Further research suggests he is a Protestant zealot rather than a lapsed Catholic.
Does the Church of England consider itself to be Protestant or English Catholic?
Huh?
In what way did I misrepresent your views?
I honestly wasn’t trying to. That seemed to be what you were claiming in the OP.
Please don’t accuse me of lying.
What did I get wrong?
Was I wrong and you do think it’s anti-Semitic to claim that most British Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK?
If so, I apologize.
Well, if people in the UK are so xenophobic that they consider British Jews to be “an out group” then frankly I don’t think they need assholes like the guy who beat up George Galloway to promote anti-Semitism.
I suppose that brings up the question why in the UK that Jews are considered “an out group” while people in the US or Canada are more enlightened and don’t believe this.
All that being said, I clearly upset you and sincerely apologize for that.
My point was more that anti-Semitism is already an issue with jerks like the people attacking George Galloway so I wouldn’t worry about the provocations of any anti-Semitic backlash.
My mistake. Apologies for that then.
In fairness though, I was hardly the only person confused by your opening post.
Yes, the U.K. does supply quite a “different take” on media regulation.
*"A new cross-party royal charter on press regulation has been granted by the Privy Council, the government says, after the newspaper industry lost a last-minute court challenge…The charter will create a watchdog to oversee a new press regulator…Many in the newspaper industry think it a grave threat to their independence from politicians. But they lost the argument in Westminster, and a court bid to delay the charter…Labour’s Harriet Harman: “It really is time for a new press complaints system”. "A royal charter will protect freedom of the press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made.
“Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose.”
The executive editor of the Times, Roger Alton, said: “It’s extraordinarily depressing and very, very alarming that in one short spell a hundred-year-old tradition of the press of this country, that’s independent, free of political interference, has been cast aside.”
Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator newspaper, said: “Now it’s down to the newspapers to decide if they are going to sign up to this deeply illiberal proposal or whether they should stand up for press freedom.”…
How the royal charter system could work: Independent appointments panel chooses 4-8 members for a recognition panel. No editors, publishers or politicians can be selected. The Recognition Panel oversees the Regulator, which consists of a number of independent and industry members. The main powers of the Regulator will be to deal with complaints, oversee a code committee and deal with arbitration. It can order the press to make corrections and stipulate where and how these appear. It can impose fines of up to £1 million.*
So, the U.K. press will either have to sign up for a governmental watchdog committee to ride herd over their “mistakes”, or face a very real prospect of more stringent regulations to come.
There’s no way the American media and public would tolerate such governmental control of news outlets.
Remember Pjen’s recent thread, “A Prominent British Jew Speaks The Truth About Israel And Palestine” (where we’re supposed to believe that this man’s criticisms of Israel carry great significance because he’s Jewish)?
Here’s an interesting counterpoint:
“Sajid Javid, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and MP for Bromsgrove, spoke at the Conservative Friends of Israel “business lunch”…This annual jamboree has grown from humble beginnings to become one of the key events of the year for supporters of Israel…
Mr Javid, who described himself as a “proud British-born Muslim”, announced that if he had to leave Britain to live in the Middle East, then he would choose Israel as home. Only there, he said, would his children feel the “warm embrace of freedom and liberty”. For him, only Israel shared the democratic values of the UK.”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/94117/muslim-tory-mp-after-britain-israel-best
In Pjen-land, such a statement carries extraordinary significance and demonstrates how British Muslims are increasingly supportive of Israel. :dubious:
A European country with an irrational anti-free speech law that is causing immoral police action?
Haven’t heard of that one before.
I knew that Shakespeare had never met a Jew because of the Edict of Explusion in 1290, but Jewish Emancipation was either 1829 or 1858.
Wow.
Well, you can’t but expect people in the UK to respond like that to Jews when they’re so “clannish”.
This is the second time Galloway has been injured as a result of his views on Israel. Earlier he was hit with an object, and no prosecution was made. I don’t know if they captured the guy.
Really? Because my first instinct was to buy a plane ticket, and then march down the main street in my uniform, waving an Israeli flag. Because fuck 'em.
Well, based on your own definitions of “Nazi”, “genocide” and “genocide denier” you shouldn’t be terribly upset by that since George Galloway openly supported Saddam Hussein, who slaughtered vastly more Kurds than the Israelis have slaughtered Palestinians and treated them far, far worse.
You argued that the Israelis were “Nazi bastards” for an operation which, by your own link, didn’t kill a single person, when they toppled a building after warning everyone to leave.
Presumably you’d feel Hussein was also a “Nazi bastard” for gassing thousands of his own citizens and certainly you’d agree that his actions were closer to “genocide” than anything that Israelis have done.
What was it Galloway said to Hussein when he traveled to Iraq to praise him.
“Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”
Maybe the Scotts. 
The UK media has a long history of writing false and defamatory material and then relying on the impossible cost of pursuing a libel action to avoid having to justify its lies. There is no concept of fact checking where each fact must be supported by two sources. They print anything they think they can get away with with impunity. Only the rich or the supported can take action against this. The proposed system will create a safe harbour for news outlets who sign up, but leave non signers to face the full cost of defending the truth of their publications- both their costs and the costs of the defamed. No fines, just costs of action.
I forget exactly which debating fallacy this is, but the argument is fatally flawed.
Those would be dates when blacks were still slaves under the US Constitution.
Who is claiming to be perfect?
Scotts are a manufacturer of Porridge Oats.
Scots live in Scotland.
You’d be missing a lot by not spending your vacation in Bradford.
It was known as the wool capital of the world in the 19th century, has a park that was named Britain’s Best Park in 2006, a splendid mall that contains a Subway and McDonald’s, is home to the hip-hop group Fun-Da-Mental, and (as Pjen has noted, boasts some of the best curries in the West Yorkshire Urban Area conurbation.
I tried both spellings on Wikipedia. I* knew* I shouldn’t have trusted those bastards!
Many 'Dope members who live in the Northern United States.
You guys were apparently still enslaving the Irish, though.