Sir Ralph

Its actually ridiculous that anyone thinks that because Kirk had a political opinion that he vocalised he may have to some degree put himself at risk. If you accept that as a concept you might as well bin free speech if its going to offend any looney that might kill you then. This lunatic wrote 'catch facist' on his bullet.

Ok I take your point. I think that based on the evidence to date regarding inscriptions on bullets etc and the fact the Kirk was a prominent conservative that the motivation for the killing is likely to be political. I genuinely hope the right don’t react with public disorder . Let’s see what happens then - I may be proved wrong and made to look silly (again) However the point about whether it was pre meditated or not is neither here nor there in the context of the point made.

Why does it explain a different reaction from the public? if you want to get technical the officer in the George Floyd case were charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder so my statement was factually correct

I’m unclear as to why that shows me in a poor light and dim. Please explain. They are probably to two most high profile murders in recent years in the US and the reaction to both has been markedly different from a public disorder perspective(I hasten to add to date). Neither we justified and both terrible. I genuinely fail to see how that is a controversial point other than you disagree with the point

Somebody observed this morning - the difference between the peoples reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death and the that took place after George Floyd’s death. One peaceful (so far) the other widespread disorder.

I wasn’t making a political point I was just saying that the proliferation of drugs is a big issue particularly if you go to lots of American cities now. The sad thing is that lots of people of fent were legitimately introduced to it

Guns and liberal drug policies for starters

Youre buggered if youre an ally of the labour party then😆

Thats fine - my initial perception on some of the responses was incorrect and I hold my hands up, like I said.

Fair point I may have pushed the political element a bit too far. Hands up and apologies

Great reply. You havent said once that his murder was unacceptable but suggested other factors. Do you think it was unacceptable? If so I'm happy to accept that I was wrong in respect of my perception of your view on this matter.

Exactly - if you actually listen to his background he was god-fearing and his principle point wasnt to destroy people but challenge university students who he believes had been unduly influenced by wokeism on US campuses. His objective was to challenge thinking. He wasnt aggressive or demeaning as others have suggested.

Its interesting that those who are more conservative are saying that killing people for their opinions (regardless of their opinion) isnt ok but the more liberal posters seem to be more comfortable with it, even though they are the self-titled nice, caring, empathic ones.

Tedious. The second paragraph still stands.

He’s talking about the use of guns for self protection not murder. I’m not saying I agree with Americas approach to guns but highlighting what he was saying. In some of these posts it appears that the actions resulting in his death can be justified to some degree. I think that speaks volumes and is pretty sick if that’s what anyone is suggesting. Nobody’s political opinions merit them being shot - fact.

Its sad that someone thinks that somebody needs to shot somebody because they cant handle or rebut their opinion. Kirk was a reasonable debater - not someone with extreme views, which makes it even more worrying. To say this wasnt politically motivated seems unlikely. The shooter has actually increased KIrk's profile and more people will now watch his videos and his views. I've joined the Turning Point USA and UK because of it.

Well we disagree on it then.

Just because I understand what VAT is it doesnt mean to say I agree with it in this circumstance for the reasons set out. I'm not an outlier in my view on this - its a well discussed perspective and plenty of other centrists and conservatives have taken the same view. The consequences to the educational system seem to have been ignored in view of a political tax. You are making the case on the principle of the application of VAT generally. I don't dismiss your point but I think that there are counter arguments which are stronger.

I understand what VAT is and its purpose. I don’t agree that it should be applied to school fees. The system worked fine before and I don’t believe it’s fair or the outcomes will be positive. Of course having tax for only using certain services would be challenging from an admin perspective but the private school approach was already in place and worked. It didn’t need changing. Also stop being patronising. You seem to think you’re smart and the owner of “the truth” - you aren’t. Less of the “I’m the big man” and a bit more humility.

As we don’t know each others personal circumstances then yes we do all caricature each other. I’ve also met socialists and have formed my opinion on them based on that. You will also have formed your opinion on conservatives based on meeting them. You have taken a view on me when you said this so it works two ways: I guess someone self-centred can’t fathom anyone not thinking solely of themselves at all time

We all have our personal views - you might say my world view is stupid but dismissing somebody cause you disagree doesn’t help anyone. You don’t like my view because I maintain a position you disagree with. i take this view as your opinions seem to be linked to a dislike of those which have money and I’m not the only person who has said this. Other people have said it. Whilst I think that there are those on the right and left that look for the greater good I think that a lot of people that espouse this greater good view by taxing more are actually beneficiaries of that approach and hide behind a facade of greater good. In this scenario, those that attack conservatives are actually being hypocritical.

I understand the point that’s it’s a choice and but my personal opinion (and I think yours) is that the case I made for no VAT is a better one. In the long run I think the impact to the UK educational system will not be a positive one.

By calling it a tax break my personal view is it doesn’t reflect the full context. We all pay tax for schools. Those who pay for private schools have already paid their fair share. They are then paying more for a private space to the benefit of the state. I think penalising them with a tax on this is an unfair tax.

For clarity I wasn’t proposing a tax break. I was just saying that, if anything, there should be a tax break rather than VAT payable.

I know that socialism rejects anyone with any money, even if not wealthy, hence this mentality. The politics of envy. Socialism is a race to the bottom. Prefer other people not access good education even if it reduces the quality of education generally and puts more pressure on state schools. It is a good thing to want to work hard to be able to provide your children with the best opportunities. Why is it wrong to have the option of a better eduction? In our local private school, there are no less bursaries because of the VAT increase so it’s actually increasing inequality in this respect. Also your suggestion that having parents of rich children in school will help the state schools. I understand the concept but the reality is that most people with more money live in certain areas where the state schools and grammar schools are better. Kids leave private schools tend to have a better education and are likely to fill the spaces in the better schools in that area (eg grammar schools). This reduces the spaces for those pupils with less wealthy parents and pushes everyone down the pyramid. I certainly don’t think that most kids leaving private schools will be attending under performing local comps.