"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)
Empirical means it's information that's been gathered through sensory data input, actually. Aka, my own experiences. It's distinct from 'rationalist' data, which is worked out in an abstract intellectual fashion (which is what you appear to be searching for). Derives from the word 'empiricism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism Basic academic philosophical usage in line with the etymological origins of the word and epistemology. You may have some alternative definition of the word, but that's mine. That help?
Yes I'm well aware of the meaning. I'm glad to see you are admitting you insulted people. First step on the road to recognising the issue I suppose is acceptance of what you have inferred about some people. Based on your empirical evidence you have stated that some supporters are gullible on your own personal experience - however you've not stated why and how or whether that was biased by your won personal perceptions. Hence the insult as you have neither verified what made them gullible or what you believe actually makes them gullible. Hence it was just a statement that a proportion of the group are gullible .
I didn't miss the or, it was a list, but you are still insulting a proportion. Alternatively your experience only revolves around one person and heavily weighting that experience to a larger group of people? The latter of course is just slurring the group as a whole to make a point rather than based on any real evidence (as the issue with anecdotal evidence is that it can always be skewed by who you know.)
Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.
EDIT:- Upon reflection, this is going far off track, so I'm going to leave this particular line of back and forth there. Rest assured, no insult was intended to anyone specific, but I do reserve the right to have an opinion on the types of people currently waving metaphorical flags with Corbyn on the front.
Well I'll take that as an apology and acceptance. You can judge all you want, doesn't make it true. If I've missed others I apologise for not jumping on those either as they are all the same, must have scanned some posts. On the other hand you are a mod and hence meant to be less eager to insult people.
Moving swiftly on from that little bit of banter, I'm torn right now between spoiling my vote, and voting Lib Dem. I don't particularly approve of their current manifesto, but in voting for them, I know they're never going to win my seat, and it'll hopefully give them a bit of a morale boost to buck up their ideas. Because I don't think I can bring myself to vote for either main party, and it would be nice if they wrested back third place.
Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..
Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?
Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?
feeder wrote: Is terror really the most important thing facing the UK government though?
Not healthcare, education, economy, or a rapidly aging population, but terror?
True.. Its one of several big issues. Just because we elect corbyn they ain't gonna stop trying.
The fact his budget by my basic calculation costs a extra 15-20 billion off his manifesto pledges, with a 100% tax rise yeild. Not sure on his economics, neither have a amazing wonder plan but spending more is good... We still have to pay it back and still have to work out ways to make it sustainable if possible. Ie no devt increase.
Healthcare is a budget issue however minus massive nhs reform, it needs a bottem up refit as right now I admit it ain't exactly in peak condition, and has not been for a good decade or more. I doubt things where rosey and entirely up to peak when brown and Blair where in power.
Economy... That's too tied with brexit to split.
But .... Do labour have a shadow brexit minister? I've not seen much of his shadow cabinet bar abbot.
In terms of UK lives lost and treasure spent, terrorism is very far down the priority list of problems.
That doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it's questionable how much good an occasional drone attack in the Yemen or Syria actually does to reduce terrorism in the UK. Intelligence gathering is much more important.
The reason the NHS looks bad now is because it has declined significantly from the peak of performance it achieved in the Blair and Brown spending era. It has declined in part because the past two governments cut back spending compared to demand. As with terrorism, there are various different things that could be done to address this situation.
Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..
Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?
Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?
It's questionable whether a drone strike has ever really kept someone in the UK safe. Most terror attacks in the UK have been based from the UK so to resolve these you would have needed to undertake drone strikes on our country.
The issue is that if you never have any correspondence or communication then you can never solve the issue. We can bomb areas all we want but this is only likely to drive people further into the arms of the terrorists. Any military strike likely leads to some civilian damage. From the people that are affected by such strikes the perception is the same. They just see one large explosion and a lot of dead bodies. Suppose ISIS were camped out next to a school or hospital and the drone strike takes out not only ISIS but a good number of civilian casualties (lets say 22 children in the school from shrapnel and so on). From our perspective it is 'justified' because it may have saved UK lives potentially in the future (on the assumption that they got through security and beat the police/MI5 in covering their tracks). For the parents of those children they just see a random act of violence by the 'west' one large explosion and a lot of dead children. They don't know there was an ISIS cell and would likely question why it should be taken out next to a school. And just like we are influenced by a biased press so will they be. Like the Daily Fail/Sunday Express and Brexit they will have headlines that propagate simple solutions to complex issues, fail to explain all the facts and just generally write in a way that antagonises the populace. This then drives more people to the recruiters who say "Look the west are killing our children, come fight those evil people". They then kill us and the cycle repeats. The only thing that happens by putting more guns on the table is more people get killed.
You need people that are willing to overlook that they are talking to terrorist groups and find the more moderate people in those groups to try and convince them that there is a different way. Usually its by people in the background because a lot of people will condemn them for what they are doing (as here). However in Corbyn has a been a lot more high profile about that he has attempted to do this. But it takes time. It will take a couple of generations of little violence for the memories to be wiped away (basically those that affected need to die) because then you havefull generations that have only ever had peace and they will then be a lot less willing to start the cycle a fresh because they don't have the same level of anger from the memories of each side killing the others children or parents.
Condemning someone for talking to the other side (regardless of how barbaric) and trying to prevent such things is short sighted as you will never then solve the problem. In the end you want to isolate those that are driving the terrorism (and that basically want power for themselves) so they just don't have the support of a large group of people. If you want to safeguard the long term future of UK citizens you need to sit down and talk even if the people on the other side have committed some particularly loathsome acts because you need to break the cycle of violence.
In other news I can imagine there is some significant panic in Conservative HQ today after the latest YouGov poll. They've analysed by constituency and they are reckoning that if we went to the polls tomorrow that we are heading for a hung parliament.
Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..
Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?
Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?
Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?
You could also argue that Mays slashing of police budgets and numbers (including the local beat cops) is directly linked to terrorist activity, as in the Manchester case. The guy was reported to them several times but fell through the cracks as there wasn't the resources. Local cops with local information could likely have done something about it too, but again, they all got cut back.
So do we really think a Tory/May government is actually going to solve the issue?
Kilkrazy wrote: Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.
To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.
It depends on what you mean by wealth. As stated previously at £30k you still get a choice in what you do. I can easily find studio flats for £450pcm in the south east which a 30K salary easily covers. Go to £700pcm and you can get a terraced house. The wealth is because you have a choice. You can even decided to commute because you have about £2k pcm to play with. OK so you are not going to be living the high life but you still have plenty of choices relatively. Now consider that 70% of the population are earning less than this and 1% less than about 11k. Relatively for these people £30k is wealth they could only imagine. £450pcm is half their salary in any month before bills, they have no choices everything goes on essentials only. There's no money for fun, for educating yourself further to improve yourself and so on. I'm not saying 30k makes life easy but by the vast majority of the rest of the population you are wealthy.
I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.
Remind me never to move to Britain. Too expensive country. Not that Britain even wants me foreigners coming so win-win.
Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.
Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....
So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.
I have a lock button right beside the submit post button. Keep that in mind if you people want to keep acting like children with the bickering and being rude.
John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us
And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.
I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.
I make a bit more than that, my mortgage is about £350, and I spend about £250 getting to work (61km). Household bills are easily another £200, plus £100 in council tax (based on home value). That's on the cheaper end of the scale because I live somewhere pretty cheap in the North.
There are some rail commutes at about £410/month (£5k/year).
Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?
The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.
I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.
Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?
The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.
I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.
We're in trouble if May has to go on live television during any negotiation
So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.
I'll hold my hand up and admit (which I did with Ketara but you need to follow the conversation)
If I've missed others I apologise for not jumping on those either as they are all the same, must have scanned some posts.
that I missed the comment from Yodhrin and would agree that it is no different. I oppose generally any generalisations based on a selective and anecdotal view of the world. People are individuals and should be treated as such. It is OK to make assertions based on facts (for example that the proportion of people voting for Brexit were generally older and less educated) because it comes from scientific analysis of data. It's not acceptable to say that a proportion of the voters are "accessories to murder", "gullible" or "idiots for voting Brexit" etc because that infers both an intrinsic understanding of another persons view and is also biased by yours/my own opinion that what they are saying. Hence it is very subjective.
Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?
The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.
I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
Herzlos wrote: I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.
Remind me never to move to Britain. Too expensive country. Not that Britain even wants me foreigners coming so win-win.
It's an unfortunate side effect of the UKs increasing divide between the *very* wealthy (so top 10% or so) and the not so wealthy to poor. It's particularly problematic in the South East and London area because that area has had massive investment to accommodate the banking and associated service industry. The main cost for a lot of people is rent or mortgages. Most people like to live in pleasant less crowded areas but there is so much demand and so little housing in the area that house prices sky rocket (way beyond the actual cost of building such a house ever is). On top of this a rental business will just charge rates that are a shy under mortgage repayments because of the capital nature of the market. That means that if you are renting then the ability to build up a deposit to buy a house is nigh impossible. Top this off with lowest house building rates since the 1920s; households with less people per person and a significant fraction of the south east population having inherited by good fortune ridiculously expensive houses. To afford to live this then drives people working there to charge higher prices and the situation escalates.
If you avoid London (most of it is horrible anyway outside the central historic areas) and the SE then living costs can become more reasonable outside a few other notable areas (Oxford/Cambridge/central Manchester etc). If you wanted to live in the NE /NW then things are a lot more reasonable. This is why one of the reasons there a lot of complaints that successive governments have never really encouraged significant investment outside of London relatively.
This might sound strange to people, but in many respects, this is probably a good general election to lose.
It'll take years to sort out the Brexit fallout, and the economic problems that go with it, so if I were involved in politics, I'd be stroking my chin in a Machiavellian manner and be planning to make my move in 2022. ready to capitalise on the incumbent government getting blamed for the mess.
So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.
I'll hold my hand up and admit (which I did with Ketara but you need to follow the conversation)
If I've missed others I apologise for not jumping on those either as they are all the same, must have scanned some posts.
that I missed the comment from Yodhrin and would agree that it is no different. I oppose generally any generalisations based on a selective and anecdotal view of the world. People are individuals and should be treated as such. It is OK to make assertions based on facts (for example that the proportion of people voting for Brexit were generally older and less educated) because it comes from scientific analysis of data. It's not acceptable to say that a proportion of the voters are "accessories to murder", "gullible" or "idiots for voting Brexit" etc because that infers both an intrinsic understanding of another persons view and is also biased by yours/my own opinion that what they are saying. Hence it is very subjective.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us
And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.
No worries, things can get heated and the issue with forums I find is that individual conversations can become disjointed especially when they started several pages back.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us
And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.
In many respects I don't blame people for not voting - the choices on offer are pretty feeble. I'm not going to mention vision, or grand plan. You know where I stand on that.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
And just who would that puppet master be?
I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
And just who would that puppet master be?
I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.
By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
And just who would that puppet master be?
I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.
By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.
In the long run, that will cause a lot of grief.
It's a shame really. She started out making several positive movements back in the direction of Cabinet rule, but couldn't seem to tolerate it for long. I think she likes the idea of it theoretically, but finds the reality (that it puts a cap on her own power) somewhat less desirable. I think it threw the other Cabinet members slightly too, led a bit of friction over expectations and how it actually turned out.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?
And just who would that puppet master be?
I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.
By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.
In the long run, that will cause a lot of grief.
It's a shame really. She started out making several positive movements back in the direction of Cabinet rule, but couldn't seem to tolerate it for long. I think she likes the idea of it theoretically, but finds the reality (that it puts a cap on her own power) somewhat less desirable. I think it threw the other Cabinet members slightly too, led a bit of friction over expectations and how it actually turned out.
More bad news for May - Corbyn has changed his mind and will do the leaders' debate, tonight.
That's a PR disaster for May.
I'm no Corbyn fan, but I respect the fact that he's going out all guns blazing.
To be fair, right now I'd say May is a waking PR disaster.
U-turns whenever, refuses to answer questions, can barely manage personal attacks in the face of an ostensibly crowd pleasing manifesto from the opposition,
If Corbyn can nail it tonight (always the if) it could carry him into No 10.
All he needs to do is show he's not the three headed communist Beast the gutterpress tell folk he is. He might have comparatively radical policies, but he's not dictating within his party (see support for Trident etc).
U-turns whenever, refuses to answer questions, can barely manage personal attacks in the face of an ostensibly crowd pleasing manifesto from the opposition,
If Corbyn can nail it tonight (always the if) it could carry him into No 10.
All he needs to do is show he's not the three headed communist Beast the gutterpress tell folk he is. He might have comparatively radical policies, but he's not dictating within his party (see support for Trident etc).
