“..because that’s who they are”.. well, that’s me told who I am. That’s really helpful.

I am not sure that valuing other humans is such a bad thing. Come to that, why restrict tuition? I get your points, Stu, I live in the real world too – I am worried by the apparent attitude of those behind the propaganda you are posting.

I think the question is more why would someone be so keen to misinterpret a point in a debate? I was not ‘rubbishing’ anything. And as for saying that pointing out something as irrelevant is in itself irrelevant… sorry? What?

Once the powers were at war it became a national fight though Stu, not a fight for nazism. There would be a point at which most of us would put ourselves forward for our country, regardless of who was in charge at the time. The thing is, it need not have happened.

I do disagree with Jonesy though, insofar as it was a popular movement, not a minority cause.

Is the problem not extreme religion – to the point of attempting to over-rule democracy, civil law, free speech and equality, and to the point of using violence ‘in the name of the prophet’ against those who do not agree with the narrow and purposefully ignorant world view of the religions adherents?

All these things are to be defended against. Whether Catholic or Protestant Christian, Sunni or Shia Muslim, Taoist or Jedi.

In the meantime I reserve the right to keep mocking, and yes, to offend. It is a far more fundamental right than is usually recognised.

John, am I right in thinking this forum is the only contact you have with the world outside of your tory-bubble? Otherwise, it’s hard to see how you would think anyone here condones or excuses violence or barbarism. It may come as a surprise to discover that many people who do not believe every word the Telegraph says and who do not salute the Union Jack in the back garden every morning at the same time are civilised people who find the things portrayed by the videos posted disgusting.

While criminal, I am interested to know how the publishers of the videos know that the perpetrators are Muslims. I am not saying that they are not, but what I see here is violent thugs first and foremost, who are possibly immigrants (who isn’t, from the evidence of a video), possibly Muslims (again, who isn’t – as John says, these things are not tattooed on ones forehead). What I see is the kind of brutal and animalistic violence meted out on our streets every day (maybe not your streets, John). What I would do is be very careful about who comes in, yes. But I would also be very careful about statements made in compilations of black people committing violent crimes compiled by white supremacist groups.

There is nothing in leaving the European Union that will reduce immigration. In fact, once the French no longer support UK border controls on French soil, it will be ferry tickets all round and ‘bon voyage’.

Not necessarily illiterate artisans, though (after all, they were writing in Latin!) – just people who found the quickest way to number things with the tools at hand.

Is it possible that the theory (of Roman numerals being used because they made for simpler ‘marks’) is borne out by the word ‘mark’ itself, as in ‘Mk I”? Otherwise how did “mark” arise, instead of ‘Type ‘1’ or ‘Number 1’?