Plato, birthday greetings. You are now at a point where you have to behave responsibly.
Apparently.
So no more wandering alone into the hill-billy wilderness just to report back for pb.com, to stop us making fools of ourselves in the US Presidential election betting. We'll find a young whippersnapper to do that in future...
The thing is, no-one, Leaver or Remainer is trying to make the best of Brexit. Remainers fold their arms and say, nothing to do with us. Leavers variously that it will all be great, no need to discuss ; or blaming others for thwarting the project. None of these three attitudes are recipes for success.
A consensus can only happen if all parties accept that Brexit will go ahead, that it will be very messy, and that it's up to us to deal with the mess and that for the foreseeable period our efforts are devoted entirely to formally leaving the EU while limiting the damage as much as possible.
The politics acts against that consensus unfortunately. Vote for us to make the most of the bad job you voted for, isn't a compelling call to action.
I would love to see Remainers shape the future of our country - that is after all what leaving the EU is about. The supremacy of British law and British government policy. But there is no actual looking forward from them. There's remoaning, and their only strategem for the future seems to be to rejoin anything and everything we can that limits British autonomy. I don't actually think they want it to work. This is the issue. They claim to be the adults in the room - so why the huge sulk?
Sums it up well. The problem is how many of these types of Remainers are also in the cabinet? Hammond is one and Rudd another. I suspect it may make up half the cabinet.
"He was a non-nutter who had undergone treatment for mental health issues. Apparently we're supposed to believe that these mental health issues had all been resolved by the time he took it upon himself to go and murder a member of parliament. Clearly a sign of a clean bill of health."
You can have mental health issues without being a "nutter". See depression, for example.
Deliberately targeting someone or a group of people in order to kill them is not the act of a "normal" person.
We have a current population of 60-odd million, and some will be very odd - killers, nutters of all varieties and general bad 'uns.
However to invite a million or so of predominantly young males from a region which is troubled, and contains a high proportion of those who may be radicalised, could be described as unwise - unless you screen them well.
That may be the issue. For once, Cameron had both the moral high ground and common sense on his side. Select them from camps and make them welcome is the political move. Merkel gains Brownie points for a kind heart but loses politically. It's no use complaining now.
I watched a Stefan Molyneux video re democracy vs strong man political rule - and he used IQ as a yardstick. I reflexively shrink from this sort of thing - but TBH, he made a number of points I couldn't argue with bar Oh I Wish That Wasn't True.
His premise was that those in the ME had a national IQ lower than the West - and weren't sophisticated enough to do liberal democracy as we get it. And that's why regime change/X-Spring doesn't work. Not enough are capable of grasping the wider argument.
"Jo Cox's killer wasn't a nutter. He was convicted of murder, not manslaughter. He was a politically motivated murderer."
In my book all those who commit cold-blooded murder have some kind of a screw loose. To deliberately target someone or a group of people and then to take their lives requires a way of looking at the world that is not normal. So, I am not surprised that Mair had mental health issues. But then I would be very surprised if the person who committed the Berlin atrocity was not sixpence short of a shilling too.
FWIW it depends on your definition. I am not religious, but I would say Mair (like most killers) was evil, not mad.
So Europe is gradually descending into violence like every single other country a sizable population of Muslims arrive in. Hardly surprising. I have grave doubts that we're going to do anything about it and will just turn into a generic Islamic hellhole over the next 50 years.
As usual the left wingers on here are desperate to talk about anything else (Thomas Mair) instead of the obvious. Give it a rest.
Democracy can only endure if the winners behave with restraint, and the losers can trust them to do so.
In the Ancient World, the victorious faction in a democracy would frequently murder, asset-strip, or exile their opponents. Therefore, democracies failed. The Middle East is in that position. Election victories can result in the winners embarking on the mass murder of the local Christians, and whatever minority brand of Islam is practised.
On topic, it has been a divisive issue and will continue so to be but there are lots of issues where people disagree on principle yet manage not to come to blows too often.
This forum is atypical - as has been shown many of the public want to move on and want the Government to sort it all out as it were.
If the same clique come on here every day and every thread wanting to have an opinion on everything it becomes an echo chamber because it has all been said by the same people.
So Europe is gradually descending into violence like every single other country a sizable population of Muslims arrive in. Hardly surprising. I have grave doubts that we're going to do anything about it and will just turn into a generic Islamic hellhole over the next 50 years.
As usual the left wingers on here are desperate to talk about anything else (Thomas Mair) instead of the obvious. Give it a rest.
As I said last night, on present trends London will probably be an Islamic State by 2066.
Plato, birthday greetings. You are now at a point where you have to behave responsibly.
Apparently.
So no more wandering alone into the hill-billy wilderness just to report back for pb.com, to stop us making fools of ourselves in the US Presidential election betting. We'll find a young whippersnapper to do that in future...
I suspect we'll never see @Keiranpedley survey question on this subject. I was very surprised to get mentions in dispatches at all.
"He was a non-nutter who had undergone treatment for mental health issues. Apparently we're supposed to believe that these mental health issues had all been resolved by the time he took it upon himself to go and murder a member of parliament. Clearly a sign of a clean bill of health."
You can have mental health issues without being a "nutter". See depression, for example.
Deliberately targeting someone or a group of people in order to kill them is not the act of a "normal" person.
Depends on the perspective. If we were at war, then a whole bunch of "normal" people would be targeting and killing groups of people (the enemy).
Mair may have felt he was at war with the authorities in this country, and decided to take his own one-man action against them. Was it extremist? Yes, by definition - most people don't do that. He also sounds a bit crazy.