The whole situation is very bizarre. If a month ago someone had said Labour would all pull together behind Corbyn and his policies and Corbyn would become much better at putting his point across (after weak PMQs); compared to the Tories who are already starting become divided http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-election-error-polls_uk_592ecc58e4b0540ffc834f06?utm_hp_ref=uk and a PM that is looking ever more weak and vulnerable then I think most people would have scoffed.
The advantage is Corbyn has shown that although principled he is willing to compromise on issues and for a lot of the public they may recognise that as a good thing in the upcoming negotiations with the EU. Just being deliberately awkward and giving the impression that she'll only hold out for the deal she wants (or else it's the highway) is unlikely to get much a favourable response from a large section of the public.
However part of this was Tories to lose they focussed (and still are) on Corbyn as weak and but by doing so they have left themselves vulnerable because Corbyn is looking ever stronger and confident and hence the attacks just are seen as mudslinging. Hence attacks are becoming more desperate and bizarre like ones suggested in the Express that voting Corbyn would have a negative impact on relationships.
The debate tonight could be interesting. A lot of politicians standing there might actually be working together in a few weeks. If they avoid attacking each others parties policies but rather promote why they are good and then spend the rest of the time attacking May's policies then things could get worse for the Tories because the public will get one message (Tories bad news, we might not all agree on everything but willing to compromise and make things work) and May will likely regret not being there. if they devolve to attacking each other directly and ignore the Tories policies then it may work in May's favour.
Firstly, the perception in a large segment of the population that Labour will "tax and spend Britain into the poorhouse".
Secondly, the votes needed to push him into #10 will have to come from the youth vote. History shows these votes are vocal in online polling, but don't materialise on the actual day of election.
Possibly third, a hostile press. Recently he and May were on Paxman (?) and he was interrupted by the host 50 times while May allowed to ramble on, only being interrupted 6 times. This last bit is internet hearsay. I did not see the interview myself.
I watched both, they both got it in the neck more or less. I believe the reason May got interrupted less was because generally she stayed closer to the question. She didn't necessarily answer them, but by staying relevant, and tacking on a half answer mixed in with the usual five paragraph fudging, it keeps sounding like she's going somewhere to answer the question. Whereas with Corbyn, he has a bad habit of not just fudging, but ignoring the question altogether and launching off into either a utopian vision speech, or some vague and irrelevant half-hearted attack on the Tories.
I think it also probably didn't hurt that Paxman had a lot more obvious dirt on Corbyn to play with. He's said a lot of dumb things over the years, whereas with May, he spent his time attacking her record of decisions instead. There's a wonderful moment though about mid-way, where he's been carefully leading her through a list of things she's done U-Turns on, and then he sits back and just says, 'Well, having looked at all that, don't you think you'll go to Europe, and they'll see you and think "You're just a blowhard who crumples at the first sign of artillery fire?'"
She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.
She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.
There were a few looks she gave members of the audience as well if I remember correctly. Didn't quite last as long as the blowhard one though.
feeder wrote: The issues facing Corbyn are twofold I think.
Firstly, the perception in a large segment of the population that Labour will "tax and spend Britain into the poorhouse".
Secondly, the votes needed to push him into #10 will have to come from the youth vote. History shows these votes are vocal in online polling, but don't materialise on the actual day of election.
Possibly third, a hostile press. Recently he and May were on Paxman (?) and he was interrupted by the host 50 times while May allowed to ramble on, only being interrupted 6 times. This last bit is internet hearsay. I did not see the interview myself.
Yeah. Also the polls are always a margin of error, also labour has to seem to have calmed but the internal splits have never gone away. He strong and can at mommebt keep them in check but if he does weaken he night find himself under attack from two fronts *
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.
True.. But the old balirite/leftwing battle lines seem to never go away.
Even 2-3 elections later.
The Iraq war ghost.
I admit. Torries have divides, and ghosts equally.
Ita like each party never ever can forget.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.
A whole bunch of Tory votes are against Labour rather than for Tory. Much of England views them as the lesser evil.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.
A whole bunch of Tory votes are against Labour rather than for Tory. Much of England views them as the lesser evil.
True. Labour despite best efforts have not been fully able to get rid of the blairite era ghost.
Though it took decades for Thatchers ghost to pass it's full effects
I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.
Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".
She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.
There were a few looks she gave members of the audience as well if I remember correctly. Didn't quite last as long as the blowhard one though.
In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.
Who to vote for, then?
Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.
OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.
On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.
What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.
r_squared wrote: I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.
Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".
Good post. As people know, my dislike of the Tories is well known, but Amber Rudd has my respect for doing this debate under very difficult circumstances. And considering the flak she took from the other leaders, she deserves better than somebody like May as a leader.
May's no show speaks volumes about her unsuitability for the high office of Prime Minister.
In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.
Who to vote for, then?
Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.
OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.
On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.
What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.
I would vote Green. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but minority parties gain Short money for every vote they get, so anything is better than nothing.
I agree that it must be depressing to live in an area that is so tilted to one party. For years, I had it up here with Labour before it switched to SNP.
r_squared wrote: I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.
Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".
Yes you do have to feel for A Rudd and that she was willing to put herself in the firing line despite the emotional turmoil I assume she is going through.
It does call in to question just how much empathy May has. I'm sure A Rudd agreed to continue on with the debate, but anyone with some stomach would have told her not to worry and that they'd do the meeting.
How can we expect someone to care about the Country when they don't really care about their nearest colleagues and put themselves first? It's definitely not going to give people a good impression.
You know it isn't going well when even the HouseofCards tweets that you should be turning up. What I'd like to know is exactly what May was doing during the debate?
Particularly impressed with C. Lucas in the debate and Farron did well too and came with some stinging attacks. For me Plaid came across a bit whiney but SNP did well (but then I can't vote for these anyway). UKIP included their joke candidate for laughs I think. Corbyn had a steady night, nothing spectacular but he is demonstrating that its not all catastrophe as papers like the Scum and Daily Fail try to put forward. His message also seems to ring with a lot of people in the audience. A. Rudd's message was we've got to think of the economy so yes things are going to hurt. However she did do reasonably well given the personal and political pressure and attacks she was under. However there was no inspiring message, just you're better off relying on us and we are going to cut your services so we can protect the economy. However I would have preferred May to be there. She is after all promoting herself as the best person to negotiate on Brexit (which is relatively going to be a 'hostile' crowd because the EU will be looking after themselves) - hence by going it would have allowed people to see what she is actually made of. Instead I think the one thing people will take from the debate is that she wasn't there.
What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.
You mean you haven't considered UKIP, surely they must be considered....
Seriously though I'm in the same position. I'm in a very blue safe seat (Charnwood) that is unlikely to go anywhere else. I would like to vote Green but worry that overall it will just be 'lost'. Because it is such a safe seat there is no political engagement in the area and effectively candidates don't really bother. Hence I'm considering voting tactically so that hopefully at the next election (assuming I'm still in the UK) all the parties will consider it a more higher profile seat. As such I might go LD or Labour depending on who I think will get closest to the Tories. However also accept DILNT view that more votes for the Greens would be helpful financially. Damn I really hate the FPTP system.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Finally my growing concern about this election is the continuing growing divisions in society. Both sides this morning are accusing each other of bias in the debate last night. Farage has stated on LBC that paid Corbyn followers were there. Corbyn supporters accusing the BBC of the presenters being biased to being pro-Tory with the BBC having to put out a statement they weren't.
And when we think things here get heated take a moment to see some of the tripe that gets posted in BBCs comments by both sides. For example this dubious claim...
6491. Posted by Who Does Your Thinking
Let's summarise:
1. Tory Voters
- study/work hard
- self-reliant
- aspirational
- achievers
- financially independent
- educated/intelligent
- net contribution to society
- inspirational
2. Labour Voters
- class clown/feckless
- state dependent
- non-aspirational
- non-achievers
- financially dependent
- uneducated/ignorant
- net drain on society
- depressing
It does make me wonder some times about the state of things in this country
We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.
As long as the SNP gets 50 seats minimum, then I'm happy.
None the less, whoever wins, I hope they get a majority of sorts. A hung parliament, on the eve of Brexit negotiations, would be a disaster for this country.
It would be the biggest gakstorm to hit this country since the 1970s and the winter of discontent.
The French and Germans would cash in on the political turmoil and eat us alive. We'd end up handing over £200 billion or something for the divorce bill
Automatically Appended Next Post: Holy horsegak! I don't believe it!
Nigel Farage is person of interest in FBI investigation into Trump and Russia!
We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.
In one poll. Meanwhile, others have a much more extensive separation. But none of the papers are paying attention to that fact, because it's far more fun to pretend it's a competition, and gives them something to talk about.
Plus, what was it that happened last election? 'Tory shame' or something? People never say they're going to, but when they get to the ballot box, they're far more likely to do so.
No, Corbyn isn't going to win this. I reckon we'll probably see a slight Tory boost, twenty seats or so. Mildly embarassing for the Tories though, considering how they were expecting a landslide. They've run an absolute shambles of a campaign here, and they're reaping the consequences.
We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.
In one poll. Meanwhile, others have a much more extensive separation. But none of the papers are paying attention to that fact, because it's far more fun to pretend it's a competition, and gives them something to talk about.
Plus, what was it that happened last election? 'Tory shame' or something? People never say they're going to, but when they get to the ballot box, they're far more likely to do so.
No, Corbyn isn't going to win this. I reckon we'll probably see a slight Tory boost, twenty seats or so. Mildly embarassing for the Tories though, considering how they were expecting a landslide. They've run an absolute shambles of a campaign here, and they're reaping the consequences.
I think the term is "Shy Tories" and was according to the evidence mainly dominated by, IIRC, middle aged women that were uncomfortable admitting that they vote Tory and, generally, when asked stated they were undecided so that gave Labour an apparent bigger advantage in the polls. I haven't seen any data as to why they are more protective of their views though.
I've seen comments at the beginning of the election that the pollsters state they have now taken this into account but the method is yet untested (this time next week I guess we'll know). My assumption is that they are now weighting the undecided vote much more heavily in the Tories favour to give an indication of who might win. Apparently there is also significant differences in the proportion of the younger people that will vote in the polls which is why they are swinging about a bit. Those more pro Tory have much less assumed number of young people voting. As such there's quite a bit of uncertainty because who wins may simply be determined by whether enough young people turn up and vote. I've read that if 80% of the younger <40 year olds vote then Labour would win by a mile in England. The general trend in all of them is towards Labour though.
Other polls also indicate that Tories are set to lose substantial ground in London.
The problem for May now is a catastrophic strategy is back firing but they aren't changing tactics - it's the same old mantra, but it's not really working. In this interview she looks both exhausted, stressed and worried and the 'laugh' just says it all.
You've got Boris trying to accuse the BBC of bias...from Sky News....You can understand the backwards and forwards on the twitter about the issue, but when you have the Foreign Secretary bleating on about it from a Tory supportive TV channel it looks, whiney; hypocritical and smacks of desperation because the party don't think that A. Rudd did that well (though given the circumstances) and that they think in fact they lost the debate (but then if May had actually turned up many of the jokes and burns wouldn't have happened).
We're about to undertake the biggest challenge our country has experienced in decades. And we can't do it with those balloons in charge.
Not that the Tories are much better. What a mess.
We don't really know this. Labour might employ the best negotiator out there if they recognise they don't have the skills. May on the other hand might just try and do it all herself thinking she is excellent at such things based on her own opinion (like the Dementia tax) and come out of the negotiations with something that horrifies the public.
We don't really know what will happen with either one in charge. However it's unlikely that you will get just Labour as they can't win without Scotland (and I think SNP are going to steam roller there now).
There isn't a jot of evidence the Tories have done anything prepare for the Brexit negotiations except to say "Strong and stable" a lot and tell everyone that only May can do it, only if we all vote for her.
Meanwhile the EU has produced a 58 page dossier covering every detail of the points they want to cover in the first round.
Kilkrazy wrote: There isn't a jot of evidence the Tories have done anything prepare for the Brexit negotiations except to say "Strong and stable" a lot and tell everyone that only May can do it, only if we all vote for her.
Meanwhile the EU has produced a 58 page dossier covering every detail of the points they want to cover in the first round.
Shambling useless Eurocracy at its very worst!
Yeah, but you're forgetting that German car companies need us more than we need them, or something like that
In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.
Who to vote for, then?
Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.
OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.
On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.
What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.
My constituency is very similar, although I have the added interest of having Paul "not a racist" Nuttall standing for UKIP. I voted Tory in 2015 in order to ensure that UKIP were defeated, and Matt Warman the Conservative candidate did win, but it was close. This time, however, I think Matt is going to pound Paul into the ground without my help, most people around here think he's a toss pot who should piss off back to Bootle.
