In American parlance that means you are currently in the basement, Stirlingsays.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

I think you proved the point on your appologist attitude by missing out a key word to explain the rape gangs.
The point being they are primarily ISLAMIC.

Is it really necessary for me to explain, for the umpteenth time, that I am under no obligation to respond to your wishes. If you post contentious opinions then expect a response from me. The answer lies entirely in your own hands. Stop posting and I will not have any need to respond! If you don't wish to read my responses then don't. It's up to you to decide your own actions and I will decide mine.

Really? Or rather what you regard as 'hard right' is actually a response to the control and balance within our institutions having shifted to the left quite considerably.

My opinions were in fact far more commonplace just twenty years ago. It's mainly the middle class and elites living in their slightly ridiculous and filtered bubbles that view people like me as 'hard right'.

Here we go, the "elite" don't understand us, excuse again. It's total garbage dreamt up by the right as a justification for their moans. Nothing at all has actually changed. There has always been a political class in my lifetime. Indeed it is better today than it has ever been. The hard right have always existed too, but they are more visible and active these days, energised by electoral successes, both here and the USA, which in turn has been caused by a variety of factors, including globalisation and increased levels of immigration. This has drawn in those who are disturbed by these things but who do not really believe in the politics of the hard right, even if they know what they entail. I see this as a modern day version of the Luddites, fighting the inevitable march of human evolution. It is, I hope, thankfully only a temporary phenomenon.

A distinction without a difference.

Oh there is a very important difference, but perhaps too subtle to recognise, or more likely uncomfortable for you to acknowledge.

Even within this answer you contradict yourself and dance around the topic with pure disingenuous waffle-speak. Trying to defend your position as a hypothetical when your original posts found no need for these distinctions.....they only emerged once you started receiving heat.

You cannot on one hand rationally state that, 'Neither have I ever even expressed an opinion on the wisdom or otherwise of any decisions taken by the Police and other authorities not to publicise their investigations into rape gangs' and then within the very same over long paragraph write, 'Trying to manage a potentially explosive and divisive situation quietly might well have seemed a wise thing to do'....before then bizarrely saying that if that were done, you wouldn't have approved.

You are fully deserving of the criticism you have received in this thread for your duplicitous commentary.

Just because you, and others, choose to read meanings into my words doesn't mean those meanings exist and most certainly that they are duplicitous. Try to read what I actually write and not what you think I write. Try to understand the difference between what saying someone "might well" have thought something to saying that is what I think. Nor did I say I wouldn't have approved. I said I don't know if I would have approved as I don't know enough of the actual circumstances. You should never express an opinion on something as obscure as this. Perhaps you too should respect that. Criticism of me over this is as unwarranted as your attacks on the BBC. I don't care a jot though and will carry on speaking the truth as I see it, just as I expect the BBC to do. Ducks have more pervious backs than me.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think you have proved quite another point.

The point is that they are criminals.

No religion should be condemned, or tainted, by the actions of criminals who happen to claim they belong to it.

We must deal with criminals for the crimes they commit and be blind to everything else.

If we don't we risk alienating a whole community and making things much worse and not better.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It's strange I know. When I did live there I met a fellow supporter several times, who always wore his replica shirt. He seemed a really decent sort of fellow, very enthusiastic and knowledgeable about Palace, friendly and chatty. I cannot now recall his name, only that he was a few years younger than me.

For some time I assumed this was our mutual friend because for some years I only perused the football based threads. No real contentious issues there. It's only after the ramping up of the political threads and the emergence of these views that I realised it must be someone else.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The whole point about why it MIGHT have been decided not to raise public awareness (and I know no more whether that was actually the case than you or anyone else does) is your reasoning.

Criminals need to be condemned as criminals. No other attributes should be even mentioned, let alone considered. You wouldn't wish someone to be described as a disabled criminal. Or a white criminal. Or a lgbt criminal. Or indeed a Christian criminal.

IF the authorities were concerned at stoking Islamophobia and the consequent hate crimes then they MIGHT have decided to handle their enquiries and prosecutions without the oxygen of publicity.

TR is part of the problem. He is no part of the solution. Cliff Richard is an entirely different scenario, without any relevance to this.

Punishing criminals and demanding that all citizens understand and respect the law, whatever their personal beliefs might be, is something that I wholeheartedly believe in. Condemning innocent people because of their religion is something I don't.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.