The post you are reporting:
JB, for me it's clear the Islamic business was simply laying the groundwork for the TR appeal later. Lord P's personal honour or otherwise doesn't concern me, but he (and the building he sits in) represents an idea of England that's anathema to me: privilege, hierarchy, aristocracy, landed wealth (you name it) and the whole legal, judicial, governmental and linguistic edifice constructed to impose, support and defend it since the Norman bastard landed at Pevensey 952 years ago. Which leads on to your question (and I think you can see which way my answer's going). So, not wishing to complicate matters further, I'll leave aside such questions as who 'we' are or in what sense it is any longer 'our country' when a tiny 0.6% of us own 100% of the UK's land (rest assured, though, that both of us and all other forum members are together in the 99.4% who own none of it), and just say that if those 'existing laws' are the ones that prop up that unequal status quo then I'd be glad to be rid of them. Any threats to whatever freedoms we're still allowed to have come from globalist ideologies, economic 'trickle-down' fantasists, financial elites, big statists, neocon military expeditionists, and their political and administrative servants. Insofar as radical expansionist Islam is in the first category, then I'm agin that too.
