National News Rishi Sunak

[QR]

So, essentially, he did work for the Nation of Islam specifically to get their leader, a notorious racist, anti-semite and homophobe into the country. In 2015 Farrakhan said "White people deserve to die".

You're right that he was elected, but my point was if a white candidate had done even half of what Khan has done he either would've been prevented from standing or denounced by the majority of society, so why hasn't Khan?

Seems to be quite the double standard.

So, now that facts have been established, can I ask did you post to deliberately misrepresent Khan's position or were you ignorant of the facts?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

So, now that facts have been established, can I ask did you post to deliberately misrepresent Khan's position or were you ignorant of the facts?

Gone very quiet on here......

 

[MustardYellow]

So, now that facts have been established, can I ask did you post to deliberately misrepresent Khan's position or were you ignorant of the facts?

I didn't misrepresent anything.

If someone is accused of a crime and hires a lawyer to defend them, that lawyer is working for them. So he did work for them.

 

[Essexyellows]

Gone very quiet on here......

Lee isn`t apologising for what he has an opinion on.

However, what do you think the average UK Muslim thinks of the country they live in?
There are 3 choices based on their religious doctrine
.
1. Dar al-Islam ( Countries where Islam is ruling)
2. Dar al-'Ahd (Countries which have a peace treaty with Muslims)
3. Dar al-Harb (Countries where neither Islam is ruling nor has a peace treaty with Muslims)

Consider that the 3 options will decide how the Quran is interpreted and how more extreme factions will act.

Its related to Sadiq Khan for reasons to be explained later and has changed

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Wow....you should see what the bible says about non-believers....

You're anti-muslim/Islam, Essex. I think we all get that.

 

[MustardYellow]

Wow....you should see what the bible says about non-believers....

You're anti-muslim/Islam, Essex. I think we all get that.

From a parliament document published on 19 July 2022:

Between Sept 2001 and Aug 2012 46% of all terror related arrests were Muslim. Just 6% were members of another religion (47% unknown). This despite the fact that less than 5% of the UK population was Muslim in 2012.

Would you not agree that is a *huge* over-representation and not even comparable to threats from Christians, despite Christians making up over 12 times the % of the population?

If you expand it beyond the UK, here's a quote from a CSIS (Centre for Strategic and International studies) paper on terrorism: 'If one looks at the five worst perpetrator movements in the world in 2016, four are Islamist extremist. A total of 88% of 2,916 attacks and 99% of 14,017 deaths that resulted from the top five perpetrators were caused by Islamic extremist groups.'

Your comparison to Christianity is ridiculous.

There is nothing 'anti-muslim/Islam' about pointing this out. These are facts. There's also nothing 'anti-muslim/Islam', or indeed racist, about being concerned about these figures, particularly when the leader of our capital city has willingly shared platforms with Islamists. Anyone who suggests it is is deflecting from an obviously very concerning pattern.

 

[QR]

I didn't misrepresent anything.

If someone is accused of a crime and hires a lawyer to defend them, that lawyer is working for them. So he did work for them.

Representing someone in court is not doing working for them. Harold Shipman's solicitor didn't 'work for him'. They didn't select his victims, they didn't cover his tracks.

Using your logic guilty criminals shouldn't be represented by a solicitor in court. The only sight problem with that is you only knows their guilt at the end of the court hearing. Fortunately there are few who can't see the stupidity of your claim.

 

[SteMerritt]

I didn't misrepresent anything.

If someone is accused of a crime and hires a lawyer to defend them, that lawyer is working for them. So he did work for them.

Not aiming the following at you MY, just a response to your reply.

He provided a service to them in an official capacity. He wasn't a member. There is a difference which some are trying to blur the line between. There is nothing to see here, unless attempting to make a political point.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

From a parliament document published on 19 July 2022:

Between Sept 2001 and Aug 2012 46% of all terror related arrests were Muslim. Just 6% were members of another religion (47% unknown). This despite the fact that less than 5% of the UK population was Muslim in 2012.

Would you not agree that is a *huge* over-representation and not even comparable to threats from Christians, despite Christians making up over 12 times the % of the population?

If you expand it beyond the UK, here's a quote from a CSIS (Centre for Strategic and International studies) paper on terrorism: 'If one looks at the five worst perpetrator movements in the world in 2016, four are Islamist extremist. A total of 88% of 2,916 attacks and 99% of 14,017 deaths that resulted from the top five perpetrators were caused by Islamic extremist groups.'

Your comparison to Christianity is ridiculous.

There is nothing 'anti-muslim/Islam' about pointing this out. These are facts. There's also nothing 'anti-muslim/Islam', or indeed racist, about being concerned about these figures, particularly when the leader of our capital city has willingly shared platforms with Islamists. Anyone who suggests it is is deflecting from an obviously very concerning pattern.