This time I'm definitely voting Labour, regardless that they came distant 3rd. Their nationalisation policies chime with my personal ideology that essential national infrastructure should be in state hands, and the Brexit negotiations don't even come into it for me. My belief there is that we're probably going to be shaken down until our teeth rattle anyway no matter who's running the show, so I might as well go with the party I actually like.
Living in such a one sided constituency is actually quite liberating, I have the freedom to vote on my conscience and beliefs, and not have to give a thought to tactics. I advise that you do the same.
In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.
Who to vote for, then?
Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.
OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.
On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.
What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.
My constituency is very similar, although I have the added interest of having Paul "not a racist" Nuttall standing for UKIP. I voted Tory in 2015 in order to ensure that UKIP were defeated, and Matt Warman the Conservative candidate did win, but it was close. This time, however, I think Matt is going to pound Paul into the ground without my help, most people around here think he's a toss pot who should piss off back to Bootle.
This time I'm definitely voting Labour, regardless that they came distant 3rd. Their nationalisation policies chime with my personal ideology that essential national infrastructure should be in state hands, and the Brexit negotiations don't even come into it for me. My belief there is that we're probably going to be shaken down until our teeth rattle anyway no matter who's running the show, so I might as well go with the party I actually like.
Living in such a one sided constituency is actually quite liberating, I have the freedom to vote on my conscience and beliefs, and not have to give a thought to tactics. I advise that you do the same.
My area is conservative.
However. We have had a few things through door, now one laid out what he wanted to see done, changes made, had detail on past record as a mp and local problems he wanted to see fixed, mainly some pretty dangerous roads and bad junctions that need a serious rethink as cause alot of delays and crashes.
The other, lived in local area for 50 years, owned a business here, all good but it then states nothing onbwhat he planned to do to help local area just a vauge promise about getting what we worth, not much else...
Do labour want to win a election in some places?. Our labour candidate main argument seems to be he is local.
So is the conservative but at least he gave us some ideas what he wanted to get done.
Lib Dems not even bothered to send a A5 leaflet out...
Could be funny if the election went a disaster for the tories, losing more than they had before the called election and ending with May leaving on her own.
It would certainly sound familiar.
Sure, you guys would find it less funny, but from the other side of the sea...it's like looking at someone beating himself with the stick he made. It's kinda sad, in a way.
Sarouan wrote: Could be funny if the election went a disaster for the tories, losing more than they had before the called election and ending with May leaving on her own.
It would certainly sound familiar.
Sure, you guys would find it less funny, but from the other side of the sea...it's like looking at someone beating himself with the stick he made. It's kinda sad, in a way.
It's going to funny whatever the outcome. It has been an absolute farce of an election. As a near-neutral, I've found the whole thing hilarious.
May is done, whether she wins or loses. If she maintains her current majority or increases she'll get to hang on for a bit, but there's going to be some pretty shiny knives in the benches behind her. Worst UK election campaign in living memory. Just think, if Labour didn't all hate each other, they'd be polling ten points above the Tories. That said, if they didn't all hate each other then May wouldn't have called the election...
I have no source from this apart from pub talk, but according to one or two political commentators on twitter, all but one party leader have agreed to do local radio interviews this week...
If truth, and I don't doubt it given recent events, I seriously wonder what is up with May.
Fear of the great unwashed? Health problems? The PM does have a life threatning condition, so this could be a real possibility of it being a health problem.
Either way, there are serious questions that need to be answered.
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
Sarouan wrote: Could be funny if the election went a disaster for the tories, losing more than they had before the called election and ending with May leaving on her own.
It would certainly sound familiar.
Sure, you guys would find it less funny, but from the other side of the sea...it's like looking at someone beating himself with the stick he made. It's kinda sad, in a way.
It's going to funny whatever the outcome. It has been an absolute farce of an election. As a near-neutral, I've found the whole thing hilarious.
May is done, whether she wins or loses. If she maintains her current majority or increases she'll get to hang on for a bit, but there's going to be some pretty shiny knives in the benches behind her. Worst UK election campaign in living memory. Just think, if Labour didn't all hate each other, they'd be polling ten points above the Tories. That said, if they didn't all hate each other then May wouldn't have called the election...
It's not really that funny. Though I suppose to be expected. We have had years of top politicians that are more interested in the party and their own power than actually trying to solve the countries problems long term and at best put a band aid over the gaping hole, slap us on the shoulder and tell us to get on with it. Hence eventually ending up where we are now is not really a surprise. The non laughing matter is that it is the populace that will suffer long term.
I've got to wonder how long May will last unless she pulls out some blindingly good impressions over the next week which although not impossible is unlikely given her other outings into the public realm. On the other hand, despite some gaffs Corbyn, does look stronger and more confident as the election progressed. Bizarre given the local elections were a disaster. So the question is what is the shortest length someone has been prime minister?
Even more polls are now showing the Tories losing ground (MORI this time).
and May continues to show weak Leadership. Whereas you have impassioned statements by Macron about the Paris Climate Agreement her response has amounted to 'disappointment' making her look more like she is desperate to cosy up to Trump (I understand the reasoning to a point even if I vehemently disagree with doing it). However most people now accept climate change and hence when you compare Macrons and her response it hardly indicates she is 'Strong' and willing to stand up for what she believes in (which she is trying to promote for Brexit).
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
Some which take general views on life and then interpret the result etc. In the iside with one I came heavily in favour for SNP (can't vote for them). Then Labour/LDs/Greens were all close. Bizarrely also Sinn Fein?
It's not really that funny...The non laughing matter is that it is the populace that will suffer long term.
Whirlwind wrote: In the iside with one I came heavily in favour for SNP (can't vote for them). Then Labour/LDs/Greens were all close. Bizarrely also Sinn Fein?
To be fair its not that bizarre. There's very little between, for instance, the Lib Dems, SNP, and Sinn Fein aside from constitutional positions. The English and Welsh Greens are also pretty close barring a handful of policies and until very recently you could stick Labour in that group, too. You still could put Scottish Labour with them, in fact. In real terms, all of our represented parties occupy an extremely narrow political spectrum - hence why I'm near enough neutral (I'm closest to Westminster Labour and the Scottish Greens but a long, long way beyond them on that spectrum) and find the whole thing more entertaining than worrying. The game's a bogey no matter who wins. We're way too far beyond any kind of open political debate to actually achieve anything.
Actually really looking forward to the lottery of election night.
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
You'll have to excuse me when I say that test, like most others of its kind, is bollocks. Would I like more funding for police? Sure! Where's the money coming from? *shrug*
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
You'll have to excuse me when I say that test, like most others of its kind, is bollocks. Would I like more funding for police? Sure! Where's the money coming from? *shrug*
In the interest of balance, all it is intended to do is align someone broadly with a party's ideological positions. It's not designed to help you decide who you believe can best achieve the particular policies you prioritise in relation to economics, legislation, opposition etc
It's still bollocks, but because it doesn't do what it intends to do very well (though to do so accurately would be a horribly lengthy exercise, I suppose), not because it doesn't do something it isn't designed to do in the first place.
Seems to be death by a thousand largely self inclifcted cuts. No pun intended.
I see the Tories are starting to wheel out the vote Labour get SNP line of attack in the hope of summoning the spirit of 2015.
It's a bit late in the day for that mode of attack
Well Sturgen suggested it so the Conservatives never did start this one.
Though not much labour left north of hadrians wall, its all yellow past the border and into the wild northern realm..
My results were: 1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies 2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
WTF is a "Cultural Crime"? Came up in my survey, and now I'm stuck on "Zero tolerance to ‘cultural’ crimes and aim to eradicate them from our country."
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
WTF is a "Cultural Crime"? Came up in my survey, and now I'm stuck on "Zero tolerance to ‘cultural’ crimes and aim to eradicate them from our country."
Umm.... Ummm...
I gues it could be semi racial crimes or acts against a single cultural group?
My results were:
1) Lib Dem - quite heavily in spite of being very frustrated at a number of their policies
2) Labour - not a supporter, but hardly surprising
and.....
3) UKIP - ................ well...I...uh... I got nothing
Labour 66.7%
Green 16.7%
Lib Dem 16.7%
I'm not surprised myself apart from I thought I'd be a bit more Lib Dem maybe.
It seems kinda fair I think. It's not that I necessariy disagree with Labours policies it's more I'm not convinced they're feasible and practical. Aspirationally, sure, yeah. Real world, not so sure. That and back home, I'm pretty convinced the decisions of the local labour MP at the time directly contributed to destroying my mothers, quite literally, in many ways, her sanity.
WTF is a "Cultural Crime"? Came up in my survey, and now I'm stuck on "Zero tolerance to ‘cultural’ crimes and aim to eradicate them from our country."
First thing that springs to mind is the deliberate destrction of heritage - like the Croats bombing the Mostar Bridge or ISIS bombing Palmyra - but I'm an archaeologist that works in Iraq so my biases might be coming into play there. I can't think of what it would mean in a purely British context.
Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
Henry wrote: Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
Bacon would be a racial religion crime though?
Poppies maybe more likely.
There seems to be no line between hate, cultural and other discrimination crimes very easily, just big grey areas of mixed definition.
Henry wrote: Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
Bacon would be a racial religion crime though?
Poppies maybe more likely.
There seems to be no line between hate, cultural and other discrimination crimes very easily, just big grey areas of mixed definition.
I don't think anyone could be charged for burning poppies unless there were some pretty extreme aggravating circumstances. Probably the same for campaigning against circumcision. And, in fact, for the bacon example.
That said, 'cultural crime' definitely isn't a legal definition of anything in the UK, though, so I'm not sure that it's meant to denote something specific. I think it's just a poorly chosen umbrella term that they've opted to use.
nfe wrote: I don't think anyone could be charged for burning poppies unless there were some pretty extreme aggravating circumstances.
Unless I remember incorrectly, people have in the past been arrested, charged and fined for burning poppies. If by aggravating you mean violence or physical confrontation then no, those were not contributing factors.
nfe wrote: Probably the same for campaigning against circumcision.
I was only being sarcastic with this one. However, it is an issue that runs afoul of cultural sensetivities and claims of anti-semetism.
I'm trying to decipher what a 'cultural crime' could possibly mean and picked some random things that I imagine people being offended by, I think this one might actually fit in to this vague term.
nfe wrote: That said, 'cultural crime' definitely isn't a legal definition of anything in the UK, though, so I'm not sure that it's meant to denote something specific. I think it's just a poorly chosen umbrella term that they've opted to use.
Agreed. But if it is an actual proposition then who made it and have they made any attempts to clarify what the hell it means?
Henry wrote: Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
I think that this is likely in one of the parties manifestos as I recognised some of the wording as I went through the questions. I can imagine which one it is from...hence as I'm not going to entertain wasting my time reading that one I speculate that it is proposed that this party will define what the UK culture is and that anything that is opposed to this would be a criminal offence.
Hence I can imagine it might be things like burning a flag, speaking out against Brexit, suggesting we aren't the glorious Britannia that rules the waves and so on.
It is effectively a major constraint on freedom of speech and requirement to conform with this governments ideals (I mean lets face it if you want to wipe you ass on the Union Jack then that's entirely up to you - it doesn't harm anyone). If you want fascism this is the party to vote for...
nfe wrote: I don't think anyone could be charged for burning poppies unless there were some pretty extreme aggravating circumstances.
Unless I remember incorrectly, people have in the past been arrested, charged and fined for burning poppies. If by aggravating you mean violence or physical confrontation then no, those were not contributing factors.
nfe wrote: Probably the same for campaigning against circumcision.
I was only being sarcastic with this one. However, it is an issue that runs afoul of cultural sensetivities and claims of anti-semetism.
I'm trying to decipher what a 'cultural crime' could possibly mean and picked some random things that I imagine people being offended by, I think this one might actually fit in to this vague term.
nfe wrote: That said, 'cultural crime' definitely isn't a legal definition of anything in the UK, though, so I'm not sure that it's meant to denote something specific. I think it's just a poorly chosen umbrella term that they've opted to use.
Agreed. But if it is an actual proposition then who made it and have they made any attempts to clarify what the hell it means?
Actually given the timing and the situation the poppy burning was seen more as a act of agravation at the time, and situation, also at time they would of wanted politicaly show they are against a issue that did cause public anger.
So its abit of both. However with political pressure to make sure someone was charged with something.
nfe wrote: I don't think anyone could be charged for burning poppies unless there were some pretty extreme aggravating circumstances.
Unless I remember incorrectly, people have in the past been arrested, charged and fined for burning poppies. If by aggravating you mean violence or physical confrontation then no, those were not contributing factors.
