "Constantinople is a very long word, spell it." (To which the answer of course is "I.T.")