That's the spirit, Southam! Almost no Leavers want to cut all engagement with Europe. Almost no Remainers want Junkers/Clegg-style full on-integration. The issue is far less binary than the referendum made it look. That said, talking about the sort of outcome we want is a different issue to deciding how we best go about achieving it. But that's a side issue. the point is that the referendum - and indeed most elections - give the appearance of a country split into a small number of blocks of distinct option, whereas the reality is a blob of millions and millions of shades of grey. When we vote, we do not give complete approval of one side and complete disapproval of all others, we just vote for what we perceive as a nearest fit. You and I were on opposite sides of the referendum and of the GE, yet would probably find more to agree on than disagree on, and each of us would probably find much to disagree on with people who happen to have voted the same way as us. that's why democracy must be an ongoing conversation, not just a periodic tick in the box.
There are no plausible definition of Terrorism that doesn't fit Thomas Mair. He murdered an elected official during a referendum campaign and targeted her for her political views. He made political slogans during the murder. He had a history of far right political activism and cited far right views during his trial. A trial that found him fully culpable of the murder. He was not a " nutter ".
To deny the Jo Cox killing was Terrorism is at best specious and at worst the most blatant and cynical hypocracy. Thomas Mair was white, British and therefore presumably " Christian ". So he can't be a terrorist as they are all Brown. Setting aside the biggest terrorist threat we've faced recently was the IRA it's just racist denial. Terrorists can't be people like me. Perhaps the " White Community " should be more vocal in denouncing White terrorism and help root out extremism in White communities ?
Putting it that starkly shows the cultural " collective punishment " of vast groups to be what it is racism and xenophobia.
And this links neatly with Mr Meeks nuanced and conciliatory thread header. There can be no reconciliation on Brexit now, and possibly ever. Because it's become a Kulturkampf and it suits too many partisans on both sides to stop fighting. The same thing that see grotesque ambulance chasing hate peddlers on here salivating at the right sort of terrorism attack so they can go on Islamophobic and Xenophobic rants while ignoring identical crimes in similar contexts.
Brexit is a political arguement framed largely around identity. It's not going away as an issue because the underlying identities and the crises they face aren't going away.
No. The purpose of terrorism is mass attacks designed to spread panic among the broader public
The murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated (although I suspect the referendum/Brexit was a hook, not a proximate cause) but was individualised. It was evil, but not terrorism.
Mr. Evershed, must disagree. Sturgeon's desire for freedom of movement for Scotland is simply to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Nobody " invited " millions of migrants into Europe. They were coming anyway and still are. The motivations range from economic migration ( from often grinding poverty ) to fleeing civilisation collapse. Collapses that are sometimes partially the result of western policies.
What European governments can be held responsible for ( if you want ) is not moving quickly enough to a " War Footing " and a vast paramilitary sealing of " the Border " which in this context is Europe's vast coast line. This would have taken Billions of € we haven't got, powerful supranationalism on a competence we currently don't have any on and huge statescraft.
Given that governments are generally sclerotic and in this case we are dealing with over a dozen bickering ones it's no surprise the response has been slow, ineffective and partially focused on soft power responses. Mainly paying other countries to take them.
So what were we to do with the millions we'd already arrived ? Put them in Boer style concentration camps ? Shoot them ? Or rather stunned by it all shambolically start processing the claims ?
Which takes us to Merkel. She saw a crisis and as the head of Europe's richest, biggest state with long term labour shortages and huge reserves of war guilt she undertook what the eurozone needs. A huge fiscal transfer from North to South by taking a million + migrants from poorer southern Europe. In doing so she mitigated one potential crisis. The Balkan trial could have become murderous. She also created another crisis. The perception rich, peaceful tolerant Germany was a choice is undoubtedly a pull factor. Interesting than number of new arrivals that quickly with no prior planning will be a war like task. The evidence todate is the Germans are performing another miracle relatively speaking.
It's a human disaster. But tell me what " Merkel " should have done, how she had the power to do it and what the alternative would have looked like.
As for this terrorist attack not happening that's ludicrous. It assumes the killer couldn't have got in anyway, that an alternative killer couldn't have been used and that it wouldn't have happen else where lower in the Balkan trial. Germans can legitimately argue the attack taking place elsewhere is cynically part of the German governments job but that's what we're discussing. Shifting the killing.
There is great evil in the world. This strain of Islamism is part of it. We must fight it. I think warping the global fight into a petty political narrative to allow folk to score points about migration they'd make anyway is nauseating.
FWIW it depends on your definition. I am not religious, but I would say Mair (like most killers) was evil, not mad.
Isn't there a very thin line or grey area between evil, mad, mentally disturbed etc? Can you be evil and sane?
Having a personality disorder where you're a sociopath/whatever isn't an excuse for your behaviour. A few go on to be serial killers, many more become very successful business types as they prefer to use their talent to make themselves very comfy/get plaudits than a life sentence for murdering random people.
I watched a prog about Amy Winehouse a day ago, a forensic psychologist noted she'd more than enough publicly noted behaviour to qualify as Borderline Personality Disorder - she was suffering from a lot of mental demons as a result of it, but she still chose to do what she did.
So Europe is gradually descending into violence like every single other country a sizable population of Muslims arrive in. Hardly surprising. I have grave doubts that we're going to do anything about it and will just turn into a generic Islamic hellhole over the next 50 years.
As usual the left wingers on here are desperate to talk about anything else (Thomas Mair) instead of the obvious. Give it a rest.
Yeah, that's right, it's all the lefties talking about Thomas Mair.
No. The purpose of terrorism is mass attacks designed to spread panic among the broader public
The murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated (although I suspect the referendum/Brexit was a hook, not a proximate cause) but was individualised. It was evil, but not terrorism.
I think you need to be careful about the definition of 'terrorism'
I agree with your distinction that the Jo Cox murder was individualised, and not calculated to cause mass murder or panic.
