[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Does it have to be a "Christian" or "Muslim" anything? Can we not AT LEAST keep this **** in all of it's forms away from being an official government stance of any kind?

It cannot avoid being a Muslim 'something' purely because of the fact that the subject matter is 'Muslim terrorists'.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Does it have to be a "Christian" or "Muslim" anything? Can we not AT LEAST keep this **** in all of it's forms away from being an official government stance of any kind?

Yes I am not the (Lame Duck) USA President


They are AK47 Muslim Terrorist
I invented that term
and I am sticking with it.

[JoshBB]

Obviously civilian protection is the most important of all things - however were the attacks even anti-semitic? I just didn't see any evidence, it wasn't even an anti-zionist extremist attack.. they weren't even palestinian?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes I am not the (Lame Duck) USA President


They are AK47 Muslim Terrorist
I invented that term
and I am sticking with it.

Get it copyrighted Arista and make huge money. Already other people are using that term.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Obviously civilian protection is the most important of all things - however were the attacks even anti-semitic? I just didn't see any evidence, it wasn't even an anti-zionist extremist attack.. they weren't even palestinian?

They targeted a kosher deli. Like a couple of years ago they targeted a Jewish school in France. Do you think Palestinians are the only people who have a problem with the Jews? And if our security services thought there was no threat, there would be no protection. If you don't understand why this happened, and how it's the latest in a long line of attacks on Jews, then you really need to look into it Josh.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It cannot avoid being a Muslim 'something' purely because of the fact that the subject matter is 'Muslim terrorists'.

I mean the government / the country. Why does it have to be a "Christian" liberal democracy? Why can't it just be a liberal democracy, without aligning to any religion at all? Obviously there are many issues with religion in the world and there always have been, but ideally I would like ALL religious affiliation OUT of domestic politics and out of government rhetoric.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Livia

They targeted a kosher deli. Like a couple of years ago they targeted a Jewish school in France. Do you think Palestinians are the only people who have a problem with the Jews? And if our security services thought there was no threat, there would be no protection. If you don't understand why this happened, and how it's the latest in a long line of attacks on Jews, then you really need to look into it Josh.

Okay that's fine. I haven't seen any evidence but I'll take your word that this is more of a long-term thing. I've only been paying attention to the news properly since a few months ago which is probably why I haven't noticed some of these things.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I mean the government / the country. Why does it have to be a "Christian" liberal democracy? Why can't it just be a liberal democracy, without aligning to any religion at all? Obviously there are many issues with religion in the world and there always have been, but ideally I would like ALL religious affiliation OUT of domestic politics and out of government rhetoric.

I think to Christians, the descriptor 'Christian' is as equally important as the words 'Liberal' or 'Democracy', and why should we avoid stating the UK as a 'Christian Liberal Democracy' when that is exactly what it is?

'Christian' is not a dirty word and no one should even attempt to force its omission from domestic politics or Government rhetoric because there is no valid reason to, other than an irrational fear of upsetting non-Christians by its usage - a la the crucifix around Christian nurse's necks, school Nativity plays at Christmas, and a host of other benign traditions which are under threat for the same appeasing reasons.

I don't think any Muslim's are going to turn into 'fainting fannies' anytime soon and start omitting the words 'Islamic' or 'Muslim' when describing Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Albania or other such countries, for fear of upsetting non-Muslims, and I feel the same way about Christianity.

CHRISTIAN. BRITISH. DEMOCRACY. There, I said all three. Now I'll sit quietly and wait for some P.C. P.C. to come and arrest me - unless of course they're all fecking busy attending another Islamic Terrorist perpetrated bombing or beheading or other murder in London or some other UK city.

[Crimson Dynamo]

dont forget to watch The Eichmann Show tonight at 9

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...w-9983829.html

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I think to Christians, the descriptor 'Christian' is as equally important as the words 'Liberal' or 'Democracy', and why should we avoid stating the UK as a 'Christian Liberal Democracy' when that is exactly what it is?

