You are right Wisbech. It's pointless and irrelevant to worry about Islamists chucking gays off of tall buildings. Cos it doesnt seem to happen here in the UK.

How about visiting a Park on a nice day and stabbing-dead 3 gays, in Reading ? Or the decapitations & castrations of Gay men in Sligo, ireland ?

not relevant to us ? well, maybe not relevant to people living in Poland.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Why on earth do you think I am tolerant of, let alone accepting, the raping of children? I think it’s an appalling crime that any criminal involved in should be detected and punished with the utmost severity.

Any of my comments on the subject of grooming gangs have not varied from that. They are exclusively related to the need to describe criminals as criminals and not by any other epithet that may taint perfectly respectable people and make things worse plus the need for anyone with information to use the proper channels to share it and not to go off on a self-serving publicity campaign using the victims as a source of revenue.

I am pleased to know you support my ideas on the way religion is managed. As it must apply to all, it will not be easy to impose and would doubtless produce a lot of resistance. It would need to be carefully explained so the benefits are understood by all but removing religious symbolism, displays and marches from the public square ought to lower the tensions and result in a more harmonious society over time.

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.

As we have no ability to directly help anyone impacted by the brutality of ISIS in places they control we can express all the outrage in the world without it making any difference.

Dealing with what happens in our own countries is quite different. Here we can deal with such atrocities in the way they ought to be and messages sent back to those they sympathise with that the western world does not tolerate such behaviour.

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.

Why should it matter at all to anyone?

It’s a side issue. An effect of a wider law. It’s not important. It’s not that I care. It’s that I don’t. Anyone choosing to ignore the law cares enough to make a deliberate point and that’s not healthy. I am sure the media didn’t use his assumed name to avoid hurting his feelings. They would have done it to avoid breaking the law.

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 doesn’t really matter at all but as for me he is entirely a fraud I choose not to use his fraudulent name. That others do amuses me, as does the fact that me not doing so seems to irritate some irrationally.

Y-L had no obvious reason to change his name so you would need to ask him why he uses it. I don’t think he has legally changed it (Y-L still being used in court) but has simply assumed it. It is apparently the name of a notorious football hooligan. That might be a clue. All part of the image?

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.

Because you consistently put your primary focus upon the protection of those who may be disaffected in acknowledging the objective reality of the one characteristic that links the perpetrators. You are also primarily focussed upon an individual highlighting this fact, not because of the reasons you should be but because he poses a threat to the acknowledgement of the objective reality you so desperately want to dismiss as it clashes with your beliefs. You are part of the problem in focussing upon him.

That there, in a nutshell, also reflects an allegiance to the protection of the shared characteristics of child rapists over the victims themselves.

I do not share this stance. I don’t wish to see people suffer from being tarred with a brush they do not deserve but they’re of far less concern to me than victims of rape, especially when they are children.

I’d suggest an egocentric, dogmatic clinging to ideology here is superseding the desire to see the rape of children end. It’s not something I can even remotely identify with. If there is a shared characteristic between these p***phile rapists then that needs to be acknowledged and addressed within any attempt to stop them, it may well even be the first port of call. Any attempt to ignore, downplay or refuse this is a hindrance to ending this horror and again demonstrates a desire to egotistically defend ideals above saving children from unthinkable suffering.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!