Verbal

Christ that video is funny - and so cringeworthy you can't watch it anywhere but from behind a sofa. And that's quite aside from its being utter bullsh it, of course.

Just so you know, badger, we did go through this at inordinate length a few pages ago. And the problem is that Al-tenderi has become so lost in his cult that he can only give the most Panglossian gloss on anything one of his heroes says. The context for Mogg's remark is a question-and-answer exchange about how long it has to be for his hero to be proved wrong. He gave it a 50-year timescale. Saying 'over the next 50 years' is to employ the usual weasel words that amount to saying Brexiters cannot be proved wrong in our lifetimes. Anyone who accepts that as a legitimate response is, frankly, out of their tiny minds.

I didn't vote for Corbyn. I voted for my constituency MP, who is brilliant, like a lot of MPs who've resigned from Corbyn's cabinet. If I were in Corbyn's constituency, I wouldn't vote for an antisemitic 'friend' of terrorists, wreath bearer for a Munich killer, and supporter of brutal despots like Assad, Putin and Maduro. Would you? But why don't you leave aside your demented trolling for a second and tell us what you actually think of the incidents described in my post above. Give us, for once, an actual opinion that you've worked out all by yourself. Do you approve of Angela Rayner, one of Corbyn's own shadow cabinet ministers, being threatened with rape and murder? To the point where she's now had panic alarms fitted in her house? It's hard to guess your answer to this because you seem so uninterested in anything, no matter how appalling, if it doesn't involve than proclaiming boundless adulation of St Jezza. So go on - give us a clue. Promise we won't bite.

It is annoying. If the answer to a question is 'yes', 'no', 'very' or 'not at all', then it's a bad question. Or more precisely a closed question. Open questions - in the form of 'tell me about...' almost always elicit more interesting answers. The kind of closed questioning you see in club PR interviews betrays either a lack of confidence in the players to express themselves well or a simple lack of interest. Valery is an articulate young man. He doesn't need this annoying prompting.

And the deep dive into the sewers continues... Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, who committed the clearly capital offence of saying something vaguely positive about Blair, has been issued with a death threat by a man who identified himself as a Corbynista. He's been arrested. Meanwhile, the Labour's director of governance, Thomas Gardiner has apparently resigned following disclosures in the Observer at the weekend that the paperwork for pending Jew-hating cases was shared privately with Corbyn's team. And (the Jewish) Rachel Riley has been shouted down as 'dangerous and stupid' by a character in Corbyn's office who appears to be the daughter of someone else in Corbyn's office. (If they think Riley stupid they clearly haven't watched Countdown...) All in the last 24 hours. But just in case the temptation to think all of Labour is a basket case, this is a remarkable story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/arts/design/hackney-london-public-housing.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer There's hope yet - so long as Corbyn and the baying mob he adores are ditched soon.

Honestly, it's beyond bizarre now. Should someone do an intervention?

Well I'm not having any of this. Fu ck off the pair of you.

No, it's clearly racist. Compare the comments by the Anti-Muslamics on here regarding Shamima Begum with those about Jihadi Jack. I think you'll find that white, male, partly Canadian Jack gets a free ride while the evil brown schoolgirl attracts all the venom. I hate Jihadists as much as anyone. Not least because a very good friend of mine - a Hindu - was kidnapped by one of them and spent six brutalising months in South Waziristan. I know what these people are like. They are vain, beyond stupid, and above all think they have a god-given right to cause untold damage to people and things, while maintaining their sanctimonious righteousness. Question them on scriptural matters and they know sweet fu ck all. Almost all of them have criminal backgrounds, and have discovered that their violent bullying can be sanctified by the simple expedient of being hyper-violent in the name of the cult. I don't know what crimes Shamima Begum has committed. I bet she's committed a fair few that would make anyone's blood boil. Ditto, times ten, I suspect, for Jihadi Jack (his loyalty, in all likelihood, would have been tested - and I dread to think what that means). But the supposed difference between 'us and them' - Jihadists and believers in democratic, liberal, Magna Carta values of free speech and the rule of law - is that we're supposed to know that our personal feelings cannot ever be allowed to determine the legal fate of people accused of even the most heinous of crimes. That's my objection to the ludicrous little baying mob on here. As for legal remedies, personally I'd rather the fate of those accused of crimes under the banner of ISIS be tried in the Hague, at the International Criminal Court. The Court has the ability to cross-reference large numbers of witness statements and evidence that a simple criminal case in the UK may not be able to do, especially now that the legal system has been thoroughly Graylinged. But the larger point is that ISIS is an international criminal enterprise - including the attempt genocide of the Yazidis - which should be treated the same way as the ethnic-cleansing killers of Tutsis, Rohingya and Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims.

