Sir Ralph

It was supported by two Tory governments so there was mixed opinions. It was supported by other politicians who are better placed to make a call than you are.

The example I gave was of a convicted extremist!

The problem was it was never given the chance. With political will it could have been ramped up and then there could have been a lag until numbers reduced. People saying there are no good solution but dismissing this which could have been enacted legally. Again, its political will.

It doesnt matter whether it was expensive to start with. It was a disincentivising plan. once it had started and people know thats what happened when you come to Britain they would more likely have stayed in Europe. You have too much regard for human rights of some people and not others. Human rights lawyers are principle good but many of them are financially incentivised to protect bad people, like convicted extremists.

Every Government is worried about the optics of breaking international law thats the problem. This is why Rwanda was a good idea. It would have shipped people out and disincentivised people not to come if they know they were going to end up in Africa. But no, this Government scrapped it. Each crime committed here is on the head of the current government as they could have persisted with the plan. I'm not saying the Tories didnt allow this to occur but at least they had a disincentivising plan. Unfortunately, if you want change you need a Government in place that is willing to challenge or ignore these laws and suffer the consequences. Unfortunately it will be an ongoing battle against a vocal minority of loonies who will legally challenge all the way.

Bit strange he was responding to my posts earlier today then wasnt it. Maybe you can explain on his behalf why he doesnt want to reply now all of sudden?

Funny he was happy to respond to me earlier today. Maybe things got a bit sticky for him.... Also he appears to think that stating something as fact that appears to incorrect, based on what I’ve read, shouldn’t be challenged. I can only take it as an acceptance of being incorrect. Bearing in mind he could easily explain the source he quoted it seems strange he has clammed up all of a sudden.

Convenient that. No part of my message was aggressive it just challenged something you stated as a fact, which it appears was completely incorrect. It appears that being challenged is uncomfortable for you. So you have made up something to suit your narrative. Base your comments on fact.

Completely agree. It’s no justification anyway but who said that Muslims are the most persecuted religious group since WW2 anyway. I can’t find any source which backs this up, if anything the conclusion are that Christians are the most persecuted group in recent decades. @egg

Can I ask why you believe you know a lot about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict? Where do you get your knowledge base from to have the views you have?

I think you need to firstly differentiate the deaths of civilians in a war, compared to the deaths of people in a country who is not at war. Having said that civilians should never be targets and the death of civilians in war is terrible. I don't know enough about the Israel and Palestinian conflict to know the rights and wrongs of land ownership and the detail of the conflict. If the Israeli's were targeting citizens on purpose then that is terrible and politicians should be held accountable. The deaths of children in particular in war is very upsetting and sad. My problem with having a view on this is that a lot of people profess to understand this conflict but I dont believe they do. Its incredibly complicated and has a long history. I know a lot of people who get very passionate about it but when I ask for an explanation of their knowledge and background it all goes rather quiet. The only person that I know who has been there was a nurse who was helping injured Palestinians. What she said is that a lot of the locals hate Hamas as they make up their military bases within civilian areas and facilities (e.g. hospitals) so that the Israeli's have causalities on their hands as a result of targeting military operations (the human shield tactic). So what I cant differentiate is how purposeful the targeting and deaths of civilians is, bearing in mind the relevant person is the only one who I would say has first hand experience and is relatively impartial. Having said that, having seen the devastation in parts of Gaza, I dont believe that all Israeli attacks are necessary and some of it maybe purposefully destructive. I'm sure that, despite my attempt at a measured post you are going to get all excited and tell me that I support the deaths of children. I could also ask you why you arent commenting about the deaths of Christians in Nigeria (50,000 since 2009). These people werent at war but have been killed by radicals.

I agree with you on this. I think Trump has contradicted himself. You cant have free speech and then apply this.

Have a good day.

As I said above, comments relate to an extreme portion of people who believe in an ideology, not a whole religion. Unfortunately you have conflated my criticism of radicalised people with everyone who believes in that religion. I dont think I have ever said what you have suggested and that is not my belief. The comments on this post were about the Bondi killings and the types of radicalised people that would do this type of stuff to innocent civilians. I'm glad we agree this is wrong.

Jesus had liberal virtues like helping the poor and needy and the sick. He also had more conservative values, such as being pro-life and supporting the nuclear family. I think it would be difficult to pigeon hole. I think there is a difference between being tolerant and not being clear that some radical ideologies are bad for mankind and being clear about this. I dont think anyone has tarred a whole religious group with the same brush. The comments made here are referring to the extreme sect of a religion.