AlcoholidayUK

Proudly British. Straight talking. No nonsense.

A follow gets a follow back.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Based.

https://t.co/nrw6D76iud

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

A genuine Christian is someone who has faith in Christ, not someone who simply ticks boxes. Reading the Bible, worshipping and attending church are all important and can help strengthen that faith, but they are not what saves a person.

Many Christians attend church every week, while others can't because of illness, disability, work, caring responsibilities or where they live. The real question is whether someone believes in Christ and tries to follow His teachings, not whether they meet a checklist.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

No, we never hated the Poles. In fact, Polish people are generally one of the most respected immigrant communities in Britain. They work hard, integrate well, contribute to society, and many have become valued friends, neighbours and family members.

The concern was never about Polish people specifically. It was about the scale of mass migration and the loss of democratic control over immigration policy. You can support controlled immigration while still having great respect for the people who come here legally and contribute positively.

Brexit wasn't a vote against Polish people. It was a vote to let the UK decide its own immigration rules rather than having freedom of movement imposed through EU membership.

There's no contradiction in saying Polish and English people get along well while also believing immigration levels should be decided by the British electorate. Those are two completely different issues.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

@benonwine That'll be none!

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

“Experts” are not unanimous at all. Plenty of respected legal scholars, military analysts and genocide specialists reject the claim that Israel's actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide, primarily because genocide requires a specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Examples include:

• John Spencer – Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, who has repeatedly argued there is no evidence of genocidal intent and that Israel has taken measures unprecedented in modern warfare to reduce civilian casualties.

• Michael Walzer – One of the world's leading just war theorists, who has stated that the Gaza war is not a genocide.

• Stefan Talmon – Professor of International Law at the University of Bonn, who argues there is no clear evidence of the specific intent required for genocide.

• Samuel Estreicher – NYU law professor, who has argued that allegations of war crimes are distinct from genocide and that the genocide claim is not supported by the legal evidence.

• Christian Walter – Professor of International Law at the University of Munich, who has pointed to Israel's evacuation warnings and humanitarian measures as evidence against genocidal intent.

• Eugene Kontorovich – International law scholar and expert on the law of armed conflict, who has strongly rejected the genocide allegation.

• Richard Kemp – Former British Army commander, who has repeatedly stated that Israel is fighting a legitimate war against Hamas rather than carrying out genocide.

• Andrew Roberts – British historian, who has described the genocide accusation as a distortion of the term.

• Alan Dershowitz – Legal scholar and emeritus Harvard professor, who argues the evidence does not satisfy the legal threshold for genocide.

The reality is that experts are divided. You can find academics, activists and organisations who call it genocide, and you can find equally qualified experts who reject that label. Simply posting a list of names does not settle the legal question. The key issue under international law is proving genocidal intent, and that remains highly contested.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

The problem is that many people today use the label "anti-Zionism" as a shield for what is, in reality, hostility towards Jews. Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, of course, but when people deny only the Jewish people the right to self-determination, demand the dismantling of the world's only Jewish state, or hold Israel to standards applied to no other nation on Earth, people can see exactly what's going on.

After October 7th, we've seen Jewish businesses vandalised, Jewish students intimidated, synagogues attacked, and Jews around the world blamed for the actions of a foreign government. That's not anti-Zionism, that's antisemitism.

The constant claim that concerns about antisemitism are merely a tactic to "silence critics" ignores the very real explosion in anti-Jewish hatred we've witnessed. People aren't blind. They can see the difference between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and rhetoric that demonises, isolates, and delegitimises the Jewish state alone.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

The difference is that Israel does concern Britain. We share intelligence, cooperate on counter-terrorism, trade extensively, and work together on defence and security issues.

Putting Israel in the same category as Mongolia or Peru ignores the reality that Britain has far deeper strategic, economic and security ties with Israel than it does with either of those countries.

Countries aren't ranked by whether they've ever made a decision we disliked, they're judged by the overall value of the relationship.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Nobody is denying that weapons sold to Argentina were used against British forces. The question is whether a nation's entire relationship with Britain is defined by one episode.

Germany killed millions of Britons and our allies across two world wars, yet today it's one of Britain's closest partners. We judged Germany by decades of cooperation that followed, not solely by its worst actions.

If nations can move on from world wars, they can certainly assess a relationship on more than a single arms deal from 1982.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Friendship between nations isn't measured by a single event 44 years ago. Countries act in their own interests, and every nation has made decisions that have upset allies at one time or another.

The real question is whether Israel and Britain have been working together as partners since then. Decades of intelligence cooperation, counter-terrorism work, trade, technology sharing and diplomatic ties suggest they have.

If one controversial decision in 1982 permanently disqualifies a country from being a friend, Britain would have very few friends left.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

That claim leaves out a lot of context. Israel did sell weapons to Argentina during the Falklands War, and many Britons rightly disagree with that decision. But Britain also continued diplomatic and military relationships with countries that have supplied weapons to Britain's enemies at various points in history.

If we're judging whether Israel is a friend of Britain today, it makes more sense to look at the last 40 years of intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism cooperation, defence technology, trade, and support against common threats rather than a single controversial arms deal from 1982.

You can criticise that decision without pretending it defines the entire UK-Israel relationship.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Bit awkward that you’re ranting at me as though I’m personally sat in the Pentagon signing off arms deals. I’m not American, and I haven’t armed anybody.