No he didn't. It was a clear and obvious inference that could be drawn from your comments. And please look up the word 'inference'. Wasp-chewing bigots love to say 'I didn't exactly say that!' when it is not clearly said but is clearly implied. Readers of your comments are entitled to draw reasoned inferences. You and the other racist Islamophobes on here, notably Lighthouse (who's been called out by a number of posters on here, not just me, all to no avail), seem incapable of seeing the problem as a legal one rather than one that edges into a peevish and base desire to enact revenge on a teenager. The legitimacy of western liberal democratic values - British ones - depend hugely on the idea of the rule of law. By the way, what in the hell is wrong with Tom Holland's post?!

Ah, that's nice - the Holy Trinity in one post: ignorance, Islamophobia and hypocrisy. We're all ignorant of most things, but using ignorance as the underpinning of an argument just makes for a bad look. Just to take your points, such as they are, about Pakistan. Asia Bibi, a Christian who was imprisoned for blasphemy, suffered from false and malicious accusations made by fellow Muslim villagers. Her imprisonment was appalling, but she was freed by the Pakistani Supreme Court. This is hardly the action of an ISIS-style legal authority. She was prosecuted under a law which had remained in the legal code since the British introduced it during colonial rule. Her lawyer was not killed, and is alive and well. Two senior Pakistani politicians were killed, and the son of one of them kidnapped, for speaking up in her defence. These killings and abduction were carried out by extremists, who are representative of all of Pakistan in the same way that Shamima Begum is representative of all of Britain. Pakistan may have hung homosexuals and others for being gay, etc., but I can't think of a single instance - do you have evidence for that? If you do, you'd better warn all of those openly transexual people you see in the streets of the major cities. (Google 'hijras', and discover how transexuals have been around since the Mughal royal courts, and how hijras are frequently invited to wedding ceremonies as good luck charms). I've personally met dozens of people in Pakistan who are gay. It's not the easiest life, but they do not live in fear of their lives. They cope with it the way all people do in Pakistan - they separate their public from private lives (and in ways you wouldn't believe). The underlying hypocrisy here is the way you lump people and regimes together as being responsible for particular outrages or regime-types. You would never reduce Italians to avatars of Berlusconi or the neo-fascist Salvini. Chileans under Pinochet were not all murdering psychopaths. ISIS, though, WAS an organisation that required violence and obedience from top to bottom. There is precisely NO Islamic country that fits such a description, and it is utterly hypocritical and false to suggest that any of them do. You are at least consistent though. Your posts drip in racialised Islamophobia. Well done.

The alternative arrangements have to be written into a 'codicil', which is a legal document. That's why the EU were expecting the pompous ass to turn up with a formula for doing it. Instead he just turned up and stared moodily at the ceiling. James Forsyth is by some distance NOT the most informed inside-track journalist on Cabinet deliberations. He's not even a proper reporting journalist, but part of the commentariat. The most informed journalist, by a country mile, is Tim Shipman. His contacts inside the Cabinet have leaked vast quantities of stuff exclusively to him, enough to fill dozens of exclusives for the Sunday Times and two very large books. So my advice, Lord Crap: don't take the word of a prime minister on who her idea of 'best' is in journalism. Apart from anything else, it's a spectacularly Uriah Heap, ever-so-'umble, way of thinking.

Photos or it didn't happen. Paragraphs FFS! To you and the snowflake-white alt-right ones on here fighting your culture wars, this is way beside the point. Shamima Begum has a legal right - she is a British citizen (passe Javid) - and has a legal responsibility - to answer for crimes alleged to have been committed in Syria. That really is the end of the story.

Which dodges every single one of the questions I asked you. Every one! I've posted a great deal on Salafism, which is an abomination. And to recommend a widely acknowledged fraud like Castaneda really sums your position up. You are a Wilders fan without wanting to admit it. Nothing to do with language, everything to do with red-necked Islamophobia.

I think the ERG's heartfelt desire for a Jihadist outcome means they won't support May's deal. They still believe their own lies that GATT Article 24 will save the British economy from their own cultism (sorry for the misspelling). It's also clear that the EU is not going to budge on the backstop language in the withdrawal agreement. May and her allies know this, which is why they haven't even tried to negotiate it in the last few days. (Much to the bewilderment of the EU, Geoffrey Cox came to Brussels last week with no new proposals at all on the 'alternative arrangements'. It's all a pantomime to run down the clock.) If May's deal is voted down, an awful lot will turn on the Letwin-Cooper amendment. If that also fails, you're likely to see a severe market reaction - which may do for delaying Brexit what the amendment will have failed to do.

