hypochondriac

Is that a guess? Or fact?

Nick Griffin voted for the Labour Party like you did. Do you share his opinions?

Is the problem with anti-Muslim prejudice from lone individuals in the Conservative party comparable with the systemic anti-semitism within the Labour Party? If it is at a similar level then why have the EHRC opened an investigation into Labout anti-semitism yet have not done so for the Conservatives?

Doesn't seem like our sort of player.

Interesting. I wonder if what I was told was in any way accurate or a load of guff?

If the Iranians hadn't messed around and captured American and UK ships, hadn't killed thousands under the command of Soleimani and hadn't recently caused trouble at the US embassy in Iraq then it's unlikely that Trump would have killed the terrorist and all these people would probably still be alive.

You can stamp your feet and present opinion as fact as much as you like but it doesn't make it true. Meanwhile the ehrc are still investigating labour for systemic anti-semitism. Why do you think they have not deemed it necessary to do the same for the Conservatives?

I know concepts like this are hard for you to grasp but it was very clearly hyperbole in an article from a number of years ago in the context of defending their right to wear the garments whilst also admitting that they look ridiculous (which they do.) Islamaphobia is an invented word weaponised even against those who have legitimate criticisms of the religion. There isn't even an accepted definition beyond the farcical idea that it is a "type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." Anti-Muslim prejudice is a real thing and it's a factually accurate description. That's your first Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins name check for the year, two personalities you are clearly obsessed with. I should keep a tally.

You're talking your normal guff. I haven't changed in the slightest, I'll continue to call out your mad posts I'm not sure what gave you the impression I wouldn't. Iran shoots down a plane and in your mind and the minds of some other mad lefty loons its Trump to blame for it. Would you be saying the same thing of Obama? Of course you wouldn't, people like you quite liked Obama so you wouldn't be blaming him despite him being the drone striker in chief.

The only people at fault for Iran blowing up a plane are Iran.

They did look like letter boxes and bank robbers he was completely correct. His article defended their right to wear it but also the right for people to say it makes them look ridiculous. Personally I think oppressive religious garments should be ridiculed because nowhere in the Qaran does it mention wearing these horrible things. If my wife faced social pressure and had been indoctrinated from birth to accept it then I'd be appalled.I've said to you before that Islamaphobia doesn't exist and is an invention from those who don't want to accept criticism of their religious. What you were searching for is Anti-Muslim prejudice and it is certainly true that members of the Tory party have expressed some anti-Muslim sentiments but it's not a credible comparison to compare that with anti-semitic problem within Labour. There has been no racist hounding of Muslim Tories from members of their own party- Sajid Javid did rather well in the leadership election. Where is the Muslim equivalent of Luciana Berger in the Tory party who resigned after relentless abuse often anti-semitic in nature from other members of the Party? At the Conservative Party conference have there been reports of people shouting Anti-Muslim slogans at Party members? If the two problems are one and the same then where is the Equality and Human Rights commission investigation into so-called Islamaphobia in the Tory party?

No one said we shouldn't pay for their travel but as I said, travel costs have doubled whilst state visit costs have stayed the same since meghan and Harry got married.

Also just heard that one trip to Fiji cost the tax payer 81k last year and travel costs have apparently doubled for the entire Royal family since meghan married Harry but state visit costs have remained the same which suggests we are all paying for their holidays.

Here's a good article which sums up my thoughts well: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/prince-harry-meghan-markle-hypocrisy-royals/604714/

I don't agree but let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct so we can discount the climate change lectures as a reason for people being annoyed. Do you disagree with the rest of my analysis?

Multiple private jet flights on a number of holidays isn't really the same thing is it.

I meant the content of his speech. It was well received because he was telling a room of woke celebrities that people don't like being preached to.

That was one thing I highlighted when there's a whole catalogue of things which when taken together make it quite understandable why public sentiment has largely turned against them. People don't like being preached to by woke celebrities (see the recent Ricky Gervais golden globes speech for example) and they particularly don't like climate change lectures when they are frequently jetting round the globe on private jets and when they are taking huge amounts of money from tax payers. The Queen understands the need to keep the public onside because without them their positions would cease to exist.

It just means Britain first members are largely thick idiots. I think it's a silly idea but if you want to judge leaders by the dodgy supporters they attract then it's not like Corbyn is short in that respect. Nick Griffin is one high profile supporter for example.

Of course that's why he has one in his cabinet.

Maybe but it's not like they haven't been worthy of criticism without any of that stuff, going through staff at a rate of knots, opening themselves up to claims of hypocrisy over climate lecturing, new age lectures about gender neutral child rearing, millions of pounds of taxpayer money spent on refurbishing their property and the pretty poor way she treated her father over the wedding along with moaning about their lifestyle with an African backdrop. Yes the mail and the like have been typically sensationalist but its not like there's been a shortage of negative pr. Oh and the rumoured plan to monetise their titles is pretty vulgar if true so the royals wouldn't be too wrong in that respect.

If you don't think he lost the election due to media bias then why did you challenge my belief that neutral media coverage would still have meant he lost the election? Like I said, media coverage did not affect the outcome. Why are you still banging on about Corbyn? I entered this discussion when you said started talking about the media being against corbyn and that may be why he lost the election. You seem a bit obsessed with Boris and no need to have a rerun of the election.

I think my Grandad knew him, I'll pass on the details cheers.

My point is that facts about Corbyn are objectionable on their own with no media spin required. He's not the type of character that people want as Prime Minister and he's done various things that people don't like. Labour have themselves to blame for this election result not some evil media campaign brainwashing the sheeple. And if Corbyn has a negative assosciation with Russia then he only has himself to blame for that too considering his Salisbury statement (and yes I am aware of precisely what he did and didn't say in that circumstance, the impression it gave and the timeline involved.)

I see it suits your narrative to try to change the conversation. I am happy to believe that reddit have an experienced moderation team who have many years experience of this sort of "content manipulation" as they put it but I accept that some Corbynistas will believe that the right wing moderators made it up as yet another facet of their campaign against Corbyn so as I said, feel free to use IRA or refer to the many other objectionable things about Corbyn, the point remains the same.