'Christian' is not a dirty word and no one should even attempt to force its omission from domestic politics or Government rhetoric because there is no valid reason to, other than an irrational fear of upsetting non-Christians by its usage - a la the crucifix around Christian nurse's necks, school Nativity plays at Christmas, and a host of other benign traditions which are under threat for the same appeasing reasons.

I don't think any Muslim's are going to turn into 'fainting fannies' anytime soon and start omitting the words 'Islamic' or 'Muslim' when describing Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Albania or other such countries, for fear of upsetting non-Muslims, and I feel the same way about Christianity.

CHRISTIAN. BRITISH. DEMOCRACY. There, I said all three. Now I'll sit quietly and wait for some P.C. P.C. to come and arrest me - unless of course they're all fecking busy attending another Islamic Terrorist perpetrated bombing or beheading or other murder in London or some other UK city.

I know it technically still is a "Christian" country, I just wish it didn't have to be described as such. The percentage of Christians currently hovers around 55% to 60% so there are a huge number of people in this democracy who do NOT identify as Christians. And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam - the second highest percentage on the census states "no religion". The number of people stating "Christian" dropped 12% between 2001 and 2011, and the number for "no religion" rose by 11%. Following that curve, by 2021, less than 50% of people in the UK will be identifying themselves as Christians. THEN can we finally do away with this needless imposed religious identity?

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

They targeted a kosher deli. Like a couple of years ago they targeted a Jewish school in France. Do you think Palestinians are the only people who have a problem with the Jews? And if our security services thought there was no threat, there would be no protection. If you don't understand why this happened, and how it's the latest in a long line of attacks on Jews, then you really need to look into it Josh.

Wasn't there something to do with olympic athletes too?

[Kizzy]

Hmmmm, the cynic in me thinks this message is not to terrorists but to super rich nationals of other countries to say 'come to London...we will look after you' PS don't forget to bring all your lovely money.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hmmmm, the cynic in me thinks this message is not to terrorists but to super rich nationals of other countries to say 'come to London...we will look after you' PS don't forget to bring all your lovely money.

They're protecting British Jewish families. How is that going to give a message to the super-rich?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

They're protecting British Jewish families. How is that going to give a message to the super-rich?

It's just a theory livia, not gospel.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's just a theory livia, not gospel.

A dubious one.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

Wasn't there something to do with olympic athletes too?

That was the Israeli Olympic team, nine athletes were killed by Black September, Palestinian (mostly) terrorists in Munich.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

A dubious one.

I feel the governments motives are dubious.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I feel the governments motives are dubious.

They're protecting a community from terrorists and you think it's a veiled invitation for rich foreign people to come here? You think that might appeal to them, that some British citizens are having to be guarded with guns? It's not like Jews are all millionaires. I can't image the train of thought that took you to that conclusion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

They're protecting a community from terrorists and you think it's a veiled invitation for rich foreign people to come here? You think that might appeal to them, that some British citizens are having to be guarded with guns? It's not like Jews are all millionaires. I can't image the train of thought that took you to that conclusion.

They'll have to be guarded wherever they are it seems, yes I think they are being encouraged to come here, if you don't agree that's fine.
I didn't say they were all millionaires.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

That was the Israeli Olympic team, nine athletes were killed by Black September, Palestinian (mostly) terrorists in Munich.

thats the one! Scary to think about how long this has been going on for

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"I know it technically still is a "Christian" country, I just wish it didn't have to be described as such. The percentage of Christians currently hovers around 55% to 60% so there are a huge number of people in this democracy who do NOT identify as Christians. And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam - the second highest percentage on the census states "no religion". The number of people stating "Christian" dropped 12% between 2001 and 2011, and the number for "no religion" rose by 11%. Following that curve, by 2021, less than 50% of people in the UK will be identifying themselves as Christians. THEN can we finally do away with this needless imposed religious identity?"

There is no need at all for your inclusion of the statement; "And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam" because I never stated or intimated or inferred that such was the case.

However; the facts that - statistically - the ,numbers of Christians in the UK is falling whilst Islam is the fastest rising religion in the UK (and globally) are related.