I see you're a full member, so can you edit this into something that's intelligible? What's a 'Christian guilt complex'? And who exactly has this? Who exactly believes that 'everything within a society is reparable'? And what does that even mean? And this 'concept' that does not exist in 'the Islamic world'? What does that mean? And in which parts of the 'Islamic world' have you witnessed this? Alternatively, I suggest you are just spouting by rote the hate-filled gibberish of Wilders (despite your denials) - because these are meaningless slogans designed only to whip the terminally gullible into repeating them ad nauseum.

As you've decided to double down on the racist content of your previous post, I'll have one more go at trying to show how your views remain both racist and factually wrong. 'Being born here' is NOT the end of the discussion. There are legal definitions of citizenship which you can look up. You really need to, because this crap does you no favours. It sounds from your inclusion of Farrah that you approve of his being British simply because he 'fits in' in a way you find acceptable. This is a classic racist trope. As above, other than being born here, she was born to naturalised British citizens. The lifestyle in which she was brought up is irrelevant. The fact that she left for Syria when she was 15 is irrelevant. She did not go to Iraq. What on earth are you on about? 1. Do you really need to be told why this is a false analogy? She is a British citizen. 2. You are making the offensive suggestion that someone whose views you disagree with deserves to lose their citizenship rights. Like Mo Farrah, she has to 'act British'. The person who's not 'acting British' here is you. One of this country's greatest values is freedom of speech and thought. When Constantine was declared Roman emperor in York in AD306, he had to accept English that civil liberties had to be respected. Come up to AD2019 and Lighthouse thinks otherwise - offensive thought and speech should be a reason for withdrawal of citizenship. Again, before posting, please do the minimum to understand what you're talking about. She has never been in Iraq. There is no Kurdish legal system because Raqqa is not in Kurdish homeland territory. The only Syrian legal system is Assad's, which (a) has no remit in large areas in northern Syria controlled by the SDF, and (b) Assadists would simply put in bullet in her head, or otherwise ensure she dies from torture. But what trumps all of this is that she is a British citizen who has committed crimes under British law. Your 'personal beliefs' about her legal status are irrelevant. There is a right answer, and ultimately international law will determine that. Again, we're back to racist caricatures and your ignorance. If you're really going to dive into this rabbit hole, you're in real trouble with the terms and conditions of this forum. So again: you cannot decide that her beliefs are in some way consistent with those that characterise another country as a reason to deny them citizenship - regardless of how repellent those beliefs may be. Besides, when and where has she actually espoused Wahhabi ideas? I suspect you've just made this all up to conform to the racist caricature you've created of her. Christ. No. If the parents are not British nationals or naturalised British then there is no birthright citizenship. America has it. We don't. You could just google this rather than make yourself look foolish (and worse).

This is the most obviously racist post I've seen on this thread. First you try to defend it by saying 'it's not because her parents were born abroad'. Then you immediately say that that is indeed a factor in saying she's not really British! Just think about that for a moment. You could apply that logic, such as it is, to an awful lot of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian and others - that their parents were born abroad and their children were born here, so they also must be 'not really British'. Or look at it this way: if you'd encountered Shamima Begum at the age of seven, would you say she's 'not really British'? Maybe if you're a member of BNP, but otherwise, I doubt it. So the ONLY thing that's relevant here, unless you really are coming out as a racist, is that she has committed serious crimes. Your logic therefore means that rather than prosecute her, you'd rather render her stateless. So - to the people of Raqqa, among whom she lived as a lord and master, for a terror group whose brutalism that was taken out almost exclusively on ordinary Syrians, what do you say to them? How do you justify making her their responsibility and not ours? And remember the present circumstances: Raqqa lies in ruins and may take decades to rebuild, if at all. It also has no justice system, no civil law enforcement, and most of its residents are still deeply fearful of the one state actor out there - Assad. That on top of all of that, they should be forced to accept the cost and trouble of accommodating an ISIS cadre? Really?