If you allow woolly descriptions of Terrorism, how long until Politically motivated Industrial action is described as terrorism?
@Charles That's cobblers. There is no definition of Terrorism that limits it to mass attacks. Was the Brighton Bomb my terrorism because " only " five people died ? If an Islamist shot the Queen would it not be terrorism because only one person died ?
And how are you defining " panic " ? Suspending campaigning in a national referendum for several days ? Recalling the British Parliament ? What psychological impact do you think it has on a community to have a young mother murdered in it's midst then have weeks of international media coverage ?
Democracy can only endure if the winners behave with restraint, and the losers can trust them to do so.
In the Ancient World, the victorious faction in a democracy would frequently murder, asset-strip, or exile their opponents. Therefore, democracies failed. The Middle East is in that position. Election victories can result in the winners embarking on the mass murder of the local Christians, and whatever minority brand of Islam is practised.
I totally agree - I was very struck by comments made by our guide in Egypt back in about 2007 - he was as you'd expect a very cosmopolitan chap and also a Coptic Christian. He was scared - it leaked out despite his best efforts.
I sincerely doubt he's still doing the same cushy job due to the crash in tourism - but more so for being a Christian. His knowledge was top drawer - I hope he's a good billet somewhere else in education.
No. The purpose of terrorism is mass attacks designed to spread panic among the broader public
The murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated (although I suspect the referendum/Brexit was a hook, not a proximate cause) but was individualised. It was evil, but not terrorism.
I think you need to be careful about the definition of 'terrorism'
I agree with your distinction that the Jo Cox murder was individualised, and not calculated to cause mass murder or panic.
If you allow woolly descriptions of Terrorism, how long until Politically motivated Industrial action is described as terrorism?
The assassination of Airey Neave presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Merkel indicated that they would be granted asylum in Germany and the numbers increased massively.
The idea that the borders of Europe couldn't have been secured better is of course nonsense as well.
The number of asylum applications being made in Germany was already 7 times higher than France at the time when people were saying Merkel's policy was too tough. The migration crisis was not caused by Merkel, whatever you think of the wisdom upholding the Geneva Convention.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
Personally I think there is quite a big difference between political terrorism and religious terrorism. Political ends can be achieved or negotiated. The IRA, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc all essentially ceased activity as an agreement was ultimately arrived at. Political terrorism is horrific but solvable. But what agreement, what accommodation can be arrived at with fundamental Islam? Zero.
@CopperSulphate That's not even cobblers but a wilful distortion of what I said. Merkel's suspension of the Dublin rules for Syrians could be construed as an invitation but it was to people already in Europe. Nobody was promised Asylum but effectively a choice over which European country there assylum claim would be heard in. It's no surprise that migrants who'd made an intercontinental journey preferred Germany to Slovenia. Who wouldn't.
I spent a chunk of of my post pointing out the Border could have been secured and suggested why it wasn't. So that's nonsense as well.
There seems to be a bit of a pattern with many of these attacks...not only those who have come claiming asylum, but often already known to the police for a string of "minor" crimes.
"The number of asylum applications being made in Germany was already 7 times higher than France at the time when people were saying Merkel's policy was too tough."
Loads more came after her intervention, it's pretty well documented.
And certain people would say the policy is "too tough" come hell or high water. Most people certainly weren't saying that.
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Ha yes - I thought about it to be fair that actually it was a bomb on Mountbatten's boat so that was intended to cause "mass murder".
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
"The number of asylum applications being made in Germany was already 7 times higher than France at the time when people were saying Merkel's policy was too tough."
Loads more came after her intervention, it's pretty well documented
Loads more came after the intervention of Putin in Syria. Coincidence?
@Patrick Yes. That's a very meaningful distinction. ETA and the IRA had negotiable aims. IS doesn't. You can't negotiate with a millenarian cult who thinks the Last Battle is coming. At least superficially.
No. The purpose of terrorism is mass attacks designed to spread panic among the broader public
The murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated (although I suspect the referendum/Brexit was a hook, not a proximate cause) but was individualised. It was evil, but not terrorism.
I think you need to be careful about the definition of 'terrorism'
I agree with your distinction that the Jo Cox murder was individualised, and not calculated to cause mass murder or panic.
If you allow woolly descriptions of Terrorism, how long until Politically motivated Industrial action is described as terrorism?
I'd assumed that a desire to cause death or physical injury was a given!
Nicola Sturgeon's 'Scotland's Place in Europe' paper is, in substance, a proposal for Scottish independence without the inconvenience of another IndyRef.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Ha yes - I thought about it to be fair that actually it was a bomb on Mountbatten's boat so that was intended to cause "mass murder".
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
Both terrorism, IMO.
I'd stick the Jo Cox murder in the political assassination box - however the guy was clearly very disturbed and seeking mental health help. He's the same category as the guy who tried to shoot Trump AFAIC. They were lost.
He's not in the same bracket as an ideologue who was entirely average and had an agenda in mind.
The political journeys of most states have involved shocking levels of violence and death on a large scale. Civil wars are almost de rigeur - the conflicts in America, Russia and China killed millions. Britain didn't escape either.
I don't know why the path to relative enlightenment needed to be paved by the deaths of so many - perhaps their IQ wasn't high enough or they prayed to the wrong God or just looked different.
In an age of travel internal conflicts can be easily exported and indiscriminate death is part of a globalised world. The two things which provide relief are peace and prosperity. Economic development and individual wealth are integral to the pacification of society. It's the old adage about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.
It's controversial but if you want to stop people leaving give them a reason to stay. That means order, food, work, shelter and above all a stake in the future.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
I'm so glad that pb's Leavers are secure in the belief that politicians that have made it their life's work to foment alienation against immigrants bear no indirect responsibility for the killing of an elected representative who stood against such beliefs. It must be a relief not to have that on your conscience.