There are diverse reasons behind the statistics;

A)Britain is becoming more Godless with each successive generation - just as Society degenerates with each successive generation, and educational standards fall, crime rises, divorces spiral, children born out of wedlock increases, anti-social behaviour escalates, serial drunkenness and and drug use proliferates, and boorish ignorant behaviour to others replaces common decency and manners.

The reasons for this are also diverse, but one of the main reasons is the successive breakdown of the family 'unit' among certain classes of society; morally 'inadequate' and ignorant uneducated parents raise, (or don't raise at all) their children without moral guidance, discipline, regard for law and order, any sense of common decency and respect for others, and any kind of religious instruction.

These children grow, meet partners of the same ilk, breed children, and perpetuate the cycle.

With each increasingly degenerate generation, Christianity - which like all the other qualities above - is completely lost from families where just a few generations ago it was an integral part of their forebears lives.

B) Less Christianity is being taught in schools.

Again, the reasons for this are diverse, but one of them is Political Correctness rooted in a determination by the authorities not to 'offend' ethnic minorities of a different religion.

C) All manifestations of Christianity being forcibly removed from life in the UK.

Nativity plays banned in our schools, the wearing of crucifixes banned in our hospitals, council offices and other workplaces, the sinister fall in traditional Nativity imagery on Christmas cards - increasingly replaced by secular depictions of Santa Claus, Robins, etc, and a host of other examples, all contribute to an increasing loss of awareness of Christianity.

D) Statistics are compiled from polls.

Not everyone bothers to fill in questionnaires or answer surveys, and even the National Census is far from comprehensive, so statistical results can often be skewed.

E) Immigration.

There has been decades of unfettered and increasing immigration into the UK for several decades now, of which Muslims are the great majority. This - obviously - has changed the demographics in the UK and increasingly continues to do so.

There is - patently - therefore, a definite link between the falling numbers of Christians and the rising numbers of Muslims, but no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam.

But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post .

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

thats the one! Scary to think about how long this has been going on for

Too fecking long Caitlin. Transpose 'Jew' for 'Muslim', 'Israeli' for 'Islamic' - then think about the deafening roar of protest we would have witnessed throughout the years from 'decent' people whose silence because it is Jews who are being so wrongfully murdered and persecuted is most glaring.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There is no need at all for your inclusion of the statement; "And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam" because I never stated or intimated or inferred that such was the case.

However; the facts that - statistically - the ,numbers of Christians in the UK is falling whilst Islam is the fastest rising religion in the UK (and globally) are related.

OK, yes, Islam is the fastest rising organised religion but that statistic does conveniently leave out a much larger group. The fastest rising "religious category" is not Islamic faiths, it is "no religion" (or Godlessness if you want to phrase it that way -it's a word that's usually used negatively but it doesn't have to be at all).

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There are diverse reasons behind the statistics;

A)Britain is becoming more Godless with each successive generation - just as Society degenerates with each successive generation, and educational standards fall, crime rises, divorces spiral, children born out of wedlock increases, anti-social behaviour escalates, serial drunkenness and and drug use proliferates, and boorish ignorant behaviour to others replaces common decency and manners.

The reasons for this are also diverse, but one of the main reasons is the successive breakdown of the family 'unit' among certain classes of society; morally 'inadequate' and ignorant uneducated parents raise, (or don't raise at all) their children without moral guidance, discipline, regard for law and order, any sense of common decency and respect for others, and any kind of religious instruction.

These children grow, meet partners of the same ilk, breed children, and perpetuate the cycle.