By aggravating I mean deliberately seeking to cause distress of offence. Same deal as why someone can't be charged for simply using the n-word but can if they're using it pejoratively about or towards someone. Can't imagine that anyone has ever been charged simply for burining a poppy, but they might well have been for doing it on a street corner with a bunch of signs about the evil west beside some ex-servicemen collecting for the legion.
Henry wrote: Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
I can agree with the first two, but "campaigning against circumcision"??? Circumcision is fething child abuse.
Henry wrote: Cultural crime? My best guess would be burning poppies in November, leaving a pack of bacon outside a mosque or campaigning against circumcision. That sort of thing.
I think that this is likely in one of the parties manifestos as I recognised some of the wording as I went through the questions. I can imagine which one it is from...hence as I'm not going to entertain wasting my time reading that one I speculate that it is proposed that this party will define what the UK culture is and that anything that is opposed to this would be a criminal offence.
Hence I can imagine it might be things like burning a flag, speaking out against Brexit, suggesting we aren't the glorious Britannia that rules the waves and so on.
It is effectively a major constraint on freedom of speech and requirement to conform with this governments ideals (I mean lets face it if you want to wipe you ass on the Union Jack then that's entirely up to you - it doesn't harm anyone). If you want fascism this is the party to vote for...
We're in agreement for once. I don't care what party came up with this, whether Left Wing or Right Wing...its a bad, authoritarian policy that would give a Government far too much power.
Do you know which party this is so I can not vote for them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for burning Poppies on remembrance day, that can be easily dealt with as a Public Order offence. No need for a new law, especially not a quasi fascist law that gives a Government cart Blanche to declare what is and is not culturally acceptable.
In addition they promise not raise tax for the wealthiest
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon was stating the "obvious" when he told the Daily Telegraph that high earners didn't need to worry about income tax rises under the Tories, according to Iain Duncan Smith.
- BBC
and
The former work and pensions secretary told BBC Breakfast: "The Conservative party lowers tax."
Asked why this wasn't in the manifesto, he said the Tories were trying to get away from the "idea that you set out every single thing in detail saying we won't do this, we won't do that, we won't do the other because then you get a large shopping list".
So basically now their manifesto is a list of ideas that they may or may not put into practice....think they learnt something from the Brexit Leave campaign.
Otherwise there is only a "firm intention" not to raise income tax for everyone else. So that would be NI tax rises then for everyone?
In other news Boris Johnson expresses his true feelings for Ian Lavery by blowing kisses at him...
I'm so pleased that we have such high quality politicians that are there to promote this country.
Finally that if last nights debate is anything to go buy how many people in this country believe the way of solving the diplomatic issues is through nuking millions of people if it is believed we are under imminent threat (whatever that is).
That we have people that think both North Korea and Iran are nuclear threats (Iran doesn't have Nuclear weapons, North Korea has no ballistic missiles that could reach the UK and no tested launched nukes).
For example some outstanding quotes "“The Labour one [manifesto] was clear, you could read it, it had pictures. We just need simple information.” So we can expect comic book style manifestos in the future.
or "Nigel Farage was a people person. He got us Brexit.”
“The government controls where people are living. Controls whether you can smoke, where you can smoke. And I feel frustrated about that.”
I mean I know I'm anti-Tory, but they really aren't that bad. One would think we are in North Korea.
Apparently not singing the national anthem in 2015 at the Battle of Britain service is also an election issue for Corbyn...
We're in agreement for once. I don't care what party came up with this, whether Left Wing or Right Wing...its a bad, authoritarian policy that would give a Government far too much power.
Do you know which party this is so I can not vote for them?
I would hazard a guess (but it is a guess) at either BNP or UKIP but I'm not going to bother reading their manifestos to find out.
I would have thought if Labour had proposed to suggest that there was some form of Cultural Law that we would have to comply with the papers would have been all over it, so no I don't think so, but then I haven't seen exactly which manifesto it came out of.
I see there's even more evidence of Boris giving an overall good impression of what the UK is like. Can you imagine if Corbyn had called someone a "big girl's blouse"
We're in agreement for once. I don't care what party came up with this, whether Left Wing or Right Wing...its a bad, authoritarian policy that would give a Government far too much power.
Do you know which party this is so I can not vote for them?
I would hazard a guess (but it is a guess) at either BNP or UKIP but I'm not going to bother reading their manifestos to find out.
Assuming that the quote is 100% word for word accurate, then its not UKIP. A Ctrl-F search on their manifesto only brings up this:
Include information on cultural crimes in safeguarding training for teachers, staff and school governors.
Its not the BNP either.
Its not Labour...
Its not the Conservatives...
Its not the SNP.
Can't find any mention of "Cultural Crimes" in any of their manifestos.
I'd check the Liberal Democrat and Green Party manifestos but they've broken up their manifestos into dozens of separate pages and downloads and I just can't be arsed.
It may surprise some people here that I've decided to vote for my incumbent Labour MP, Phil Wilson (Sedgefield). I loathe all 3 of the main English parties (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) equally, so I've decided for the first time not to vote for a party, but to vote for an individual MP instead (which under a FPTP Parliament is what we should all be doing really).
This isn't because I support the Labour party itself (I don't), its a vote of support for Phil Wilson as an individual. He's done good things for my constituency, is local, and he's on record as being an opponent of Corbyn. So as much as I dislike Corbyn, I can at least rely on my MP to be a bit of a rebel on the Labour backbenches and resist Corbyn's worst excesses.
Meanwhile, the Conservative candidate (Dehenna Davison) is a joke, and an insult to the Constituency. She's been caught out lying about Phil Wilson's voting record, caught out lying about where she lives, caught out exaggerating her career. She's fresh out of university, and has been parachuted in by the Tories. I know a poor Candidate when I see one. I would vote UKIP again, but frankly they've served their purpose (Brexit) and I think theres no going back on Brexit now, even Corbyn accepts it. So to keep out a Candidate I dislike, I'm voting for a Candidate representing a party I dislike.
A bit worrying. Especially considering my girlfriend was going to be going through there up until a few hours ago. Suddenly extremely glad our plans were cancelled.
True story. We've had two decades of the same party on either side of the house and we've now actually got two distinct ones. It'd be a horrible shame if the PLP were able to drag the party back to the right again. Whether you like Corbyn or not, having an actual choice is kinda the basis for the whol shebang!
What are you talking about? I've counted ten from the last three years. Five in France, three here in the U.K, one in Belgium and one in Germany. And those are only the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
If this is terrorism (as it's starting to seem), then it's the 7th attack since 2008...
Given the reaction by police forces this is a terror attack.
And reports of a active incident at a market, stabbings at a resturaunt, some reports of gunfire, sustained.
In the UK? Got a list? I was a little surprised it was as low as seven when I went to check, but then when I thought about it I couldn't have even named all of those off the top of my head.
If this is terrorism (as it's starting to seem), then it's the 7th attack since 2008...
In Britain, maybe. I'm thinking about Europe as a whole.
Gotcha. Two (previous) this year and eight last year, then. That's not to take away from the seriousness at all, but we shouldn't encourage living in fear of these spanks by overstating their regularity.
If this is terrorism (as it's starting to seem), then it's the 7th attack since 2008...
In Britain, maybe. I'm thinking about Europe as a whole.
Gotcha. Two (previous) this year and eight last year, then. That's not to take away from the seriousness at all, but we shouldn't encourage living in fear of these spanks by overstating their regularity.
So......you're quibbling he said 'every month' instead of 'every two months?
Just come back from being in Leicester Square, no idea anything was going on until I looked at the news on the train. Very mixed details at the monent, but the stepping down of the risk of terror attack and pulling soldiers off the street seems badly timed, even if it wouldn't have made much difference.
So......you're quibbling he said 'every month' instead of 'every two months?
I thought they were talking about the UK where it has actually been monthly for three months now, but has obviously been pretty rare prior to that. I just think we should be careful of implying this type of atrocity is very frequent when we're talking about 11 incidents over two years across an area the size of Europe. It's far too frequent, obviously, because once is, but it still shouldn't be allowed to impact daily life.
I should concede that I'm very sadly desensitised to it because of working in certain parts of the world, though.
You do not end on watch lists unless your a serious threat.
There are tens of thousands of people on the watch lists. You fancy setting up camps like the Americans did to people of Japanese descent?
Future War Cultist wrote:
As opposed to looking that them then being shocked when they end up killing people?
Er, yes? Flipping the coin of harm to the public, I'd rather a few people got taken out by terrorists on a yearly basis then we:-
a) allowed them to dictate the kind of country we become,
b) trample all over the human rights of every citizen, and
c) set up an authoritarian government with the unquestionable power to detain and imprison large numbers of people at will.
Mainly because that sort of setup is basically guaranteed to end up as a facist regime within a decade, and those tend to kill a lot more people.
Because we have a thousand years of justice in this country based upon the principle that thought is not a crime.
Those on the watch lists may have said some very nasty things, but they have not committed any crime and I will oppose anyone who tries to start imprisoning people on what they might do, not what they have done. Down that road lies the death of freedom.
Unfortunately the price of freedom is that we have to endure this madness on occasion. But we endure, as we always have and always shall.
Written from my Spitalfields hotel room, not the way I expected our weekend in the capital to end...
Vauxhall incident appears to be a false alarm/unrelated. Also, the van from London Bridge seems to have ended up at Borough Market rather than them being separate incidents.
So, small positive news in that it seems to have been more of a Westminster style, stupid radicalised loner/isolated group that network-based effort. Small mercies.
Just read an eyewitness report saying that three men were working cohesively as group to stab people in Borough. Another saw three men jump out the back of the lorry at London Bridge. So a group.
In other words, there's likely a group of them in hoods stabbing a handful of people, before hiding the knives, sprinting to merge back in with the crowds, and then finding a new spot. I saw footage earlier of the police making a large number of people get on the ground. They're probably desperately searching for them, but if they keep moving and keep each incident short, they'll be hard to pinpoint. The police are likely flooding every street in that area to try and catch them them through sheer manpower. All they need is one officer within earshot when the next bout starts and they can grab 'em.
Jadenim wrote: Because we have a thousand years of justice in this country based upon the principle that thought is not a crime.
Those on the watch lists may have said some very nasty things, but they have not committed any crime and I will oppose anyone who tries to start imprisoning people on what they might do, not what they have done. Down that road lies the death of freedom.
Unfortunately the price of freedom is that we have to endure this madness on occasion. But we endure, as we always have and always shall.
Written from my Spitalfields hotel room, not the way I expected our weekend in the capital to end...
Yet we have to put up with this ..
Why. Why the hell should we watch that if they were on a watch list that failed again.
That system needs a total overhaul. And if we have to. Intern the worst of them. Do it.
There lives and freedoms are second to law abiding citizens we should defend.
If you comit acts of terror your life is forfeit.
You have no life. No freedom. No parole. That's it.
Yet we have to put up with this ..
Why. Why the hell should we watch that if they were on a watch list that failed again.
That system needs a total overhaul. And if we have to. Intern the worst of them. Do it.
There lives and freedoms are second to law abiding citizens we should defend.
If you comit acts of terror your life is forfeit.
You have no life. No freedom. No parole. That's it.
Ineffective watchlists are inexcusable. No doubts there. The cops need the human resources to investigate and monitor properly.
We can't just go locking suspects up, though, lest we undermine our entire justice system, which is one of the things we want to defend, surely?
Yet we have to put up with this ..
Why. Why the hell should we watch that if they were on a watch list that failed again.
That system needs a total overhaul. And if we have to. Intern the worst of them. Do it.
There lives and freedoms are second to law abiding citizens we should defend.
If you comit acts of terror your life is forfeit.
You have no life. No freedom. No parole. That's it.
Ineffective watchlists are inexcusable. No doubts there. The cops need the human resources to investigate and monitor properly.
We can't just go locking suspects up, though, lest we undermine our entire justice system, which is one of the things we want to defend, surely?
True. But if the watch lists keep failing. What else do we have left?
We keep being told the same thing. The system needs to change or more people lose loved ones, family, more vigils and candles.
Yes, they need dedicated, serious resources to enforce the watch system, and it needs to air tight.
If you are caught in planning of or exacuting of terror though the punishment needs to be as air tight and make it clear to any prospective maybe thinking of that path that it just not is worth it.
Ooc also may I say welcome to dakka, I'm sorry your first few posts had to be on such a sad topic.
True. But if the watch lists keep failing. What else do we have left?
Get better at it. That's the only option, sadly.
jhe90 wrote: If you are caught in planning of or exacuting of terror though the punishment needs to be as air tight and make it clear to any prospective maybe thinking of that path that it just not is worth it.
I'm not sure there's a punishment that can actually deter people that are happy to die? We need successful prevention because no deterrent is going to cut it. That said, the prevention methods can't undermine the democracy we're seeking to defend. There are no remotely easy answers.
jhe90 wrote: You know. Watch lists should maybe be a internment camp..