Seems wee Jimmie Krankie wants Scotland to not be in a free trade area / customs union with its most important market (by a long way). How odd!
She seems to be in some sort of denial about Brexit when the idea of Scotland getting a differential deal is rejected throughout Europe.
The process will grind on for months/years but ultimately the divorce settlement will be between the EU and UK.
Following that settlement Nicola Sturgeon will be left with accepting the deal or holding a new referendum
We don't yet know what constitutional cards she holds within the UK. Wait for the Supreme Court to speak before coming to conclusions.
You do make a valid point but it seems to be accepted that Scotland will not have a veto - we will see but in the circumstances that Scotland cannot veto the A50 do you agree with my comments
Nicola Sturgeon's 'Scotland's Place in Europe' paper is, in substance, a proposal for Scottish independence without the inconvenience of another IndyRef.
It's possible that Brexit cannot be commenced without breaking 'the vow' that was made before the Scottish referendum. If the Supreme Court rejects the government's claim that enshrining a constitutional convention in legislation does not give it any further weight, Sturgeon is in a very strong position.
Seems wee Jimmie Krankie wants Scotland to not be in a free trade area / customs union with its most important market (by a long way). How odd!
She seems to be in some sort of denial about Brexit when the idea of Scotland getting a differential deal is rejected throughout Europe.
The process will grind on for months/years but ultimately the divorce settlement will be between the EU and UK.
Following that settlement Nicola Sturgeon will be left with accepting the deal or holding a new referendum
We don't yet know what constitutional cards she holds within the UK. Wait for the Supreme Court to speak before coming to conclusions.
You do make a valid point but it seems to be accepted that Scotland will not have a veto - we will see but in the circumstances that Scotland cannot veto the A50 do you agree with my comments
They don't have a veto, but they may be able to force Westminster to overrule them, which would create a constitutional crisis for the devolution settlement and undermine the basis on which Scotland voted to stay in the Union.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
Nicola Sturgeon's 'Scotland's Place in Europe' paper is, in substance, a proposal for Scottish independence without the inconvenience of another IndyRef.
It's possible that Brexit cannot be commenced without breaking 'the vow' that was made before the Scottish referendum. If the Supreme Court rejects the government's claim that enshrining a constitutional convention in legislation does not give it any further weight, Sturgeon is in a very strong position.
How can that be the case when the Lord Advocate himself admitted that Holyrood cannot be said to have a veto on EU withdrawal?
Mr. Glenn, Scotland having a veto over the EU situation would be an indefensible position. Also highlights why devolution should be well considered rather than done for short term reasons and partisan advantage.
I had a nice surprise this morning - BetfairEx finally settled their Win POTUS but Lose the Popular Vote market, which I'd forgotten all about ...... talk about withholding winnings until the last conceivable moment! Oh well, at least there will be food and wine on the Christmas dining table after all.
"Merkel's suspension of the Dublin rules for Syrians could be construed as an invitation but it was to people already in Europe."
Are you sure about that? I'm sure I remember numbers arriving in Europe increased dramatically after that point and not just in Germany. Happy to be corrected.
Seems wee Jimmie Krankie wants Scotland to not be in a free trade area / customs union with its most important market (by a long way). How odd!
She seems to be in some sort of denial about Brexit when the idea of Scotland getting a differential deal is rejected throughout Europe.
The process will grind on for months/years but ultimately the divorce settlement will be between the EU and UK.
Following that settlement Nicola Sturgeon will be left with accepting the deal or holding a new referendum
We don't yet know what constitutional cards she holds within the UK. Wait for the Supreme Court to speak before coming to conclusions.
You do make a valid point but it seems to be accepted that Scotland will not have a veto - we will see but in the circumstances that Scotland cannot veto the A50 do you agree with my comments
They don't have a veto, but they may be able to force Westminster to overrule them, which would create a constitutional crisis for the devolution settlement and undermine the basis on which Scotland voted to stay in the Union.
Then Theresa May should grant the OK for a second referendum on Independence
I believe that a second referendum would fail again and I am sure Nicola Sturgeon deep down knows this.
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Ha yes - I thought about it to be fair that actually it was a bomb on Mountbatten's boat so that was intended to cause "mass murder".
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
Both terrorism, IMO.
I'd stick the Jo Cox murder in the political assassination box - however the guy was clearly very disturbed and seeking mental health help. He's the same category as the guy who tried to shoot Trump AFAIC. They were lost.
He's not in the same bracket as an ideologue who was entirely average and had an agenda in mind.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
It could easily happen again. There is a right wing militaristic culture out there.
"Merkel's suspension of the Dublin rules for Syrians could be construed as an invitation but it was to people already in Europe."
Are you sure about that? I'm sure I remember numbers arriving in Europe increased dramatically after that point and not just in Germany. Happy to be corrected.
By definition the Dublin rules only affect people already in Europe. The numbers were already high and growing and were influenced far more by events on the ground than by what Merkel said.
I had a nice surprise this morning - BetfairEx finally settled their Win POTUS but Lose the Popular Vote market, which I'd forgotten all about ...... talk about withholding winnings until the last conceivable moment! Oh well, at least there will be food and wine on the Christmas dining table after all.
Yes, this was a pleasent surprise. I went to withdraw - then reversed as I was able to lay England (Note not the draw, England) to win the test to create enough extra money for a round of drinks !
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
I don't think it impossible that it could re-occur plus I'm sure there is certainly if not a fear factor, then an awareness amongst MPs about where their political views could lead to and what reactions they might provoke.
That in itself is pretty much an ongoing threat. Not necessarily to Joe Public, but to the machinery of state which is arguably more serious.
