To think that Kier Starmer shouldn't be welcoming extremists into Britain?

[Twiglets1]

Reported in The Telegraph today that Sir Keir Starmer has welcomed an alleged Islamist extremist, who labelled British people “dogs and monkeys” and called for Zionists to be killed, into the UK.

The Prime Minister said he was “delighted” that Alaa Abd el-Fattah had arrived from Egypt on Friday evening after a travel ban imposed by Cairo was lifted following lobbying by ministers.

Mr Abd el-Fattah, an activist with dual British-Egyptian citizenship, previously said that it was heroic to kill Zionists “including civilians”. He urged Londoners to burn Downing Street, told his supporters to kill police and said he hated white people.

Ministers are facing calls to revoke his British citizenship, which he was granted in 2021 while imprisoned in Egypt, where campaigners described him as a “prisoner of conscience”.

Sir Keir’s tweet yesterday said how “delighted” he was that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in this country. Does that seem a reasonable stance to take for someone who has claimed at the same time to be committed to "eradicating antisemitism in the UK"?

Good point.

Pull the other one!

These justifications for exclusivity and preferential treatment are quite amusing.

Are you seriously suggesting that Nest will only allow you to invest your pension on Sharia principles if you are a Moslem? And that, if you choose an ethical investment fund and choose a set of options that happens to align with Sharia (as some non-Moslems do), they would refuse on the grounds that you are not a Moslem? Really?

I must see if there is a general ethics fund. It doesn't matter who is and isn't accepted, its the fact that the fund is offered which conveniently targets your specified list of ethics. Oh please.

There is no exclusivity of preferential treatment here. Anyone can have their pension fund invested on Sharia principles if they want. Some non-Moslems have been doing so through ethical investment funds for years. If you don't want your pension invested that way, fine. But why are you so keen to stop people who do want to have their pension invested that way?

By way of full disclosure, I am not Moslem and I did not use ethical pension funds, although I did seriously consider doing so.

Because it is once again mapping out a scheme to capture ONE religion. Sorry @Twiglets1 for going off topic.

Why would you invest in the Sharia fashion if you weren’t Muslim? You know exactly what this is catering to, stop being so disingenuous.

I am not being in any way disingenuous. It is not investing in specifically Moslem causes. It is not investing to bring about the downfall of the West. It is just a specific set of ethical investment choices.

Did I say it was? Did anyone?

So using weapons is against Sharia law?
how does that square then with the jihads that have been waged with weapons and killings?

Let's look forward to many more specific sets of ethics being catered for. The administrators are going to be kept very busy.

That's ok, I have found the debate on the Nest pension fund operating via Sharia Law principles interesting - had no idea that was a thing.

Agree with you that while a lot of people are interested in ethical investments, it seems a bit strange that Nest has a fund which only targets the specified list of ethics held by one religion. There are specialist pension funds that already do this such as the Aviva Shariah Investment Strategy for Muslims.

I think Nest should be focussing on offering different funds according to more general factors that will affect everyone regardless of faith or non faith in any one particular religion.

Agree and in that way their time can be spent giving attention to the needs of all their investors, equally. It's really just a fine example of Sharia edging its way into more establishments. As with this extremist, just what is so special about it all?

It doesn't, unless you believe in things like just wars or holy wars.

With Paradise being the end journey.

Not for the people they kill of course, but for them - yes.

Certainly not the government, or the police.
In some areas there a volunteer neighbourhood patrols being formed to try and keep the streets safe
Next step, unless there is an intervention, will be vigilantes

I'm curious, which areas have these patrols?

I believe Bournemouth is one of them, if anyone from there can confirm?

I would be very happy not to invest in online gambling companies for example….

You're right about Bournemouth. The police have some concerns about vetting etc.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3xw06e5ro

Incidentally, anyone on here a supporter of Lucy Connelly?

I'm not a fan of her. I don't think she should be in prison. Equally, I don't think Abd el-Fattah should be in prison for his tweets either. Is that ok? I know you'd like to think we're all out painting roundabouts and hanging flags off lampposts, but that's not quite the case.

Did someone suggest importing her?