Interestingly, I agree with all of that apart from the significance of religion in the equation. Family units and moral standards are declining because of, for want of a better word, rampant capitalism and how hard it is pushed on families. People are becoming increasingly materialistic and shallow. They want "money" and "things that you can buy with money" to the point of obsession and, at the same time, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow every year. The result is that normal families have been left with this twisted idea that "having stuff" (big house, nice car, expensive clothes) is the path to a good life, but at the same time, millions of people are at this point so socially repressed by a very broken economy that they have no realistic hope of ever having most of those things. This makes them miserable, which makes them crappy or even abusive / violent parents, which produces broken and downright horrible offspring to continue the cycle. As an example, there is a large group of junkies that prowls the streets outside my shop, fighting each other, generally passing out, up and down to the local sheriff court to support each other, living what I can only describe as a wretched existence. I've been interested to learn that these people (mostly in their 30's and younger) are almost exclusively the offspring of miners / manual workers who had "normal" families until they were economically ruined by Thatcher in the 80's, who left them jobless and miserable. Many of those men turned to alcohol and now here we are 30 years later with their kids having turned to drugs.

I don't think religion really fixes that. To be controversial - large communities / groups of the people in the situation described above are predominantly Catholic and would describe themselves as such on any poll or census. Specifically, many of the heroin addicts mentioned above, I know tend to attend church frequently when they are "off the drugs".

So yes, I agree that the breakdown of families is responsible for the decline in moral standards and for many of society's ills... I just don't believe that religiosity would fix that. Certainly around here, a LOT of anti-social and thuggish behaviour is rooted in Catholic / Protestant sectarianism. And while I do think that's often just an excuse for violence - I'm also sure that the people involved DID have religion involved in their upbringing and in their schools, and would certainly tick "Christian" on any census or survey.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

B) Less Christianity is being taught in schools.

Again, the reasons for this are diverse, but one of them is Political Correctness rooted in a determination by the authorities not to 'offend' ethnic minorities of a different religion.

I personally have no problem with the origins and history of any religion being discussed in schools - I do have a problem with one religion being taught as "fact". It isn't fact. It is belief / opinion and it being taught as anything else is inappropriate... Not because it causes offense, but just because it's inaccurate. State "some people believe..." and talk about those beliefs by all means but teaching it as "truth" is for churches. Not for schools. I want my children learning how to think and how to reason critically so that they might form their own beliefs. I don't want them being "taught to believe".

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

C) All manifestations of Christianity being forcibly removed from life in the UK.

Nativity plays banned in our schools, the wearing of crucifixes banned in our hospitals, council offices and other workplaces, the sinister fall in traditional Nativity imagery on Christmas cards - increasingly replaced by secular depictions of Santa Claus, Robins, etc, and a host of other examples, all contribute to an increasing loss of awareness of Christianity.

I don't mind the nativity, my daughter was in one this year and I enjoyed it, as did she. I don't mind the stories being told and kids learning about Christianity even as part of our country's history, because it is a big part of our history and traditions, but again so long as it's taught as something that many people believe but many think is just stories. Not taught as true. That said, her nativity did have a strangely strong focus on the "noisy sheep", rather than the baby messiah!

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

D) Statistics are compiled from polls.

Not everyone bothers to fill in questionnaires or answer surveys, and even the National Census is far from comprehensive, so statistical results can often be skewed.

that much is true, but then, the census information does mention that 20% of people don't answer the question on religion at all. I would suggest that those who leave it blank are very unlikely to identify themselves as Christian, and probably fall somewhere along the spectrum of "don't know / not sure / don't care". Surely, it's likely that those people are closer to being of "no religion" than anything else, which would mean that the stats are in fact skewed in favor of the faithful, and the truth is that there are more "non believers" than the census specifically states? Why would someone who is a practicing Christian not tick the "Christian" Box?

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

E) Immigration.

There has been decades of unfettered and increasing immigration into the UK for several decades now, of which Muslims are the great majority. This - obviously - has changed the demographics in the UK and increasingly continues to do so.

There is - patently - therefore, a definite link between the falling numbers of Christians and the rising numbers of Muslims, but no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam.

But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post .

You can see a slight correlation on the census information of increasing levels of other religions (not just Islam, other non-Christian faiths too) with immigration, that much is true, but the numbers are still very small. A 1 or 2 percent increase in Islam (and the overall figure is still only something like 5%) does not account for the huge drop in Christianity from 80% down to under 60%. Only the similar large increase in "no religion" accounts for this. Therefore, all of the facts point to the UK gradually edging towards non-religion. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion... But if it DOES happen, if the UK becomes less than 50% Christian, then surely referring to it as a "Christian democracy" will then not be appropriate or accurate?