The thing is, no-one, Leaver or Remainer is trying to make the best of Brexit. Remainers fold their arms and say, nothing to do with us. Leavers variously that it will all be great, no need to discuss ; or blaming others for thwarting the project. None of these three attitudes are recipes for success.
A consensus can only happen if all parties accept that Brexit will go ahead, that it will be very messy, and that it's up to us to deal with the mess and that for the foreseeable period our efforts are devoted entirely to formally leaving the EU while limiting the damage as much as possible.
The politics acts against that consensus unfortunately. Vote for us to make the most of the bad job you voted for, isn't a compelling call to action.
I would love to see Remainers shape the future of our country - that is after all what leaving the EU is about. The supremacy of British law and British government policy. But there is no actual looking forward from them. There's remoaning, and their only strategem for the future seems to be to rejoin anything and everything we can that limits British autonomy. I don't actually think they want it to work. This is the issue. They claim to be the adults in the room - so why the huge sulk?
Sums it up well. The problem is how many of these types of Remainers are also in the cabinet? Hammond is one and Rudd another. I suspect it may make up half the cabinet.
Yes. And possibly that mistress of mystique Ms. May.
I largely agree - it is ridiculous to focus on just one cause without addressing the wider catalogue of policy failure.
We should focus on (a) the failure of Western governments to pursue a more interventionist policy in the Middle East in recent years that would have prevented the region falling apart and generating a refugee crisis on a scale not seen since of WW2 and (b) the penny pinching (and penny wise pound foolish incidentally) approach to providing aid to help support and encourage those refugees remain in the Middle East as least and (c) the collective failure of the EU and nation states within it to bring in a large scale quota programme of managed migration including security service screening, as much as (d) the open borders within Europe that permitted a free for all of large scale uncontrolled migration upon breaching EU borders in the absence of effective policies along the lines of (a), (b) and (c).
Schauble's description of Merkel as a " careless skier " can be plausibly made. But she didn't create the Snow and at the time the Snow was already in Europe. Perhaps it was a controlled explosion to direct the avalanche. A controlled explosion she had no democratic mandate for and in the TV and Internet age an explosion that could be misconstrued the world over.
But the mass migration was, is and will happen anyway. Which is why while we are all praising Cameron, the current frothing about making the 0.7% aid target the next populist goal is for the birds. The West is going to have to spend and spend big. Which is a better criticism of Merkel. Germany's aid budget isn't big for a rich northern European democracy and accommodating migrants in Germany it's self is very very expensive.
In retrospect the Germans should just have written a very very large cheque as a way of reducing the pressure in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Which they've belatedly started to do.
I'm so glad that pb's Leavers are secure in the belief that politicians that have made it their life's work to foment alienation against immigrants bear no indirect responsibility for the killing of an elected representative who stood against such beliefs. It must be a relief not to have that on your conscience.
Then you, as someone who supports Mrs Merkel's actions, have the blood of 12 Germans on your hands. This eventuality was pointed out on here and elsewhere on numerous occasions. Yet we were belittled and patronised by you and others like you as racist or not having a heart.
No, now is the time for people like you to keep quiet, on Brexit, on Islamic migration and on terrorism. You've been wrong on every single point and shouting down opposition by calling anyone who disagrees a racist is why we are where we are and countless people in Europe have died needlessly or had serious injuries from terrorist acts.
"It's controversial but if you want to stop people leaving give them a reason to stay. That means order, food, work, shelter and above all a stake in the future."
And the communitarians needs to realise that the community already present in a country has a stake and say in what happens. "Shut up and enjoy" is the policy of the ostrich.
One of the things we need is absolute judgement - the moral value (plus or minus) of the actions of all individuals needs to be measured against the same standard.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
I would agree with that, and dispute the definition given earlier.
The clue to terrorism is in the name: the intent to terrorise a people or government into changing their behaviour in a way acceptable to the terrorists. That terror comes from the fear of what comes next and has to be based on a proven threat and a presumed capacity and willingness to repeat acts of terror. That's why I take issue with the word 'indiscriminate' in the definition. Terrorism is politics by other means and while acts may be indiscriminate, with the intention of creating terror within a people at large, they may also be specific and/or limited, in line with the political purpose intended.
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Ha yes - I thought about it to be fair that actually it was a bomb on Mountbatten's boat so that was intended to cause "mass murder".
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
Both terrorism, IMO.
I'd stick the Jo Cox murder in the political assassination box - however the guy was clearly very disturbed and seeking mental health help. He's the same category as the guy who tried to shoot Trump AFAIC. They were lost.
He's not in the same bracket as an ideologue who was entirely average and had an agenda in mind.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
It could easily happen again. There is a right wing militaristic culture out there.
Yes, but you can't say "A" happened and "B" happened therefore they are part of the same organisation.
@CopperSulphate Correlation isn't cause and the Great Migration has been underway for years. Though I don't deny the power of the specific media coverage in a smart phone age. Nor that Merkel voluntarily took more migrants than Germany was legally obliged to. Nor that the partial suspension of Dublin will have encouraged more intra European movement.
The desire to blame Merkel for everything to do with the refugee crisis given all the many guilty parties involved in the migration crisis, not least our own complicity in the mess in Syria is a completely unthinking knee-jerk reaction.
Schauble's description of Merkel as a " careless skier " can be plausibly made. But she didn't create the Snow and at the time the Snow was already in Europe. Perhaps it was a controlled explosion to direct the avalanche. A controlled explosion she had no democratic mandate for and in the TV and Internet age an explosion that could be misconstrued the world over.
But the mass migration was, is and will happen anyway. Which is why while we are all praising Cameron, the current frothing about making the 0.7% aid target the next populist goal is for the birds. The West is going to have to spend and spend big. Which is a better criticism of Merkel. Germany's aid budget isn't big for a rich northern European democracy and accommodating migrants in Germany it's self is very very expensive.