Your painting of the whole of a religion as responsible for the terror acts of a minority of extremists and that Islam and Muslims as a whole are responsible, is equally ridiculous.

And that is the point I was conveying. I mean, if you don't think the majority of Muslims are peaceful, then say so and maybe we can discuss that.

But I don't think that is what you are saying. I think you're saying that Islam has an issue with extremists carrying out acts in the name of that religion. Which ignores the fact that the vast vast majority of Muslims would utterly condemn such acts and such perversion of their beliefs, just like non-muslims do. In fact the vast vast majority of any religion followers across the world would condemn atrocities carried out in the name of their chosen religion.

 

[MustardYellow]

Representing someone in court is not doing working for them. Harold Shipman's solicitor didn't 'work for him'. They didn't select his victims, they didn't cover his tracks.

Using your logic guilty criminals shouldn't be represented by a solicitor in court. The only sight problem with that is you only knows their guilt at the end of the court hearing. Fortunately there are few who can't see the stupidity of your claim.

What are you on about?

When you hire a lawyer they are doing work for you, in the same way as when you hire someone to fit your kitchen they're doing work for you.

Everyone deserves representation - I've never said otherwise. My point was never about whether Farrakhan deserved representation, or if Khan should've been allowed to work for him. It was merely that if you had a politician running for Mayor that had worked for a white supremacist/white supremacist group and shared platforms with them, there would be a very different reception from the public and population of London.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

What are you on about?

When you hire a lawyer they are doing work for you, in the same way as when you hire someone to fit your kitchen they're doing work for you.

Everyone deserves representation - I've never said otherwise. My point was never about whether Farrakhan deserved representation, or if Khan should've been allowed to work for him. It was merely that if you had a politician running for Mayor that had worked for a white supremacist/white supremacist group and shared platforms with them, there would be a very different reception from the public and population of London.

So apart from representing him in court, can you explain how Khan has "shared a platform" or do you think this is evidence enough.

It's important that you explain what your thinking is on this.

 

[MustardYellow]

Not aiming the following at you MY, just a response to your reply.

He provided a service to them in an official capacity. He wasn't a member. There is a difference which some are trying to blur the line between. There is nothing to see here, unless attempting to make a political point.

He provided a paid service to do work for them, so therefore worked for them, which was the point!

Do you believe someone who has worked for extremists who have called for the death of a race, and held events with extremists who have openly supported terror groups and called for 'fire throughout the world' in the name of their religion, and where women had were segregated from men (more context on that if required) should be the head of a nation's capital?

My original point was I'm surprised there isn't some opposition from within government to his role, but mainly that I'm surprised the population of London are completely fine with it all. Would they be so okay with it if the extremists in question were white supremacists?

His election says a lot, in my opinion.

 

[QR]

What are you on about?

When you hire a lawyer they are doing work for you, in the same way as when you hire someone to fit your kitchen they're doing work for you.

Everyone deserves representation - I've never said otherwise. My point was never about whether Farrakhan deserved representation, or if Khan should've been allowed to work for him. It was merely that if you had a politician running for Mayor that had worked for a white supremacist/white supremacist group and shared platforms with them, there would be a very different reception from the public and population of London.

Lawyers represented their clients they don't work for them. The wording is specific so idiots don't try and conflate for nefarious reasons and imply lawyers in any way have sympathy for their clients position. Stop exposing your ignorance.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

He provided a paid service to do work for them, so therefore worked for them, which was the point!

Do you believe someone who has worked for extremists who have called for the death of a race, and held events with extremists who have openly supported terror groups and called for 'fire throughout the world' in the name of their religion, and where women had were segregated from men (more context on that if required) should be the head of a nation's capital?

My original point was I'm surprised there isn't some opposition from within government to his role, but mainly that I'm surprised the population of London are completely fine with it all. Would they be so okay with it if the extremists in question were white supremacists?

His election says a lot, in my opinion.

Guilt by association then (through his professional role and a human rights lawyer).

Good to be clear.

By the same token, can we call out the guilt of anyone who has aligned themselves with violent extremists like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and say they should be nowhere near any levers of power at any level then?

EDIT: What am I thinking?? No...anyone who has ALIGNED themselves with his views rightly deserves to be called out.

Any lawyer who has represented him in his numerous court cases . . . . seems a bit harsh.

Can you see the difference?

 

[SteMerritt]

He provided a paid service to do work for them, so therefore worked for them, which was the point!

Do you believe someone who has worked for extremists who have called for the death of a race, and held events with extremists who have openly supported terror groups and called for 'fire throughout the world' in the name of their religion, and where women had were segregated from men (more context on that if required) should be the head of a nation's capital?