They don,t work.
Back to wartime answers. So be it.
I'll let Captain Sulu explain this one for me.
Not that I imagine it'll be listened to. It might be heard, but it won't be listened to.
This is a terrible incident, it's a tragedy and there's almost certainly more coming as every lunatic with a deathwish sees this period as their chance to get into the history books.
I just hope the British public as a whole are better than this and can see through the, no doubt, political theatre that UKIP and the BNP will make of this in the coming days.
EDIT: As for watchlists, the reasons for Watch Lists are simple. As a civilised society, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cares a great deal about the due process of law and the idea of 'innocence until proven guilty.' And I, personally, am proud of this idea. If a potential and alleged terrorist is on a watch list, that means they have not committed a crime where the available and admissible burden of proof is of sufficient quantity and quality to ensure a successful prosecution. This is how a civilised society works and I am glad to live in a civilised society. When we start doing something different from this, like internment camps discussed above. That's simply not a civilised society anymore.
Ooc also may I say welcome to dakka, I'm sorry your first few posts had to be on such a sad topic.
Thanks. Given that I'm only just trying to get back into the hobby after a two decade absence I don't have much to contribute elsewhere yet, so sadly I find all my first posts are miserable!
jhe90 wrote: You know. Watch lists should maybe be a internment camp..
They don,t work.
Back to wartime answers. So be it.
I'll let Captain Sulu explain this one for me.
Not that I imagine it'll be listened to. It might be heard, but it won't be listened to.
This is a terrible incident, it's a tragedy and there's almost certainly more coming as every lunatic with a deathwish sees this period as their chance to get into the history books.
I just hope the British public as a whole are better than this and can see through the, no doubt, political theatre that UKIP and the BNP will make of this in the coming days.
EDIT: As for watchlists, the reasons for Watch Lists are simple. As a civilised society, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cares a great deal about the due process of law and the idea of 'innocence until proven guilty.' And I, personally, am proud of this idea. If a potential and alleged terrorist is on a watch list, that means they have not committed a crime where the available and admissible burden of proof is of sufficient quantity and quality to ensure a successful prosecution. This is how a civilised society works and I am glad to live in a civilised society. When we start doing something different from this, like internment camps discussed above. That's simply not a civilised society anymore.
Ooc also may I say welcome to dakka, I'm sorry your first few posts had to be on such a sad topic.
Thanks. Given that I'm only just trying to get back into the hobby after a two decade absence I don't have much to contribute elsewhere yet, so sadly I find all my first posts are miserable!
While it is not a nice idea, and the idea has roots in Anglo Boer war.
If the list system keeps failing we may have less and less options.
Best would be yes to see a air tight terror watch list.
But if that's leaking, and we run out of options. We don,t have much choices left but to use the dark ideas of past.
And yeah. On a happier note,
Good luck starting back up. May your hobby desk have many half finished projects
We're now seriously touting concentration camps (the Boer War kind, not the euphemistic Nazi ones) as a solution to terrorism. Let that sink in for a bit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We're now seriously touting concentration camps (the Boer War kind, not the euphemistic Nazi ones) as a solution to terrorism. Let that sink in for a bit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
What the feth do you expect? People are angry, upset and blowing off steam. I don't agree with it either, its a stupid idea, but I'm not going to sneer and sanctimoniously condemn people for venting their frustration.
I expect people to have the capacity to reflect on their own actions, at least long enough that they realise just what they are proposing. If that is sanctimonious then fine, so be it
Future War Cultist wrote: I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.
If I had a solution I'd give one. Internment camps is not such a solution. I don't sneer at people because they disagree with me, I sneer at people because their ideas are ill-considered. The idea of putting people in interment camps without due process is such a phenomenally bad idea that it is only worthy of scorn and contempt. It is undermining the very foundations of the society you're so very keen on defending, and it's going to get this thread locked again.
Are "watch lists" in the U.K. the same kind of thing as what we have in the US? If they are then nobody should be relying on them or expecting them to thwart terrorist attacks. You don't have to commit a crime to be on a watchlist, if the govt has evidence of criminal wrongdoing that results in arrests and prosecutions not being put on a watch list. People get put on a watch list because they exhibit possible red flags but haven't done anything criminal. Things like visiting certain countries, being associated with or related to known criminals/terrorists etc. Watch lists serve as a tip off for govt agencies to expend the time and resources to take a closer look at somebody who is on the list if the agency/agents come across such a person. Watch lists don't equate to putting everybody on the watch list under indefinite 24/7 surveillance just in case they try to commit a crime, that wouldn't be legal or affordable. Watch lists will always "fail" because being on a list doesn't make it impossible for a person to commit crimes/terror attacks.
Future War Cultist wrote: I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.
There\s one thing being angry and wanting them to stop. And then another wanting to use inhuman ways that violate human rights^freedom. You know the ones UK claims to follow. Whose breaking is slippery slope that easily leads even YOUR freedom being taken.
You want your freedom and human rights revoked?
Unless you fix the issue which makes people go nuts, which your suggestions won't do, only way to prevent even 99%(100% is impossible) is to turn country into one that makes north korea look like liberal democracy. Wanna go that far?
Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?
I don't mean to offend, I am just frustrated and wonder what else can be done to help our close ally that seems to be at constant threat from weaponized tools at the hands of deranged cowards.
jasper76 wrote: Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?
And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.
jasper76 wrote: Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?
And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.
Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.
I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.
jasper76 wrote: Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?
And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.
Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.
I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.
The US has a far higher murder rate than the UK, and a far higher gun death rate. We are clear that all arming citizens would do is increase the number of deaths these terrorists would cause as they would have guns. They knew they were going to die. They attacked a busy area of central London where there were armed police. The risk of armed civilians would have made no difference other than how they were armed.
On a matter related to previous posts, internment is such a bad idea. In Ireland it just caused more violence and radicalised more people. Going down that road again should never happen. If we start removing people's freedom without any due process then our country has broken and the terrorists have won.
jasper76 wrote: Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?
And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.
Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.
I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.
The US has a far higher murder rate than the UK, and a far higher gun death rate. We are clear that all arming citizens would do is increase the number of deaths these terrorists would cause as they would have guns. They knew they were going to die. They attacked a busy area of central London where there were armed police. The risk of armed civilians would have made no difference other than how they were armed.
jhe90 wrote: You know. Watch lists should maybe be a internment camp..
They don,t work.
Back to wartime answers. So be it.
This is what we need but no one will do it.
There are some posters on this forum who occasionally make rather pathetic, über macho statements. This suggestion however goes beyond that. Your ideas are sub-human. I and others will continue to defend the ideals of freedom from both terrorists and your fear and rage.
I think everyone should probably cool off before posting guys, there's a lot of angry words coming out, and with the election just around the corner, I'd rather that these terrorists didn't have the power to overwhelm our good sense.
Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.
I do think it would be wrong to suspend campaigning for more than a day.
This isn't disrespect to the victims. Our system of democracy demands that candidates present themselves and their policies to the questioning of the electorate.
nfe wrote: Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.
So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.
nfe wrote: Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.
So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.
At this rate that's when the next attack will be.
And I'll go to the polling booth all the same, then head back out to work all the same.
nfe wrote: Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.
So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.
At this rate that's when the next attack will be.
I'm sure some goons will want to target it, yes. But if Iraqis and Syrians can go to the polls in the middle of their hell, we can hold our heads up and do the same.
EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.
nfe wrote: Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.
So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.
At this rate that's when the next attack will be.
I'm sure some goons will want to target it, yes. But if Iraqis and Syrians can go to the polls in the middle of their hell, we can hold our heads up and do the same.
EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.
Security will be tight as hell.
They will be going heavy on the visual police, and armed.
May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.
True. But if the watch lists keep failing. What else do we have left?
We keep being told the same thing. The system needs to change or more people lose loved ones, family, more vigils and candles.
Yes, they need dedicated, serious resources to enforce the watch system, and it needs to air tight.
If you are caught in planning of or exacuting of terror though the punishment needs to be as air tight and make it clear to any prospective maybe thinking of that path that it just not is worth it.
Ooc also may I say welcome to dakka, I'm sorry your first few posts had to be on such a sad topic.
Rounding up people just because they are on watch lists and putting such people in internment camps is a bad idea. It goes against everything a liberal society is about. Yes we may fear these attacks but an appropriate response is needed, not just a mass round up.
Firstly if we assume the watch list is ten's of thousands strong then there is simply a logistics perspective. That's the same number of people within an order of magnitude that is in our prisons (approx 90k). Hence we'd need equivalent facilties and staff (willing to do this) and funding to achieve it. Our prisons are hardly coping as it is.
Secondly we can probably assume that a tiny proportion of these people are actual potential terrorists. However it seems that currently they work in relatively isolated groups of (angry) people. How well are things going to go when you put such people together. Suppose you had put the manchester bomber (with knowledge of bomb making) with a larger group of people that do not know how? Additionally you are putting people with idealised (and blinded) philosphies with a larger group of people that might be sympathetic to the reasons but not the methods. They have been grabbed and put in an internment camp without any real reason other than suspicions. That will make such people become more angry and more susceptible to terrorist notions and put in the same place where they will be exposed to them.
Thirdly how long do you lock people away for without evidence or trial? Once on a watch list does that mean you are forever damned, regardless of what was said (links to a point below). How do you manage then an increasing population of people in internment camps?
Fourthly who decides whether you go on a watch list? We don't know how they decide this and who makes this decision. What if it is anyone that has regular contact with the person. Maybe you end up on a wtach list simply because you went to the gym on friday morning every week and that was the same time as someone that really was a potential terrorist. You might not have any conversation (other than "morning") but it might still put you on that list.
Fifth. Who makes a judgement as to whether someone goes on the watch list? Who has this oversight? If there is no due process. It can be exploited both by individuals and the government. MI5 agent goes home to find wife is sleeping with random stranger. MI5 agent decides to get even by putting guy on the watch list, who is promptly picked up and escorted to a detention centre. Alternatively it can be used by governments to silence dissent in the public at large. Say the wrong thing and off you go; oppose the intervention in syria, sorry thats sympathetic to terrorists and on the watch list you go. Fear of saying anything controversial limits freedom of speech and effectively hands a government complete control to do what they want without challenge.
Sixth. The actual number of people killed in terrorists attacks is exceedingly low relatively. Yes they are horrific, however about 1800 people per annum and 23,000 are seriously injured on our roads each year; however we don't bat an eyelid, what about heart diseases and cancer? We would save many more lives by concentrating on these issues. That does not mean we shoud ignore terrorism but over reactions can make things by far much worse.
We have to remember the people controlling the terrorists want the west to pull away from the world and become more insular. Hostility to people based on race, ethnic background, religon etc just force more people to be angry and into the arms of the terrorists. In addition if we ignore the rest of the world then they more opportunity to expand their grip on the world by attacking weak nations or those in the infancy of democracy whilst we stand by and just watch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Yeah. Right now going out to vote is a act of defiance.
That's rather bad I admit but every vote is a vote against them.
Same rural counties.
Few big cities. No real targets though.
I think the only reason they woud cancel the election was if there was an attack at a polling station which meant that any outcome would always be open to questions as whether it was representative given that some people might stay away out of fear.
It's one thing that makes me think these are relatively isolated events without any real co-ordination. An attack on Thursday morning at a polling station, then drive to another and repeat until the police stopped you would almost certainly have far more impacts on the country as a whole. The election would have to be cancelled and repealed to be run again. That would mean Brexit negotiations would not start or have to be undertaken during another election (although I expect the EU would be reasonable here and just let us defer everything for three months). The government simply couldn't put armed forces at every polling station as that would be extremely intimidating for people (and there would be arguments for years as to whether this would influence peoples votes).
May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.
That's always the danger when these terrible incidents happen. The government uses it as an excuse for a power grab on our civil liberties.
Even when we were fighting for survival in WW2, civil liberties back then were much better than they are now...
May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.
It also shows she doesn't have a clue. The only thing you do by controlling things is drive things further underground. Controlling the internet is not about stopping terrorism it's about controlling your population and being the "thought police". It gives them the powers to decide what we see and general liberties are removed. She also stated that "Terrorism breeds terrorism" and I don't think there is any evidence to state such things. I could easily point to our rather "bomb from planes" approach to Syria and Libya has probably had a much larger impact.
EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.
We have to remember the people controlling the terrorists want the west to pull away from the world and become more insular. Hostility to people based on race, ethnic background, religon etc just force more people to be angry and into the arms of the terrorists. In addition if we ignore the rest of the world then they more opportunity to expand their grip on the world by attacking weak nations or those in the infancy of democracy whilst we stand by and just watch.