In retrospect the Germans should just have written a very very large cheque as a way of reducing the pressure in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Which they've belatedly started to do.
The German defence budget, it's aid budget and it's border patrol are all a complete and utter joke. Germany saves €60-70bn per year of low to zero multiplier public spending by skimping on these areas. With a proper national defence force and border force the millions could easily have been repelled and sent back to where they came from, allowing for Dave's plan to be put in effect across the whole continent rather than just in the UK and Ireland.
Merkel is one of the major causes of this problem in Europe, though the root cause is all of us telling people in Syria that they could have a democracy when a negotiated settlement with Assad is what we should have done.
Turnout is going to give them a headache, I make it out to be 59% - but they've created a rod for their own backs with that market.
I note the user posted up a sportsbook from his mobile, exchange betting on somewhat obscure markets is almost impossible from a mobile I've found - it is set up well enough for football ACCAs though........
I'm so glad that pb's Leavers are secure in the belief that politicians that have made it their life's work to foment alienation against immigrants bear no indirect responsibility for the killing of an elected representative who stood against such beliefs. It must be a relief not to have that on your conscience.
Then you, as someone who supports Mrs Merkel's actions, have the blood of 12 Germans on your hands.
Max you're losing it a bit - are you on a pre-move extended bender?
The assassination of Louis Mountbatten presumably wasn't calculated to cause mass murder or panic. So as I understand it from you and Chazza, that wasn't terrorism?
Is Political murder a better definition?
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Ha yes - I thought about it to be fair that actually it was a bomb on Mountbatten's boat so that was intended to cause "mass murder".
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
Both terrorism, IMO.
I'd stick the Jo Cox murder in the political assassination box - however the guy was clearly very disturbed and seeking mental health help. He's the same category as the guy who tried to shoot Trump AFAIC. They were lost.
He's not in the same bracket as an ideologue who was entirely average and had an agenda in mind.
Terrorism Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I'd go with that definition - which is also why Mair was "political murder" not "terrorism"
Airey Neave?
I think a key element of the "fear" factor is the knowledge that the act can be repeated - that's why there is an ongoing threat.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
It could easily happen again. There is a right wing militaristic culture out there.
Yes, but you can't say "A" happened and "B" happened therefore they are part of the same organisation.
That applies about a lot of things including religiously motivated terrorism.
The thing is, no-one, Leaver or Remainer is trying to make the best of Brexit. Remainers fold their arms and say, nothing to do with us. Leavers variously that it will all be great, no need to discuss ; or blaming others for thwarting the project. None of these three attitudes are recipes for success.
A consensus can only happen if all parties accept that Brexit will go ahead, that it will be very messy, and that it's up to us to deal with the mess and that for the foreseeable period our efforts are devoted entirely to formally leaving the EU while limiting the damage as much as possible.
The politics acts against that consensus unfortunately. Vote for us to make the most of the bad job you voted for, isn't a compelling call to action.
I would love to see Remainers shape the future of our country - that is after all what leaving the EU is about. The supremacy of British law and British government policy. But there is no actual looking forward from them. There's remoaning, and their only strategem for the future seems to be to rejoin anything and everything we can that limits British autonomy. I don't actually think they want it to work. This is the issue. They claim to be the adults in the room - so why the huge sulk?
Sums it up well. The problem is how many of these types of Remainers are also in the cabinet? Hammond is one and Rudd another. I suspect it may make up half the cabinet.
Yes. And possibly that mistress of mystique Ms. May.
If she does not come out in January with a clear set of aims and principles for Brexit, then she will lack the vision to drive us forward. Gordon Brown also was a dithering, controller of detail with no vision.
I'm so glad that pb's Leavers are secure in the belief that politicians that have made it their life's work to foment alienation against immigrants bear no indirect responsibility for the killing of an elected representative who stood against such beliefs. It must be a relief not to have that on your conscience.
Then you, as someone who supports Mrs Merkel's actions, have the blood of 12 Germans on your hands.
Max you're losing it a bit - are you on a pre-move extended bender?
If Meeks wants to accuse me and others of being responsible for the despicable act committed by Mair then he bears the same responsibility for the atrocities that are happening all to often in Europe.
The thing is, no-one, Leaver or Remainer is trying to make the best of Brexit. Remainers fold their arms and say, nothing to do with us. Leavers variously that it will all be great, no need to discuss ; or blaming others for thwarting the project. None of these three attitudes are recipes for success.
A consensus can only happen if all parties accept that Brexit will go ahead, that it will be very messy, and that it's up to us to deal with the mess and that for the foreseeable period our efforts are devoted entirely to formally leaving the EU while limiting the damage as much as possible.
The politics acts against that consensus unfortunately. Vote for us to make the most of the bad job you voted for, isn't a compelling call to action.
I would love to see Remainers shape the future of our country - that is after all what leaving the EU is about. The supremacy of British law and British government policy. But there is no actual looking forward from them. There's remoaning, and their only strategem for the future seems to be to rejoin anything and everything we can that limits British autonomy. I don't actually think they want it to work. This is the issue. They claim to be the adults in the room - so why the huge sulk?
Sums it up well. The problem is how many of these types of Remainers are also in the cabinet? Hammond is one and Rudd another. I suspect it may make up half the cabinet.
Yes. And possibly that mistress of mystique Ms. May.
If she does not come out in January with a clear set of aims and principles for Brexit, then she will lack the vision to drive us forward. Gordon Brown also was a dithering, controller of detail with no vision.
Everything she's said so could be interpreted as laying the ground to blame someone else for why Article 50 can't be declared on schedule.
German Interior Minister De Maiziere: The arrested man is from Pakistan, and arrived in Germany on 31 December 2015. He arrived in Berlin in February. The suspect speaks Baluchi, one of five regional languages spoken in Pakistan.