My original point was I'm surprised there isn't some opposition from within government to his role, but mainly that I'm surprised the population of London are completely fine with it all. Would they be so okay with it if the extremists in question were white supremacists?

His election says a lot, in my opinion.

The company he worked for provided a service. You've obviously made your mind up, but you come across much more black and white in your views than I am. You can act as a lawyer and not hold the views of the person you represent.

 

[Essexyellows]

Wow....you should see what the bible says about non-believers....

You're anti-muslim/Islam, Essex. I think we all get that.

Absolutely not "anti-muslim/islam" - I`m opposed to all religions based on fairy stories with little/no evidence barring flexible writings........... but that is another thread.

Now stop playing the man, chasing squirrels and answer the question.

You might learn something.

 

[Essexyellows]

He provided a paid service to do work for them, so therefore worked for them, which was the point!

Do you believe someone who has worked for extremists who have called for the death of a race, and held events with extremists who have openly supported terror groups and called for 'fire throughout the world' in the name of their religion, and where women had were segregated from men (more context on that if required) should be the head of a nation's capital?

My original point was I'm surprised there isn't some opposition from within government to his role, but mainly that I'm surprised the population of London are completely fine with it all. Would they be so okay with it if the extremists in question were white supremacists?

His election says a lot, in my opinion.

Our forum friends wouldn`t hold back in that case.........................

What was to stop Sadiq Khan saying "No, he`s a nutter so I won`t do it"............ the bloke was seeking to legally enter the UK and the Government said "No thanks we don`t want you and your fanatical beliefs here thank you".

What rational person would think that is wrong? Jack Straw & David Blunkett both thought it was right.

As the judgement said "based upon its assessment of the risk that his "notorious opinions" might provoke disorder."

Why try and defend that?

 

[Marston Road yellow]

Our forum friends wouldn`t hold back in that case.........................

What was to stop Sadiq Khan saying "No, he`s a nutter so I won`t do it"............ the bloke was seeking to legally enter the UK and the Government said "No thanks we don`t want you and your fanatical beliefs here thank you".

What rational person would think that is wrong? Jack Straw & David Blunkett both thought it was right.

As the judgement said "based upon its assessment of the risk that his "notorious opinions" might provoke disorder."

Why try and defend that?

So what happens if every lawyer says no thanks. The legal process stops working. It’s obtuse to imagine that most solicitors haven’t tried a case where they knew they were on the wrong side of the argument.

And it’s downright ignorant to think that they support or agree with their client.

We’ve all seen the Hollywood films where the solicitor discovered that their client was a baddie and they walk away. I’d love to see you present any case that you can evidence such a thing happening in the real world

Everyone, however abhorrent has a legal right to a fair process, and to be represented by someone with a full knowledge and understanding of the UK legal system, so that the outcome of the case cannot be denied.

I suspect you know all of this because you’re an intelligent being, but your agenda seems to be all about making an irrelevant point to cause disruption, for an agenda of hatred and distrust.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Absolutely not "anti-muslim/islam" - I`m opposed to all religions based on fairy stories with little/no evidence barring flexible writings........... but that is another thread.

Now stop playing the man, chasing squirrels and answer the question.

You might learn something.

So you're anti all religions. Therefore you're anti Islam by definition. It's really not that difficult for you to understand what you believe in is it?

And by saying you're anti all religions means that you're dismissing the vast majority of the beliefs of the world's population. And in one fell swoop you are also tarring all those people with the same brush as those extremists who contaminated and hijack the beliefs of those overwhelmingly peaceful followers of said religions.

And guess what, the vast majority of your beloved Tory party are ALSO followers of religions. Do you think they're all stupid and dangerous too....or just weak-minded and easily led?

Not sure it's really me that needs to learn something here.

Maybe stop talking nonsense and making hugely obtuse generalised and purposefully inflammatory observations and I'll stop correcting you

 

[Wallop]

Our forum friends wouldn`t hold back in that case.........................

What was to stop Sadiq Khan saying "No, he`s a nutter so I won`t do it"............ the bloke was seeking to legally enter the UK and the Government said "No thanks we don`t want you and your fanatical beliefs here thank you".

What rational person would think that is wrong? Jack Straw & David Blunkett both thought it was right.

As the judgement said "based upon its assessment of the risk that his "notorious opinions" might provoke disorder."

Why try and defend that?

To start with, a desire to remain employed by and progress within his firm. Legal practices are tough places and anyone picking and choosing their cases wouldn’t last long. I’m yet to hear of an individual solicitor who has refused to take on a case (their firm might) - has anyone got one?

And maybe, just maybe he believes everyone is entitled to legal representation, is anyone on here suggesting that is wrong?