Ah yes, the hallowed principle of 'Truthiness'.

This is great. I think the issue though is that, even in your example, the image doesn't show *who* took the bike or where they went. For that you'd need to look through lots more CCTV, to try to follow their route and/or get a clear image of their face. Which can take hours.

Having slept on it, I think the issue here is that you have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of separation of church and state.

Ok, well we are going round in circles. I can't really understand what you think should be done to stop religious voters from having any influence, because you didn't answer my question. I think I've spent enough time trying to understand you and I'm off to bed. 👋

And your approach is self- defeating. You can't just suppress dissenting views like that for any length of time. People will fight back, take control and do the same thing to you. And then abortion will definitely be illegal, everywhere.

You think abortion should be legal. Others don't. And instead of making the case for it to be legal, you just want some kind of ban on people who disagree with you. You'd be rightly outraged if someone wanted to do the same thing to you.

The points I've made apply to all of the above just as much as abortion. You can't keep religious or any other conviction out of law making, and still have democracy. Diversity of thought/belief is essential for democracy.

Religious belief is not the only reason, but even if it were what you are essentially saying is that only people you approve of should be allowed to have a say. That's pretty dark. It's the definition of authoritarianism. And actually no different than theocracy, in practical terms.

So, if someone stands on an anti-abortion platform and gets elected, you are saying they shouldn't be allowed to enact that platform? Or they shouldn't have been allowed to stand on the platform to begin with? Or that people should be prevented for voting according to their religious beliefs?

But the lawmakers are elected by the people, some of whom are religious and voted for their candidate because their policies reflected their concerns. So the laws and policies they enact will reflect that. But you I think are saying they should not reflect that?

But if we ban some people from participating in democracy then it isn't democracy any more. Democracy is about the will of the people. Some of those people are informed by their religious beliefs, others of us are informed by our non-religious beliefs.

I don't think I agree. Most arguments about abortion (for and against) are about people's beliefs, based on their moral code. Your position seems to be that it's ok to lobby against abortion on secular moral grounds but not on religious moral grounds?

I think they start their English language lessons in primary school though? So they would have been learning it for much longer than the 4 years for GCSE & A level. They might not have had the actual qualification but they probably were at that level.

Absolutely certain. I could have asked them where the train station was and told them about my hobbies. Nothing more. My god-daughter just got the equivalent of a B in Spanish GCSE and she has a similar level.

Are you saying that people who have religious beliefs shouldn't participate in politics? I'm an atheist but that sounds really illiberal to me.

Yes. Not everyone who has tried to roll back abortion laws is religious. I'm not sure what point you are making though. Is it that nobody should be allowed to try to change abortion law? Or that only non-religious people should be allowed? Or something else?

Well, I got a B in GCSE French at school and I wouldn't have been able to hold a conversation for more than a couple of minutes. So I don't think GCSE English would be sufficient for someone to come and work here.

This seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't consider looking for work in a country without being able to speak the language. It wouldn't even occur to me.