I agree.
We are not nor have been perfect in the recent past but we shouldn't be going to extreme measures in order to fight would factually can be seen as a long death throw for an ideology that is loosing. (In reality loosing nothing).
I do think that the UK needs to decide what it wants to be seen as. A place of tolerance and respect is a start.
EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.
I guess they didn't ask the same of May then?
She didn't take any questions. Though quite obviously they wouldn't have anyway. After all, May only takes vetted questions from the media these days.
EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.
I guess they didn't ask the same of May then?
She didn't take any questions. Though quite obviously they wouldn't have anyway. After all, May only takes vetted questions from the media these days.
Today is only a more a statement day for her.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.
Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.
Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.
Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.
Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.
Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.
Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.
Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.
Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.
Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.
I'm out so not seen tv news since morning. May main source of updates is dakka right now as low data use.
I'm out so not seen tv news since morning. May main source of updates is dakka right now as low data use.
I meant that I spoke to soon, not you, just to be clear!
No worries. Yeah. Today was not day to come out swinging.
Update the public. Simple statement of facts.
Have not gone to the whole deploy the army level response yet. However I have little doubts that some of these police assult teams might be a tad police in name only and somewhat more feared acronym's soon.
They definitely are not going for anything but we will end this now, we will end it hard.
Little complaints if they did.
I'm glad the election is on, but cancelling the Andrew Marr show and other debates, sends out the wrong signal and tells the terrorists that if they keep doing these attacks, they can disrupt this country.
Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.
I'm afraid that it is likely that the Tories will use this as an excuse to hit the general populaces' freedoms and rather than improve directed information gathering and prevention.
It also doesn't help that IDS also stated
Everybody in Britain must be equal before the law - we cannot make allowances any longer for some communities
Because this is just implying that some people get different treatment under the law than others which is simply not the case. We all have to abide by the same laws. In some ways it can be argued that the very wealthy that the Tories support are the ones that don't abide by all the laws as they have the wealth to fund private accountants, have non-dom status and hire swarms of legal teams to protect them and so on to allow them to find every loop hole going - something that is simply not available to the average person.
However by stating "some communities" (I think we can infer which one he means) it makes some people believe that they really do have different rules (they don't) and hence less tolerant and it will make these communities more threatened because of the rhetoric (which again can push more people to extreme views) as it makes them feel like they are under attack.
That we don't have enough police to enforce all our rules is something the Tories have been actively trying to encourage over the last seven years.
We also have May coming out with the following statement (from the BBC):-
* showing “British values..are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate”.
* cracking down on online extremism to deny the “safe space” for potential violence, while taking military action in Iraq and Syria
* “stamping out” extremism “across the public sector and society” and an end to “segregated communities”
* a review of counter-terrorism strategy with longer jail sentences even for ‘apparently less serious offences’
We again have British values which doesn't really mean anything. From the perspective of those being bombed in Syria/Libya/Iraq etc it is uncertain whether what we might think might be the same as that in those countries (whether extremist or not).
As for cracking down on online extremism, this either shows a lack of understanding of in the internet or is just words. Unless you start blocking sites like Snapchat or any other private conversation tool then this is just wishful thinking. You can't literally monitor everything. All you potentially do is force people to use other methods (lets say ham radios).
I'm not sure what May means about extremism in the public sector. As far as I am aware there are not roving bands of cultists in the NHS having secret meetings, lunchtime conversations at the town hall considering how to blow something up. This seems an unnecessary attack on the public sector without any evidence to back it up.
And who knows what *apparent* less serious offences are, but again implies potential reductions in freedom of speech.
Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.
It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.
Aye... I mean law should be applied regardless of skin colour.
I don,t care what race you are, if its a crime that crime should be punished equally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.
It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.
Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.
Yeah... That was stupid.
It dragged on for years. And while it dragged on we had to pay alot of costs, his sons got caught for stuff too I believe.
Years of speaks, legal aid, appeal after appeal.
There's human rights protection and then you have outright exploration.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad.
This is true, but largely because most people aren't aware that the EU and ECHR are not connected institutions and it has served the media well to sustain the misunderstanding that they are.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.
It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.
There were multiple facets to this it wasn't just a race issue and I think this has been somewhat overblown because it is an easier blame culture. More important factors were lack of recognition by council management, lack of belief of the witnesses, lack of comparing notes (and joining the dots), and likely a general lack of wanting to believe such a thing can happen. There are almost certainly white/UK born dominated paedophile rings out there. The same thing happened with Jimmy Saville. People knew it was going on but turned a blind eye simply because they didn't want to believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.
It wasn't quite like this. The ECHR (noting pretty much the UK drafted this) wanted to ensure that they were going to have a fair trial and weren't simply going to be executed 'accidently' before it went to trial. They wanted guarantees. This applies equally to all of us. If it had been extradition to the US/Germany/Australia etc the ECHR would not have had an issue and he would have been extradited. However IIRC one of the countries was Jordan and there were serious concerns that a fair trial would not be undertaken. He was eventually extradited after we had that assurance.
To note this applies to us all equally. Suppose you had been on holiday in the Philippines and on your flight back got accused of rape and murder and asked to extradited. Yet in the meantime the President stated that you were guilty and that you'd get the death penalty because he'd seen the evidence. Would you want to go back when you were so unlikely to get a fair trial and likely be executed? What happens if the UK in effort to secure a new weapons deal agreed that you should be? It's at this point you could go to the ECHR and appeal. You would be treated in the same way and they would require the UK government to get assurances over your treatment when there. Is that not something you would prefer? Yes it is unlikely but it is there as a safety net and does provide assurance that you don't become a pawn of any individual government.
Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?
However, the system worked. Abu Hamza eventually exhausted his avenues of appeal and was deported.
I don't think we want a fast-track system that lets the "authorities" quietly get rid of people they don't like.
Remember that the Abu Hamza trials happened against the background of the emerging US/UK involvement in "extraordinary rendition." This was a fancy phrase for sending people through a trap door to places where they could be tortured in defiance of US/UK law.
Kilkrazy wrote: However, the system worked. Abu Hamza eventually exhausted his avenues of appeal and was deported.
I don't think we want a fast-track system that lets the "authorities" quietly get rid of people they don't like.
Remember that the Abu Hamza trials happened against the background of the emerging US/UK involvement in "extraordinary rendition." This was a fancy phrase for sending people through a trap door to places where they could be tortured in defiance of US/UK law.
Yeah, good post. Now and again, I post links to Craig Murray's blogspot. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and he was fired by Blair for blowing the whistle on Britain and the USA sending susepcts there to be tortured, the Uzbeks and their president not giving two hoots for UN laws against that sort of thing.
It was a very shameful episode in Britain's history and one of the reasons, like you say, why we have to guard against people being fast tracked out of the country.
Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?
The question is, why wasn't Abu Hamza prosecuted for terrorism in the UK? (instead of relatively minor hate speech offences).
It would have saved years and thousands of pounds.
Because he never committed a crime in the UK. He may have spouted obnoxious nonsense but that in itself (at the time) wasn't illegal. If people are willing to listen, not question and effectively only listen to what they already believe to be true (echo chamber if you will) then the sort of rhetoric might get people even more angry with the system but in itself doesn't actively encourage terrorism. Freedom of speech does mean that people can be more open with what they can say as long as it doesn't specifically encourage terrorism/death threats or racial hatred. However, as with most things there are shades of grey and people can push the boundaries if they are careful.
We also have fascist groups in the UK as well and they are tolerated but not liked and the same applies for these people as well and do the same things to drive certain people to get more angry (in this case towards migrants/different racial types etc).
Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?
The question is, why wasn't Abu Hamza prosecuted for terrorism in the UK? (instead of relatively minor hate speech offences).
It would have saved years and thousands of pounds.
Because he never committed a crime in the UK. He may have spouted obnoxious nonsense but that in itself (at the time) wasn't illegal.
He never committed a crime in the US either, actually I don't think he ever set foot there before he was eventually shipped there. And it's telling that the most severe of the cases he was tried for ended up with the death of three Britons and one Australian tourist in Yemen, not a single American.
Two of the teenage victims of the Manchester attack who were wounded (but thankfully not killed) come from my town. I know the school they attend. It's just occurred to me that Manchester is the closest I've ever gotten to terrorism.
Now, I'm not in any way saying I'm personally affected or wanting sympathy for myself, but I probably know some people who know the girls personally. There aren't a lot of degrees of separation here.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,
Agreed. Trident has turned out to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,
Agreed. Trident has turned out to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.
True... I mena getting our carriers quicker to full combat duty. 6 more type 45 like planned.
More frigates. They cannot hurt our islands defences.
Our armed forced and Police forces do need a boost.
The world only seems to get more dangerous, not less so investing in those defences seems prudent.
They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.
Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.
They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.
Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.
I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...
They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.
Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.
I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...
If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.
Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.
If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.
Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.
Possibly. I mean, I get asked why I I've been to Iraq (and the Gulf States) at passport control a lot, but no one has ever asked me to prove anything, and whilst I get paid and/or funded for these trips I buy all the tickets and get squared up later. I've always been quite surprised at how little attention I get.
When I went to the US embassy to get a visa (ESTA doesn't apply if you've been to Iraq) the entire interview was literally:
'Why do you go to Iraq'
'I'm an archaeologist. I work on Ancient Near Eastern rel...'
'OK. We'll get your passport back to you in 10-15 days.'
I had a folder full of proof. No interest in any of it. Like I say, I imagine there are a fair few extra questions if you're not white. I certainly have some collegues who do not enjoy traveling to the UK and US for conferences.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.
The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.
She was an absolute mess in her press conference. Looked like she just wanted to put everyone asking about the 'stop scaremongering' lines in the gulag.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.
The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.
She was an absolute mess in her press conference. Looked like she just wanted to put everyone asking about the 'stop scaremongering' lines in the gulag.
If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.
Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.
Possibly. I mean, I get asked why I I've been to Iraq (and the Gulf States) at passport control a lot, but no one has ever asked me to prove anything, and whilst I get paid and/or funded for these trips I buy all the tickets and get squared up later. I've always been quite surprised at how little attention I get.
When I went to the US embassy to get a visa (ESTA doesn't apply if you've been to Iraq) the entire interview was literally:
'Why do you go to Iraq'
'I'm an archaeologist. I work on Ancient Near Eastern rel...'
'OK. We'll get your passport back to you in 10-15 days.'
I had a folder full of proof. No interest in any of it. Like I say, I imagine there are a fair few extra questions if you're not white. I certainly have some collegues who do not enjoy traveling to the UK and US for conferences.
To be fair, id guess that anyone with a folder full of proof and willing to expose it to scrutiny, id more reliable.
You don,t rxpose a fake anything to more investigation than you can, and anyone can check back on degree, or your institution your working for easily to confirm your genuine if asking questions..
Honestly. Its pretty was to check someone is legitimately what they say are.
Yeah.. Profiling despite what they say is rather regular.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: That may be, but do you think a Corbyn government will handle it any better?
Better... Not sure.
My only thing is he never been on front bench before this, never had a ministerial position.
He kinda untested but true, if he faces a crisis, and utterly fails then he will be quickly attacked by the waiting Brutus of the labour party so that Il deal with that one way or the other.
Long as he has guts needed to order the shoot to kill etc in a terror attack.
I mean it not nice, but when it comes down to it. The PM has to authorise some things for the good of the nation, things that are less pleasant.
We need a leader who may not like it. But will give such orders if to save lives.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?
It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.
Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.
I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.
We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.
We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.
I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.
We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.
We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.
I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.
The army is struggling to hit 90,000 strong. God hep us if the Russians invade.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?
It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.
Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.
I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.
I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.
That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.
We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.
We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.
I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.
The army is struggling to hit 90,000 strong. God hep us if the Russians invade.
Wars aren't waged with conscripts with rifles any more. Training, morale, technical force multipliers etc. are the deciding factors nowadays.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?
It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.
Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.
I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.
Yes, it is an age-old problem. The fleet that fought the Spanish Armada had a problem with lack of rations.
Not just British, either. In the Bible, Joseph doesn't have any proper sling ammo and has to pick through pebbles to find a good one to shoot at Goliath.
Not just British, either. In the Bible, Joseph doesn't have any proper sling ammo and has to pick through pebbles to find a good one to shoot at Goliath.
David. Joseph was a big poncy pacifist.
EDIT: Well, the Hebrew Bible one, anyway. New Testament Joseph is pretty much just a name.
A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!
Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.
If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.
In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!
I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.
That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.
Speaking purely on the matter of defence (not police), it tends to become more pronounced the longer it goes on. We haven't been engaged in a serious war since the 80's. Iraq and Afghanistan were done on shoestring budgets. Thirty years of peace means that capabilities and reserves have become seriously ground down, and will continue to be so long as we continue to not be at war. What party is in power is not likely to change that.