Second, your history is all over the place. Saddam Hussein wasn’t ‘put in place’ by the US; he rose through Iraq’s own Ba’athist power structure. The Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored after the 1953 coup, yes, but that still doesn’t make every conflict in the region an American creation.

And calling Hezbollah and Hamas ‘resistance groups’ is a nice bit of euphemism for organisations with long records of deliberately targeting civilians.

You’ve basically responded to a point about false casualty claims by launching into a copy-paste anti-US rant and pretending that somehow proves the original argument.

So no, I won’t ‘sit the fuck down’. If you’re going to make sweeping historical claims, at least get the history right first.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Not one single country.

The Soviet Union armed regimes and proxies for decades. Iran backs militias across the region. Russia backs Assad. Gulf states have funded factions. Turkey has backed different groups. Pakistan played major roles in Afghanistan. And yes, the United States has armed allies and made plenty of disastrous foreign policy decisions too.

But that still doesn’t rescue the original claim.

External backing doesn’t magically erase the agency of the regimes, militias and governments actually carrying out the killing. By that logic, every conflict on earth can be lazily blamed on whichever foreign power supplied weapons.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

@godzuki2fu @CogitoEdu Oh dear, another one who can't handle the facts.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

That comparison makes no sense.

Age restrictions are based on objective, evidence-based criteria around development, safeguarding and public health that apply universally to everyone.

Religious exemptions are different because they create a legal carve-out based on adherence to a particular belief system.

One is a general rule grounded in measurable public policy. The other is an exception granted because of faith. They’re not remotely the same thing.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

You’ve got that backwards.

Equal treatment under the law means the same legal standard applies to everyone unless there’s a compelling, objective reason otherwise.

Pointing out that religious exemptions create different rules for different groups isn’t “communism”, it’s literally asking for consistent application of the law.

If anything, carving out special privileges based purely on belief is the opposite of equal treatment.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

Funny that recognising people of different backgrounds can live together peacefully somehow gets twisted into attacking Farage, Jenrick and anyone who raises legitimate concerns about borders, integration and social cohesion.

No one is arguing against people mixing or getting along. The issue is uncontrolled migration and the refusal to have an honest conversation about its long-term impact.

You sound like one of those open-borders nut jobs who thinks pointing out real pressures on housing, services and community cohesion is “hate”. It isn’t. It’s called facing reality.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

You’ve missed the point entirely.

Whether kirpan-related crime is rare is irrelevant. Laws aren’t usually written around how often an exemption is abused, but around the principle of equal application.

And yes, in legal terms the exemption exists because of religious belief. That isn’t “shallow thinking”, it’s the literal basis for the exception.

If an ordinary member of the public carried a bladed article and justified it with “my personal beliefs”, that wouldn’t wash. So questioning why religious belief is treated differently is a perfectly legitimate discussion about consistency under the law, not a lack of discipline.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

The law allows people to carry bladed items only where there is a legitimate reason, taking a kitchen knife home after purchase, carrying a Stanley knife for work, transporting tools, etc.

The real question is why any religious belief should create a special exemption to carry what would otherwise be considered a prohibited weapon in public.

The law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. If the rest of society must justify carrying a blade, then “because my religion says so” is a pretty weak basis for an exception to public safety laws.

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

@RupertLowe10 They can already lose benefits for repeatedly refusing work under the current system though.🤷‍♂️

[AlcoholidayUK @AlcoholidayHQ]

History says otherwise. Millions of Christians have chosen death rather than renounce their faith, following the example set by Christ and the apostles themselves.

The Bible is explicit about standing firm in faith even under persecution. Jesus said, “Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33). He also warned His followers that they would face persecution for His name’s sake (John 15:20) and told them, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). Paul wrote, “If we endure, we will also reign with him, if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12). Christians are taught from Scripture that faithfulness to Christ is worth more than life itself.

The apostles are central examples for Christians because, according to both Scripture and church history, they suffered persecution and martyrdom rather than deny Christ. Jesus told Peter that he would glorify God through his death (John 21:18–19). Peter was later crucified, Paul was executed, James was killed by the sword (Acts 12:2), and the others endured imprisonment, torture, and exile. Christians have always looked to them as proof that faithfulness to Christ means standing firm even when it costs everything.

The Roman persecutions saw Christians executed for refusing to deny Christ, often inspired by the apostles’ witness and Christ’s command to remain steadfast. Under the Ottoman genocide, Armenian and Assyrian Christians were massacred unless they converted. In communist regimes across the Soviet Union and China, Christians were imprisoned, tortured, and killed for standing by their faith.

And it’s still happening now. Christians are murdered by jihadists in Nigeria, churches are bombed in Pakistan, believers are imprisoned in North Korea, and converts face death threats in places like Afghanistan and Iran.

So no, Christians don’t have some special exemption where they’d all just “lie to survive.” History is full of Christians who refused to deny their faith even when it cost them everything, because the Bible teaches them to follow Christ, who Himself accepted death rather than compromise truth, and to imitate the apostles who endured suffering rather than recant.

That’s exactly why people question taqiyah, because openly renouncing faith under pressure is not something Christianity teaches as justified. Scripture consistently calls believers to confess Christ boldly, even in the face of suffering or death.