I personally suspect that we are already less than 50% Christian. I suspect that if you went to the homes of many of those people who ticked that "Christian" box, you would find that very few of them attend a church, or know anything about the Bible. If you were to quiz them and get them to really think, many would probably be much closer to a "not sure" than a definite faith.

I don't have any facts or figures to back that up, it's just a suspicion. I certainly know quite a few people who consider themselves to be Christian but if they get talking about it are unsure about the existence of God. I even used to live with a Catholic guy at Uni who stated, smiling, "No, I don't believe in God... but I will always be a Catholic!". For many, it's a cultural identity rather than an actual belief.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There is no need at all for your inclusion of the statement; "And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam" because I never stated or intimated or inferred that such was the case.

However; the facts that - statistically - the ,numbers of Christians in the UK is falling whilst Islam is the fastest rising religion in the UK (and globally) are related.

There are diverse reasons behind the statistics;

A)Britain is becoming more Godless with each successive generation - just as Society degenerates with each successive generation, and educational standards fall, crime rises, divorces spiral, children born out of wedlock increases, anti-social behaviour escalates, serial drunkenness and and drug use proliferates, and boorish ignorant behaviour to others replaces common decency and manners.

The reasons for this are also diverse, but one of the main reasons is the successive breakdown of the family 'unit' among certain classes of society; morally 'inadequate' and ignorant uneducated parents raise, (or don't raise at all) their children without moral guidance, discipline, regard for law and order, any sense of common decency and respect for others, and any kind of religious instruction.

These children grow, meet partners of the same ilk, breed children, and perpetuate the cycle.

With each increasingly degenerate generation, Christianity - which like all the other qualities above - is completely lost from families where just a few generations ago it was an integral part of their forebears lives.

B) Less Christianity is being taught in schools.

Again, the reasons for this are diverse, but one of them is Political Correctness rooted in a determination by the authorities not to 'offend' ethnic minorities of a different religion.

C) All manifestations of Christianity being forcibly removed from life in the UK.

Nativity plays banned in our schools, the wearing of crucifixes banned in our hospitals, council offices and other workplaces, the sinister fall in traditional Nativity imagery on Christmas cards - increasingly replaced by secular depictions of Santa Claus, Robins, etc, and a host of other examples, all contribute to an increasing loss of awareness of Christianity.

D) Statistics are compiled from polls.

Not everyone bothers to fill in questionnaires or answer surveys, and even the National Census is far from comprehensive, so statistical results can often be skewed.

E) Immigration.

There has been decades of unfettered and increasing immigration into the UK for several decades now, of which Muslims are the great majority. This - obviously - has changed the demographics in the UK and increasingly continues to do so.

There is - patently - therefore, a definite link between the falling numbers of Christians and the rising numbers of Muslims, but no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam.

But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post .

Well thankyou for the sociological perspective of the new right...

The 'Charles Murray' patriarchal laissez faire approach deserves to stay in the 80s tbh, as the ideology cannot be applied to modern Britain.

I have underlined where you contradict yourself, you state you have never inferred the UK is being taken over by Islam, then you conclude by suggesting it is....

I don't wish to drag this thread of topic any further than it is, so I will end by saying the state of the country is due to the breakdown of industrialisation and communities in the 80s when Mr Murrays theories were at their most influential and destructive.
It was Maggie who said there's 'no such thing as society' well, now there isn't.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well thankyou for the sociological perspective of the new right...

The 'Charles Murray' patriarchal laissez faire approach deserves to stay in the 80s tbh, as the ideology cannot be applied to modern Britain.

I have underlined where you contradict yourself, you state you have never inferred the UK is being taken over by Islam, then you conclude by suggesting it is....

