Questions For The British Home Secretary

[Khandro]

Lots of 'first times' on here, including the first in this post to sign in on the Koran. Where is Britain heading?

[andy-hughes]

whiskeryron - // should we ever have allowed a Muslim Home Secretary in the first place ? First step in the wrong direction, Winston Churchill is turning in his grave. //

Since Winston Churchill was the main force behind a nation that fought for precisely the sort of freedoms that allow us to have Muslim Home Secretary (albeit a non-practising one, but hey, they're all the same aren't they!) - I doubt he is turning in the slightest.

[hereIam]

whiskeryron at 16:18, no we damn well shouldn't have !

[naomi24]

//albeit a non-practising one//

A non-practising one who swears his Oaths on the Koran. Right .....

But let us not digress .....

[ichkeria]

I hope as a N Irishman I never have to listen again to the English telling us we’re rekigious bigots :-)

[naomi24]

Just one more digression ….

//Since Winston Churchill was the main force behind a nation that fought for precisely the sort of freedoms that allow us to have Muslim Home Secretary… I doubt he is turning in the slightest.//

Don't be so sure. You are clearly unaware of Churchill's thoughts on Islam and its adherents.

Onwards …. Again.

[jourdain2]

'A man, who bore, 'midst snow and ice, this banner with the strange device.....

Yupidee, yupidah, yupidi - I -dah.'

naomi :)

[jourdain2]

^^^ So sorry, 'youth' should be substituted for 'man' . Flipping heck :(

[jim360]

Well, Churchill was a great man but not without his flaws, eh? :)

[naomi24]

Jourdain, :o)

Jim, Motes and beams.

[jim360]

Naomi, shut and up. :P

[naomi24]

Whilst people continue to post the carp they're posting here, go whistle.

[jim360]

As it happens Churchill is one of my favourite political heroes, but that doesn't elevate him above criticism where it's due -- but still, as it happens, my first post on him was tongue-in-cheek and it really didn't merit your usual brand of man-not-ball posting technique. I apologise for a rather poorly-judged reply in kind, but still, it really has to stop. I am aware enough of my personal flaws without you having to try and point them out (and anyway failing) at every opportunity.

[naomi24]

Jim, Criticism of Churchill in this instance isn't due. He was no useful idiot. He had it spot on.

As for the rest, you protest too much.

[jim360]

Well, whether I am protesting too much or not, you are testing the line between legitimate discussion and personal attack far too closely -- have some care, please, to distinguish the two.

That's me out for this thread.

[Peter Pedant]

// Whilst people continue to post the carp they're posting here, go whistle.//

and does this apply to yourself my sweet ?

( oh before I forget - not a bad prog on Cleo this evg.)

[naomi24]

Jim, scurrying off on the pretence of personal attack makes you look a bit silly really ... and that's not a personal attack .... it's an observation. Everyone can read what's been said and there has been no personal attack.

[THECORBYLOON]

In 2017, 450 MPs swore their oath on the King James' Bible, The New Testament, Gaelic Bible, Welsh Bible or the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

Since various MPs have sworn an oath only to affirm in later sessions (and vice versa) I doubt that every one of the 450 would say they are practising Christians.

[naomi24]

THECORBYLOON, I read that as ‘Don’t worry, he’s not Muslim really’, which, coming from someone who isn’t renowned for his criticism of Islam and its adherents, seems strange. Rather than make excuses why not have to courage to openly support the appointment of a Muslim Home Secretary – if you do? I would.

[fiction-factory]

^And all you posts on this thread make you look a bit silly really to some of us (okay, we have an agenda, right). You have driven me and jim away from this thread with your tiresome twisting, your unfounded accusations and personal attacks. And with Talbot repeatedly asking questions based on a false premise and lots of non-sequiturs and logical fallacies throughout the thread, the discussion goes nowhere. 237 posts in and still no-one has given any evidence that supports Weston and Robinson's allegations.

As things stand at present there is no case for you to answer, Home secretary Javid.

That's my last word. By all means add your comments. You may even get more whoops of support and congratulatory "gold medal for naomi" messages from your followers. If that's what turns you on, go for it

[fiction-factory]

^That's not a personal attack, by the way, just an observation. (see 23:16 last night)