I haven't been back to Syria since before the Arab Spring but it's heartbreaking to think of all the loss of life and destruction of unrivalled architectural and archeological sites. The country had an extraordinary wealth of extremely well preserved (because largely not raided by western collectors) monuments and places, and ordinary people there were very proud of this. Assad and ISIS have thought nothing of destroying it, and of destroying them. ISIS deservedly gets most of the publicity for their large-scale vandalism at places like Palmyra, and itds campaigns of murder and torture, but Assad has been a far, far bigger wrecker then them. Among the losses are the Aleppo souk, which dates back at least five centuries but is now almost completely destroyed. In southern Syria, in the middle of nowhere, there was an entire town that had been built out of repurposed Roman villas and other architecture. Now obliterated. And so on and so on. None of this will ever be rebuilt. It can't be. Syrians will return, although I suspect any large-scale emptying of the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan won't happen until Assad is consigned to history's dustbin. And certainly not before the remnants of ISIS are cleared out of the country. This for me is the reason Shamima Begum has to be brought to the UK. She was a vastly unwanted intruder into ordinary Syrians' lives. When she arrived in Raqqa she lived in a house that had been owned by Syrians and stolen from them. She was paid money stolen from the oil revenues and extorted from the businesses of Syrians. And she casually witnessed beheadings and other brutalities that were carried out almost entirely on Syrians. But there is no legal system that can try her there for her crimes. She's not even in a prison - she's in a refugee camp. But she can be tried under British law. She's our problem, not that of ordinary Syrians.

Did you mean this? Because you appear to be saying that the existence of right-wing Islamophobia excuses left-wing - or indeed any - antisemitism. Playing the whataboutery card is an utterly corrupt argument. (And, incidentally, have you not noticed my criticisms of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment?) So let me try again - for you, fanboy and any other Corbynista and not-Corbynista-but-doing-a-good-impression-of-being-one: Do you approve of the idea that Jews should be given a 'humanity test' over Israel? Just as, presumably, blacks should be given a humanity test over the tragedy of Rwanda, or the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia?

Yes, fanboy, exactly. It's setting a 'humanity test' for Jews. Why don't you reflect on that for a minute? Let's see if you can see the problem with it.

Ok you're just trolling now. You can't be this stupid. Do you get the Wimbledon case or not?

What's egg got on his face? Anyway, here's a 360-degree example of how toxic antisemitism is in Labour, and how Labour demonstrates that institutional Jew-hating is firmly rooted in the party. This audio... https://news.sky.com/story/sir-duncan-michael-labour-members-jewish-slur-not-deemed-antisemitic-by-party-11638591?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter ...records Wimbledon CLP member Sir (!) Duncan Michael saying, then deny saying, that the 'Jewish community plans to attack our party.' It also records the very audibly shocked reactions of CLP members in the room, including a Corbynista Jewish Voice for Labour member. So quite an uncontroversial instance - a slam dunk - of antisemitism, which was deplored at the time by those who heard it, many of whom reported it, expecting censure at the very least. But when the incident was adjudicated by the Labour party it ruled: 'the Labour party does not believe this is an incident of antisemitism and will not be taken further.' Do you get this one, egg? Or are we going to have to go through dozens of posts to point out where the actual antisemitism is?

Interesting insight from the FT's Tokyo correspondent Robin Harding. During negotiations on the Japan-EU trade deal, the Tory government pushed for the earliest possible reduction in tariffs are vehicles, believing that this would help Japanese assembly plants in the UK. This logic only worked, of course, if Britain were in the EU. German and French car makers thought Japan would just repatriate its car plants. Still, nothing at all to do with Brexit - Nada, nyet, oh no...

So already the word is going around the cult that the Independent Group is Israeli backed. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

Christ, the straw-clutching from the purple-headed Jihadists... Honda, like the majority of manufacturing in the UK, has turned off the investment tap since the 2016 referendum. You can try to claim that issues like the sharp decline in diesel sales is responsible, but there are two responses that car makers can opt for: invest in new technology (including electric-powered cars) or run down existing plant and quietly walk away. Honda have clearly opted for the latter in Britain. Depressingly, despite soothing words, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Nissan go the same way. It's already taken the first step. The Japan-EU trade deal - something that the UK simply won't be able to replicate - has accelerated this. And this is touted by Honda themselves as a major influence on their decision. One of the reasons for that is that it's unlikely - given the Jihadist capture (Irish extremists plus the ETG cult) of the Tory party and the prostration of the opposition - that there will be anything like truly 'frictionless' trade between the EU and the UK. It will be easier to do business with the EU directly from Japan rather than the tangled mess of whatever trade deal eventually - in five, ten or more years, eventually emerges between Britain and Europe. AS for 'global trends', this is also not about Honda retrenching to Japan. The company still maintains plants across the world - even Pakistan has less trouble hanging on to its Honda factory than the cretinous political class and their cult followers in the UK.