I don't wish to drag this thread of topic any further than it is, so I will end by saying the state of the country is due to the breakdown of industrialisation and communities in the 80s when Mr Murrays theories were at their most influential and destructive.
It was Maggie who said there's 'no such thing as society' well, now there isn't.

Oh dear...

... This is about the third time now, that driven by your irrational desire to 'hoist me on my own petard', you have crashed into my post through the window of erroneous impetuosity, instead of through the door of logical reason, and each time when I have pinpointed your misconceptions you have disappeared without comment.

Here's the two statements of mine which you underlined to identify them as exhibits in your case against me alleging that I have "contradicted" myself:

Quote A): "There is no need at all for your inclusion of the statement; "And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam" because I never stated or intimated or inferred that such was the case."

Quote B): "But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post."


Unfortunately, the two statements are being quoted by you out of context and each pertains to two different matters entirely.

Statement A) was made in my response to Toy Soldier's response to my original post. In that original post I did not mention - anywhere at all - by statement, inference, or intimation, anything about "being taken over by Islam". This being so, when T.S. included such a phrase in his response to my original post, I responded by pointing out to him that there was no need to include such a statement in his response because I had not made such a statement.

Now since when, does pointing out that I did not make a certain statement in a specific post, translate to saying that I hold the views in that statement? (I don't actually hold that specific view anyway, as I detail below.)

Now Quote B) does not even say specifically either that I believe "we are being taken over by Islam" because if you read the and digest the sentence in its entirety, you will clearly see that I added: "or rather, creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so." As can be seen emboldened below:

“But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post ".

Now, "We are being taken over by Islam" is not the same as "creeping Islamification" is it?

In any event, the two statements most certainly do not contradict each other by virtue of their meaning and use, so you are patently wrong - once again - to leap in as you have.

You really must stop crashing into my posts like this and misinterpreting what I am stating. Or at least start entering through the door of ‘logical reason’, because I am tired of the time-consuming task of sweeping up the broken glass from the windows of 'erroneous impetuosity'.

As for: "Well thank you for the sociological perspective of the new right..."

This sarcasm is so ironic coming from someone who injects her own patently extremist Left Wing politics into just about every response to certain other member's posts – my own included - on serious topics.

You really need to temper your irrationality Kizzie, because you appear to be consumed by some deep anger at any view which you perceive to be outside the parameters of your own severely blinkered view.

You perceive posts to be 'Right Wing' when they are not, and infer that I am ‘Right Wing’ when I am not. I am neither 'Right Wing', nor Left Wing, nor Centre in my politics, because I see some good points in all the main party manifestos, along with a lot of deeply flawed policies also, and I vote for whichever party I regard as being the 'lesser of all evils' when election day arrives.

I am not that blinkered, or naive or prejudiced, to think that any one political party has all the answers, or is always right, or can do no wrong – which is why I do not lose rationality in my posts.

You by comparison do:

For example; based upon my own direct knowledge and what I have read and seen and listened to, I posted about how a certain percentage of people are claiming ESA who shouldn’t be, because they are fit and able, or even working on the side. You immediately, angrily, and irrationally, misinterpreted what I said and translated it into an attack on the poorest people in society and as some sort of attack on the very Benefits System which is their only life line, in addition to virtually denying that any benefits cheats even exist.

Yet, I was not attacking the Benefits System, only those who abuse it. I was not attacking the genuine claimants, only those who claim fraudulently.

My logic is, that the more cheats we deprive of benefits, then the more money there will be to alleviate the suffering of those genuinely ill people who genuinely need help.

It is the same if anyone mentions immigration, rogue tenants etc etc. You flare up and misinterpret what is being said and in some kind of inane state of denial, translate totally valid points as ‘racist’ or ‘attacks on the poor’.

As for: "The 'Charles Murray' patriarchal laissez faire approach deserves to stay in the 80s tbh, as the ideology cannot be applied to modern Britain."

I am familiar with Charles Murray and the term 'laissez faire' but I don't know what relevance it has in regard to my post.

I sincerely believe that where you are concerned, no ideology can be applied to modern Britain, and no ideaology, opinion or view can be valid except your own.