De Maizière said there had been problems questioning him in the past because no translator could be found who spoke Baluchi.
Comments
Apparently.
So no more wandering alone into the hill-billy wilderness just to report back for pb.com, to stop us making fools of ourselves in the US Presidential election betting. We'll find a young whippersnapper to do that in future...
You can have mental health issues without being a "nutter". See depression, for example.
Deliberately targeting someone or a group of people in order to kill them is not the act of a "normal" person.
His premise was that those in the ME had a national IQ lower than the West - and weren't sophisticated enough to do liberal democracy as we get it. And that's why regime change/X-Spring doesn't work. Not enough are capable of grasping the wider argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFERsUXjf-I
As usual the left wingers on here are desperate to talk about anything else (Thomas Mair) instead of the obvious. Give it a rest.
She seems to want free movement in the face of terrorism by economic migrants from abroad.
Plato,
Democracy can only endure if the winners behave with restraint, and the losers can trust them to do so.
In the Ancient World, the victorious faction in a democracy would frequently murder, asset-strip, or exile their opponents. Therefore, democracies failed. The Middle East is in that position. Election victories can result in the winners embarking on the mass murder of the local Christians, and whatever minority brand of Islam is practised.
On topic, it has been a divisive issue and will continue so to be but there are lots of issues where people disagree on principle yet manage not to come to blows too often.
This forum is atypical - as has been shown many of the public want to move on and want the Government to sort it all out as it were.
If the same clique come on here every day and every thread wanting to have an opinion on everything it becomes an echo chamber because it has all been said by the same people.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512073.pdf
I suspect we'll never see @Keiranpedley survey question on this subject. I was very surprised to get mentions in dispatches at all.
Depends on the perspective. If we were at war, then a whole bunch of "normal" people would be targeting and killing groups of people (the enemy).
Mair may have felt he was at war with the authorities in this country, and decided to take his own one-man action against them. Was it extremist? Yes, by definition - most people don't do that. He also sounds a bit crazy.
My guess is that it won't be. Not that I'll be around to find out.
That said, talking about the sort of outcome we want is a different issue to deciding how we best go about achieving it.
But that's a side issue. the point is that the referendum - and indeed most elections - give the appearance of a country split into a small number of blocks of distinct option, whereas the reality is a blob of millions and millions of shades of grey. When we vote, we do not give complete approval of one side and complete disapproval of all others, we just vote for what we perceive as a nearest fit. You and I were on opposite sides of the referendum and of the GE, yet would probably find more to agree on than disagree on, and each of us would probably find much to disagree on with people who happen to have voted the same way as us. that's why democracy must be an ongoing conversation, not just a periodic tick in the box.
The murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated (although I suspect the referendum/Brexit was a hook, not a proximate cause) but was individualised. It was evil, but not terrorism.
Yet the Left seems to have a blindspot in accepting it is the act of a "normal "religion...
Heading towards 50% African and Middle Eastern birthrate in France by the end of the decade. I imagine a good proportion of those will be Muslim.
Europe as we knew it is gone.
What European governments can be held responsible for ( if you want ) is not moving quickly enough to a " War Footing " and a vast paramilitary sealing of " the Border " which in this context is Europe's vast coast line. This would have taken Billions of € we haven't got, powerful supranationalism on a competence we currently don't have any on and huge statescraft.
Given that governments are generally sclerotic and in this case we are dealing with over a dozen bickering ones it's no surprise the response has been slow, ineffective and partially focused on soft power responses. Mainly paying other countries to take them.
So what were we to do with the millions we'd already arrived ? Put them in Boer style concentration camps ? Shoot them ? Or rather stunned by it all shambolically start processing the claims ?
Which takes us to Merkel. She saw a crisis and as the head of Europe's richest, biggest state with long term labour shortages and huge reserves of war guilt she undertook what the eurozone needs. A huge fiscal transfer from North to South by taking a million + migrants from poorer southern Europe. In doing so she mitigated one potential crisis. The Balkan trial could have become murderous. She also created another crisis. The perception rich, peaceful tolerant Germany was a choice is undoubtedly a pull factor. Interesting than number of new arrivals that quickly with no prior planning will be a war like task. The evidence todate is the Germans are performing another miracle relatively speaking.
It's a human disaster. But tell me what " Merkel " should have done, how she had the power to do it and what the alternative would have looked like.
As for this terrorist attack not happening that's ludicrous. It assumes the killer couldn't have got in anyway, that an alternative killer couldn't have been used and that it wouldn't have happen else where lower in the Balkan trial. Germans can legitimately argue the attack taking place elsewhere is cynically part of the German governments job but that's what we're discussing. Shifting the killing.
There is great evil in the world. This strain of Islamism is part of it. We must fight it. I think warping the global fight into a petty political narrative to allow folk to score points about migration they'd make anyway is nauseating.
I watched a prog about Amy Winehouse a day ago, a forensic psychologist noted she'd more than enough publicly noted behaviour to qualify as Borderline Personality Disorder - she was suffering from a lot of mental demons as a result of it, but she still chose to do what she did.
I agree with your distinction that the Jo Cox murder was individualised, and not calculated to cause mass murder or panic.
If you allow woolly descriptions of Terrorism, how long until Politically motivated Industrial action is described as terrorism?
Merkel indicated that they would be granted asylum in Germany and the numbers increased massively.
The idea that the borders of Europe couldn't have been secured better is of course nonsense as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-tYmyJSVo
And how are you defining " panic " ? Suspending campaigning in a national referendum for several days ? Recalling the British Parliament ? What psychological impact do you think it has on a community to have a young mother murdered in it's midst then have weeks of international media coverage ?