If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.
I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.
That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.
Speaking purely on the matter of defence (not police), it tends to become more pronounced the longer it goes on. We haven't been engaged in a serious war since the 80's. Iraq and Afghanistan were done on shoestring budgets. Thirty years of peace means that capabilities and reserves have become seriously ground down, and will continue to be so long as we continue to not be at war. What party is in power is not likely to change that.
If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.
The strategic defence review is supposed to take a long term view of things (20-30 years) but we seem to have convinced ourselves that Soviet tank divisions are still massing on the West German border.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.
Historically, Britain has always been a hard place to invade, and yes, the USA is probably the only nation that could do it, and yes, it's unlikely to happen.
But I've always believed that a nation needs to act as though it has no friends in the world when it comes to defence.
Trust and respect your allies, but never rely on them entirely.
Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.
Ketara wrote: If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.
You would think, but it really isnt. The Typhoon, for example had been in development since the 80s, and taken an astronomical amount of cash. Buying off the shelf is cheaper than developing your own, but is also ridiculously expensive, and attracts all sorts of other costs. It takes years, and millions of pounds to train a single fighter pilot, much less the hundreds of personnel required to keep the thing in the air. A squadron of about 20 jets will have hundreds of people working to keep them going, that is not quick and easy to set up. Off the shelf purchases are also politically unpopular as they cost British "jobs", as well as the product you buy not being the full package, usually having a limited software package. They usually also attract all kinds of tied in contracts to the seller, a minimum spend and maintenance schedules and costings dictated to you etc.
Admittedly those boats* cost about £6 billion, and take years to build, but building the f35 squadrons that will fly from each carrier carry a stupifyingly high amount of tax payer commitment, and take just as long, especially as they will be built pretty much from scratch.
Nothing in Defence, just like in every government branch is simple, easy or cheap, definitely not cheap.
*just seeing if there are any closet fisheads lurking.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!
Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.
If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.
In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!
The police will always be underfunded and overstretched given the size of the population they police. Even at the best of times the police don't have an impressive rate of solving crimes. What keeps crime down is the fact that most people choose not to commit crimes not that the police have high closure rates on cases because that's never been true.
jhe90 wrote: And... Guess what's coming out. The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...
If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.
Seems the security net had holes in it.
Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.
This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.
As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.
Historically, Britain has always been a hard place to invade, and yes, the USA is probably the only nation that could do it, and yes, it's unlikely to happen.
But I've always believed that a nation needs to act as though it has no friends in the world when it comes to defence.
Trust and respect your allies, but never rely on them entirely.
Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.
all fair points to be sure, just wanted to play devils advocate there and just make sure that the understanding of the threat was realistic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!
Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.
If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.
In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!
The police will always be underfunded and overstretched given the size of the population they police. Even at the best of times the police don't have an impressive rate of solving crimes. What keeps crime down is the fact that most people choose not to commit crimes not that the police have high closure rates on cases because that's never been true.
True, the police can't solve every crime, but the numbers don't lie, and the crisis is summed up best in this article.
Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.
May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.
She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.
VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament
God help us on Friday if May wins...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.
There's always a role for the community police officer.
Knockagh wrote: Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.
That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.
As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.
Even the US would find it difficult. The problem with any invasion of foreign soil is that generally the populace as a whole don't want you there. Therefore your soldiers are not only fighting the countries military but also the annoyed populace. Despite everything if 45m people decided they want you out the way there is going to be little you can do about it. Yes it might be bloody but it's simply too many people to control. Whether that is the population feeding you poisoned bread to the soldiers armed resistance movements or simply radioing where all your positions are.
Knockagh wrote: Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.
That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.
It's the communities that will be infiltrated. Agents throughout the Muslim communities will be recruited on the back of various misdemeanours they will be let off. A dirty war is already underway and it's heros will be unsung and abused but it will be the dirty war that will stop this eventually.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.
The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.
She is struggling especially because she was in charge of the Home Office. That makes her position very difficult. She was getting more and more exasperated as the interview went on hardly showing those leadership qualities. She's being attacked by former aides (probably not a surprise because I think some can see an opportunity for a new leader of the Conservatives shortly). Her answer were also repeating the same over and over.
Bizarrely she criticises Labours ability to manage terrorism responses and then goes on to praise the mayor of London highly for his work (perhaps forgetting that he is Labour and making her point about Labour not really justifiable).
And I still don't think she really gets the issues. When she called British values 'superior' is arrogant in the extreme and is only likely to further reinforce a perception.
Knockagh wrote: Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.
That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.
It's the communities that will be infiltrated. Agents throughout the Muslim communities will be recruited on the back of various misdemeanours they will be let off. A dirty war is already underway and it's heros will be unsung and abused but it will be the dirty war that will stop this eventually.
You don't need infiltrators, there are already plenty of people willing to talk to the police with concerns over radicalised people. The last time the police used infiltration methods it didn't end well (there was case where they infiltrated an environment group and caused all of the cases to collapse).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.
She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.
VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament
God help us on Friday if May wins...
I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.
I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!
Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.
If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.
In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!
You should come and live in Henley. A crime wave here is someone stealing a bottle of vodka from Waitrose. Our police station is literally part time, closed on evenings, weekends and bank holidays.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.
She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.
VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament
God help us on Friday if May wins...
I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.
I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.
The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.
The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.
I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.
They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.
Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.
I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...
We simply do not know what constitutes the decision to deciding who gets placed on a watched list. Several of my friends are on the list because they were friends and on a uni society committee with someone who is currently being charged under the terrorism act. Peak times they were being questioned once a month.
The mutual friend being charged, his crime was simply being in possession of a list of censored books in the UK after he returned from acting as a translator for the Kurdish YPG in Syria...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.
She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.
VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament
God help us on Friday if May wins...
I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.
I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.
The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.
The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.
I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.
Well, it is the reason they were prepared to go all out and destroy UKIP and pander to their euro-sceptic wing. It was worth it to keep hold of, and consolidate the right wing support of the country.
If the left was as united, we may never see the Tories in power again. Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.
They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.
Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.
I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...
We simply do not know what constitutes the decision to deciding who gets placed on a watched list. Several of my friends are on the list because they were friends and on a uni society committee with someone who is currently being charged under the terrorism act. Peak times they were being questioned once a month.
The mutual friend being charged, his crime was simply being in possession of a list of censored books in the UK after he returned from acting as a translator for the Kurdish YPG in Syria...
Well then. If 23,000 or so on list. How many are on it for direct cause?
I mean there's 3000 or so according to news... "dangerous" ones on that list.
A scarily high number!
And off topic but the 400 jihadi fighters still in Islamic state, who are UK citizens.
Leave em to the local laws. Made bed, enlisted, killed or worse.
Lie in it. Probably crowded in there jails that bed.
Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.
There's only one economically centre-left mainstream party in England, and one in Scotland. No other leftist party has representation in mainland Britain (I'm not familiar enough with NI politics to speak on it). I might be able to vote in good conscience if we had more variety on the actual (economic) left, rather than what passes for the left because all discourse is now so far to the right (where Corbyn's mooted corporation tax is higher than under Blair, Brown or Thatcher, for instance, but portrayed as borderline communism). That said, yes, you're right, if centre-left-leaning voters turned out as a bloc the right would have no chance whatsoever.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
He might be better off swapping her to a lower ranking post.
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.
She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.
She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.
If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.
She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.
Well I would say that British values are superior, but I know what you mean. Rubbing that in their face is likely to goad them into attacking.
I think it's more that we should concentrate on the values that we thing make the world a better place for everyone (so liberalism, freedom of speech and movement and so on). It's hard to attack an idea, a principle. By saying British value are superior there is a risk of both real and perceived hypocrisy. Out intervention in Libya etc that has made a lot of peoples lives worse with the constant fighting could be perceived as a 'British value' depending on your mind set, experiences, access to news and so on. There's also a risk that it alienates allies (for example why are our values superior to say French or German values etc?).
The reality is that British values doesn't really mean anything, you'll get a dozen different answers if you asked the question in the street.
There's also the risk that calling things 'British values' makes all of the public more of a target because we get perceived as 'British'. We all get lumped into the same group. For some where maybe they are poor, downtrodden by society (perceived or not) then those values might not be regarded highly at all. It's a lot more difficult to attack an 'idea'.
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.
To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yes, she is not portraying herself as particularly capable (although perhaps she is just bad at interviews). She's a bit like the Toriy's Boris, every time they open there mouth the respective leaders probably wish they had been sent on some *really important* work half way across the globe.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.
Then again build up army and get less polices as money has to come somewhere. You want bigger army or more cops?-)
For those that came interested Northern Ireland parties would align themselves as follows!
Democratic Unionist Party;
Conservative economically and socially, will pretty much vote along Tory lines in every vote. Strongly tied into Christian moralism. (currently 8 MPs)
Ulster Unionist Party;
Conservative economically and socially. Would be more socially liberal than the Democratic Unionist Party and more so of late. (Currently 2 MPs)
Alliance Party;
No one really knows where they stand economically. Somewhere in the middle! Socially liberal and getting more so. Main electoral platform is a neutral position on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. (Currently 0 MPs)
Social Democratic and Labour Party;
Left of centre economically; they operate as the NI sister Party of the mainland Labour Party. Traditionally socially conservative but becoming more socially liberal. Will vote with Labour Party. (Currently 3 MPs)
Sinn Fein;
Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)
To caveat all this though, few people in NI vote along economic lines. Whilst there are no left wing Unionist parties ( a few small ones with little support) this does not mean unionism is united economically. Hardline Unionist trade union folks will vote for the democratic unionists party despite economic differences to help secure the country's constitutional position. Equally socially and economic conservative economic nationists will vote for Sinn Fein or SDLP because again the national question trumps all.
The mainland Conservative party have organised here with limited success. Without the opposing Labour it wouldn't make sense to vote for them over Democratic Unionists or Ulster Unionist. The failure of the Labour Party and their refusal to organise here has allowed division politically to fester on the national question. My grandfather was one of a few folks who established the NI Labour Party many years ago the party failed as the mainland party refused to support or acknowledge them. The party failed and people went back to their trenches.
Pretty simple really!
If this election proves as close as some polls are predicting the conservative leaning NI MPs could play a central role in helping May.
Must say we were all annoyed our leaders were left out of the BBC debate when the greens and UKIP were allowed in! They have a single MP each! Joke!
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.
To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.
They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.
Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)
Could you support them being Maxist with some stated policies, please? Not doubting, necessarily, but given that in real terms (on a scale running from total state control of economy to total free market) Corbyn is only a little left of centre yet gets called a communist every five minutes, I'm always rather sceptical when mainstream UK parties are described as being anything hard left.
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.
To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.
They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.
Again, they're only top level because people say they are.
Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)
Could you support them being Maxist with some stated policies, please? Not doubting, necessarily, but given that in real terms (on a scale running from total state control of economy to total free market) Corbyn is only a little left of centre yet gets called a communist every five minutes, I'm always rather sceptical when mainstream UK parties are described as being anything hard left.
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.
To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.
They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.
Again, they're only top level because people say they are.
Heathcare, security,defense, policing, the country's finances.
They are always going to get higher priority in any system.
Sinn Fein don't really hide their Marxist credentials, they are called worse at the end of the day!
They believe in revolutionary socialism. They had (or maybe have!) a private army whose goal was to esptablish a socialist republic.
Again though I reiterate it's complicated as not all their supporters would adhere to this. SF will have a hugely diverse support base all united behind their belief that anything is allowed to get their constitutional demands met. But the true believers still label themselves revolutionary socialists. They openly talk about being revolutionaries it was a big thing to be a lefty revolutionary in the late 60s and 70s when the IRA had their revival, not so much now. Although rarely in front of their American funders, for obvious reasons!
I doubt this answers your question you would need to read A history of the IRA as a movement. It's complicated!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yes and I always think their payment structure pretty much shows their economic leanings. SF pay all their staff the same amount they work on an averag wage (around £26k) and all employee from elected reps to clerical staff are paid this. Any surplus goes into the party coffers. Salaries must be signed over to the party when you accept a position. Can't get more lefty than that! Some rules came out afew years ago that made this more difficult but they seem to have worked a way round it.
Heathcare, security,defense, policing, the country's finances.
They are always going to get higher priority in any system.
Only because people perceive them to be. Not for any innate reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: Sinn Fein don't really hide their Marxist credentials, they are called worse at the end of the day!
They believe in revolutionary socialism. They had (or maybe have!) a private army whose goal was to esptablish a socialist republic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yes and I always think their payment structure pretty much shows their economic leanings. SF pay all their staff the same amount they work on an averag wage (around £26k) and all employee from elected reps to clerical staff are paid this. Any surplus goes into the party coffers. Salaries must be signed over to the party when you accept a position. Can't get more lefty than that! Some rules came out afew years ago that made this more difficult but they seem to have worked a way round it.
You can get a lot more lefty than that. It's certainly leftist, but it's not necessarily even socialist, depending on your interpretation of the term, let alone Marxist. I know it might be splitting hairs when we're viewing it from the perspective of mainstream UK politics, but as someone who finds their own political positions deliberately misrepresented so they can be exploitatively appropriated as peejoratives, I tend to feel getting terminology right is extremely important
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!
Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.
If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.
In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!
You should come and live in Henley. A crime wave here is someone stealing a bottle of vodka from Waitrose. Our police station is literally part time, closed on evenings, weekends and bank holidays.
So it's shut for most of the year? What a shambles.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.
She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.
VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament
God help us on Friday if May wins...
I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.
I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.
The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.
The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.
I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.
Well, it is the reason they were prepared to go all out and destroy UKIP and pander to their euro-sceptic wing. It was worth it to keep hold of, and consolidate the right wing support of the country.
If the left was as united, we may never see the Tories in power again. Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.
The Lib Dem tactic of cashing in on the Remain vote has backfired. They'll be lucky to get 12 seats. I suspect that's more to do with the damp squib of a leader they have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
This is why Labour will lose on Thursday. Middle England will never vote for that.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yes, she is not portraying herself as particularly capable (although perhaps she is just bad at interviews). She's a bit like the Toriy's Boris, every time they open there mouth the respective leaders probably wish they had been sent on some *really important* work half way across the globe.
Over the years, I've asked many a time as to how Abbott and Bojo got to where they are. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.
Then again build up army and get less polices as money has to come somewhere. You want bigger army or more cops?-)
@nfe I agree to a degree. I was using rather trite examples. However if you have an interest in it I would suggest picking up a copy of Henry Pattersons,The Politics of Illusion: Republicanism and Socialism in Modern Ireland. It's a great read and delves into the complexity I was trying, probably rather poorly, to convey. The marriage of nationalism and Marxism, along with SFs support for the Nazis is indeed a weird mix.
Exact political labels are I think impossible. Local regions always have issues, historical and cultural that won't allow an exact fit. That's why global political movements are doomed from the outset.
Knockagh wrote: @nfe I agree to a degree. I was using rather trite examples. However if you have an interest in it I would suggest picking up a copy of Henry Pattersons,The Politics of Illusion: Republicanism and Socialism in Modern Ireland. It's a great read and delves into the complexity I was trying, probably rather poorly, to convey. The marriage of nationalism and Marxism, along with SFs support for the Nazis is indeed a weird mix.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.
She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.
If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.
She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.
He wouldn't dare, imagine the Racism row that would ensue. She'll be safe in her post until she feths up so badly that not even the race card will protect her.
Future War Cultist wrote: Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*
Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.
Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.
She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.
If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.
She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.
He wouldn't dare, imagine the Racism row that would ensue. She'll be safe in her post until she feths up so badly that not even the race card will protect her.
I don't know much about Abbot. Is she as incompetent an administrator as she is a public speaker?
I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.
Or an admission that she isn't up to the task. To be fair if Labour did win (whether through power sharing or not), there are going to be a lot of anti-Corbyn Labour people that might fall in line and it will open up a larger selection of people for cabinet posts.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.
Or an admission that she isn't up to the task. To be fair if Labour did win (whether through power sharing or not), there are going to be a lot of anti-Corbyn Labour people that might fall in line and it will open up a larger selection of people for cabinet posts.
If he proves he can lead to victory yes he might sway former enemies out of own self interest of power and career opportunities.
That unlocks the higher level of candidates with abit more front bench experience to utilize.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.
Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.
Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.
Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.
Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.
Ashworth and McDonnel are health and chancellor, don't know business off the top of my head.
Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.
Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!
Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.
Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.
Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.
Ashworth and McDonnel are health and chancellor, don't know business off the top of my head.
Proves a point minus google take most of a thread to name gov and shadow counterparts..
Home Secretary traditionally is something of a poisoned chalice. You are in charge of lots of complicated things that easily can go wrong, can't go spectacularly right, and depend on spending controlled by a completely separate and much more powerful department, the Treasury.
Which sucks massive balls. And if I recall, the same thing happened during the EU Referendum?
Aye.. They had 6 weeks to get this sorted out. I can understand minor hitches as not every system is truely perfect but that should be a very small percentage of the millions. Well below half a percent at least.
The conservatives keep bringing this up time and again. It's worrying, and the most worrying thing, many people agree with them. They don't understand the importance of a fundamental set of basic rights to civil society.
Best bit is that it would make us vastly less safe. Even ignoring any debate about its effectiveness, refusing to abide by human rights law would make it illegal for any of the 27 other EU nations to share any intelligence with us.
Which sucks massive balls. And if I recall, the same thing happened during the EU Referendum?
Aye.. They had 6 weeks to get this sorted out. I can understand minor hitches as not every system is truely perfect but that should be a very small percentage of the millions. Well below half a percent at least.
I'm making an assumption that it is a work load and resource issue. It's for the Councils to sort out these things out but with austerity pretty much everything is working with zero additional capacity. Hence there just aren't the resources to manage these things effectively. When you know the dates of the elections then you can plan effectively. No one was expecting TM to announce a snap election. Despite councils getting funding for some of the events you still have to manage the staff. For example with the local elections it's quite possible that staff held off taking holidays etc until afterward the election. As such in the period when you need the staff they are all going on a well earned break. As more cuts come along the ability for councils to manage unplanned situations is going to get worse and worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, what is happening to you guys? I thought you were supposed to be the sane ones.
Yeah it's very worrying - though I think May has had it in for rights of the public as whole for a while and she is just using this as an excuse now.
One of the advantages of America is that you do have rights written down in a constitution that is very difficult to change. In the UK we don't have anything like this and it's all just legislation, hence the government of the day can relatively easily change things especially if they have a significant majority. However I'm not sure May even listens to what she says now from one day to the next:-
Day 1 TM:- "We should show the world how superior our British values are"
Day 2 TM:- "We should reduce the rights of our populace to reduce how superior they are!"
Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.
She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.
And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.
Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.
And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.
Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.
Oh yes, that too. He was a serial killer who wanted porn or something like that wasn't it? Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.
And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.
Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.
Oh yes, that too. He was a serial killer who wanted porn or something like that wasn't it? Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.
Those are it. Or wanted colour tv, others claiming this and that.
It was just stupid. And legal aid had to pay for it too.... :(
I'm sure it's not that much money in the grand scheme of things but even one penny is too much for me to stomach in those cases. Of course it's the lawyers who really do well out of it. I'm sure Tony Blair wasn't thinking about Cherie's career at all when he created the human rights act.
Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.
She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.
She certainly should have gone earlier, but I understand Corbyn wanting to stand by her in the face of relentless bullying. However inept she is, and however many gaffes she makes, she is subjected to vastly more extreme scrutiny than almost anyone in British politics. It's another one of these things where Corbyn's lack of ruthlessness is endearing but clearly damaging eectorally.
Future War Cultist wrote: ...Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.
Regardless of who brought the case, I think enfranchising some inmates is a perfectly sensible idea.
If Diane faces extreme scrutiny it's only because she's so hopelessly inept. And she only digs herself deeper by crying rascism every time somebody calls her stupidity out.
And which inmates should be enfranchised? And doesn't it run the risk of politicians pandering to prisioners?
Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.
She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.
Don't be so quick to judge the circumstances. The alternative view is that an illness is reducing her ability on the campaign trail (but wanted to see Labour do well so tried to stick it out).
What happens if next week she resigns because she is diagnosed with a brain tumour and only has weeks left (lets hope not but it does happen). How would you feel if that your employer/friends family stated the same thing when you were ill?
We should avoid making judgements on information we do not have. Unless you have information that she really is lying then you should accept such statements as fact rather than fiction.
If Diane faces extreme scrutiny it's only because she's so hopelessly inept.
Like for like, on the same types of errors and gaffes, she recieves vastly more publicity.
For instance: missing a zero off a police financing figure and clearly being aware of her mistake. Front page news for days, the lead story on every single news broadcast for about 48 hours, and repeated to the point that it is now shorthand for 'politician doesn't know their numbers'. Meanwhile, Phillip Hammond gets the cost of HS2 out by 20 billion, and doesn't even acknowledge he's wrong, and barely anyone knows about it.
She's woefully out of her depth, but that doesn't mean that she isn't also bullied by the press in a very rare way.
Future War Cultist wrote: And she only digs herself deeper by crying rascism every time somebody calls her stupidity out.
Blaming scrutiny on being a black woman when it isn't appropriate doesn't help her case at all, though there are certainly occassions when it has a lot to do with the treatment she (and other BME poliuticians) recieve and it's quite right to note it.
Future War Cultist wrote: And which inmates should be enfranchised? And doesn't it run the risk of politicians pandering to prisioners?
I'm not going to make a list, but you could probably make a fair case for almost anyone convicted of non-violent/abusive cases. My main issue is that people go to jail for things that later aren't even considered crimes and their ability to vote against the people who punish them for later non-crimes is removed. Men imprisoned for having homosexual sex, for instance.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm sure it's not that much money in the grand scheme of things but even one penny is too much for me to stomach in those cases. Of course it's the lawyers who really do well out of it. I'm sure Tony Blair wasn't thinking about Cherie's career at all when he created the human rights act.
The ECHR goes back much further than when days of Tony Blair. The Tories can already amend our own internal rights already if they exceed the ECHR judgements.
The UK prison population is around 90,000. The UK population is around 68 million, with somewhere around 46.5 million eligible to vote. That makes the prison population less than 0.2% of the electorate.
I don't think we realistically have to worry about politicians pandering to prisoners. The benefits of re-educating and re-enfranchising prisoners far outweigh the negatives for letting a few serious sickos get the vote.
Oh, and bugger off Abbot. One person I'm not sad to see depart.
Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.
She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.
Don't be so quick to judge the circumstances. The alternative view is that an illness is reducing her ability on the campaign trail (but wanted to see Labour do well so tried to stick it out).
What happens if next week she resigns because she is diagnosed with a brain tumour and only has weeks left (lets hope not but it does happen). How would you feel if that your employer/friends family stated the same thing when you were ill?
We should avoid making judgements on information we do not have. Unless you have information that she really is lying then you should accept such statements as fact rather than fiction.
True. But it seems very every good way to resign without having to admit you failed, a thing no political figure in universe want s to do.
Cause I don,t want her to die. It just seems a way that Corbyn might use, its tackling a problem but more gently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: The UK prison population is around 90,000. The UK population is around 68 million, with somewhere around 46.5 million eligible to vote. That makes the prison population less than 0.2% of the electorate.
I don't think we realistically have to worry about politicians pandering to prisoners. The benefits of re-educating and re-enfranchising prisoners far outweigh the negatives for letting a few serious sickos get the vote.
Oh, and bugger off Abbot. One person I'm not sad to see depart.
And should be crime dependent.
Some offences ok you can vote, others are a clear veto.
Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.
You are focusing solely on the high profile cases that do cost. But those costs are miniscule when compared to what rights it gives us all everyday. You may not see those rights, they are not see them plastered on every wall but they are there. It provides us all protection. It stops governments exploiting the populace, means they can go on strike or join a rally in London without fear of a curfew being issued. It means that the police can't just invade you house just to have a look what you are doing and can't use physical or mental attacks to et information from you. It means that you can have the rights of privacy in the world and that they don't monitor you everyday all the time whether that is mowing the lawn, reading a book, sleeping with your partner and so on; it means your employer has to treat you with certain respect, treat all it's staff equally and not discriminate against. Don't be so quick to denigrate the human rights the ECHR gives you, because you may look forlornly back when they are gone and the government is being ever more intrusive in all our lives.
If you want to live in a world where human rights are at the expense of the safety of the country I'd suggest you move to Egypt and experience what happens when 'populace safety' is put before human rights.
Fair points but I do think the press just enjoy attacking self righteous lefties. I mean, it is fun knocking them off their pedestals. Oh, and she's got the same checkered history as Jezza so...feth her.
@ Whirlwind
I know I know, aftermath of WW2 and all that. But the HRA makes it too easy for the scum of the earth to launch petty and frivolous lawsuits. The way it was before, with the costs and delays, to me ensured that only the real cases went forward. This is my opinion but I think some only bring cases before it out of boredom and vindictiveness. If your a sociopathic killer sitting bored out of your head in prision then why not claim your rights have been violated somehow just for something to do? With the added bonus that any money you win is more salt in the wound for the victims and the prison staff.
disaster for this country.
on you survey.