I sincerely doubt he's still doing the same cushy job due to the crash in tourism - but more so for being a Christian. His knowledge was top drawer - I hope he's a good billet somewhere else in education.
Edit: You have changed it to Airey Neave in your original comment!
Terrorism
Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.More at Wikipedia
The word indiscriminate as opposed to targeted is, I think, the difference in definition between a political murder and terrorism.
I spent a chunk of of my post pointing out the Border could have been secured and suggested why it wasn't. So that's nonsense as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/38379952
Loads more came after her intervention, it's pretty well documented.
And certain people would say the policy is "too tough" come hell or high water. Most people certainly weren't saying that.
In 2014 both parents born in France made up 70.75% of all births. A further 15.13% had one parent born in France.
12.5% (one in eight) births were to both parents born outside the EU28.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Births_by_country_of_birth_of_the_parents
Political murder is presumably a subset of terrorism. The IRA targeted Neave (and Mountbatten) to try to degrade the structures of the state. Same as Mair - destroying an official of a government whose views he disagreed with.
Both terrorism, IMO.
Doesn't really matter how many people you scare to qualify as terrorism.
The process will grind on for months/years but ultimately the divorce settlement will be between the EU and UK.
Following that settlement Nicola Sturgeon will be left with accepting the deal or holding a new referendum
He's not in the same bracket as an ideologue who was entirely average and had an agenda in mind.
I don't know why the path to relative enlightenment needed to be paved by the deaths of so many - perhaps their IQ wasn't high enough or they prayed to the wrong God or just looked different.
In an age of travel internal conflicts can be easily exported and indiscriminate death is part of a globalised world. The two things which provide relief are peace and prosperity. Economic development and individual wealth are integral to the pacification of society. It's the old adage about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.
It's controversial but if you want to stop people leaving give them a reason to stay. That means order, food, work, shelter and above all a stake in the future.
Ok I'm at work at the moment, but the stats for 2012 are documented here with a 34% birth rate for BME:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/the-africanization-of-france-medical-data-suggests-one-third-french-births-are-non-white/
Here is the raw data:
http://www.afdphe.org/sites/default/files/bilan_activite_2012.pdf
The latest figures which I don't have time to look for are over 40%.
The IRA (or ISIS - or a "lone wolf" inspired by ISIS) creates the fear that there are a number of connected people standing ready to execute on the next attack.
An individual attacker, like Mair, doesn't create that uncertainty. He murdered Jo Cox, was caught, tried and sentenced and is no longer a threat to the wider public. He isn't part of a group of attackers planning their next move.
Oh well, at least there will be food and wine on the Christmas dining table after all.
Are you sure about that? I'm sure I remember numbers arriving in Europe increased dramatically after that point and not just in Germany. Happy to be corrected.
I believe that a second referendum would fail again and I am sure Nicola Sturgeon deep down knows this.
Should be safely in the bank in a few days..
So what? It doesn't mean suspending them didn't encourage loads more to come which is clearly what happened.
That in itself is pretty much an ongoing threat. Not necessarily to Joe Public, but to the machinery of state which is arguably more serious.
I largely agree - it is ridiculous to focus on just one cause without addressing the wider catalogue of policy failure.
We should focus on (a) the failure of Western governments to pursue a more interventionist policy in the Middle East in recent years that would have prevented the region falling apart and generating a refugee crisis on a scale not seen since of WW2 and (b) the penny pinching (and penny wise pound foolish incidentally) approach to providing aid to help support and encourage those refugees remain in the Middle East as least and (c) the collective failure of the EU and nation states within it to bring in a large scale quota programme of managed migration including security service screening, as much as (d) the open borders within Europe that permitted a free for all of large scale uncontrolled migration upon breaching EU borders in the absence of effective policies along the lines of (a), (b) and (c).
But the mass migration was, is and will happen anyway. Which is why while we are all praising Cameron, the current frothing about making the 0.7% aid target the next populist goal is for the birds. The West is going to have to spend and spend big. Which is a better criticism of Merkel. Germany's aid budget isn't big for a rich northern European democracy and accommodating migrants in Germany it's self is very very expensive.
In retrospect the Germans should just have written a very very large cheque as a way of reducing the pressure in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Which they've belatedly started to do.
No, now is the time for people like you to keep quiet, on Brexit, on Islamic migration and on terrorism. You've been wrong on every single point and shouting down opposition by calling anyone who disagrees a racist is why we are where we are and countless people in Europe have died needlessly or had serious injuries from terrorist acts.
And the communitarians needs to realise that the community already present in a country has a stake and say in what happens. "Shut up and enjoy" is the policy of the ostrich.
One of the things we need is absolute judgement - the moral value (plus or minus) of the actions of all individuals needs to be measured against the same standard.
The clue to terrorism is in the name: the intent to terrorise a people or government into changing their behaviour in a way acceptable to the terrorists. That terror comes from the fear of what comes next and has to be based on a proven threat and a presumed capacity and willingness to repeat acts of terror. That's why I take issue with the word 'indiscriminate' in the definition. Terrorism is politics by other means and while acts may be indiscriminate, with the intention of creating terror within a people at large, they may also be specific and/or limited, in line with the political purpose intended.
The desire to blame Merkel for everything to do with the refugee crisis given all the many guilty parties involved in the migration crisis, not least our own complicity in the mess in Syria is a completely unthinking knee-jerk reaction.
Finally....
The odd thing is their sportsbook settled the PV market ages ago
https://twitter.com/raexno92/status/798232978396708864/photo/1
Anyway. At least we got there in the end..
And the anniversary of Lockerbie.
Merkel is one of the major causes of this problem in Europe, though the root cause is all of us telling people in Syria that they could have a democracy when a negotiated settlement with Assad is what we should have done.
Turnout is going to give them a headache, I make it out to be 59% - but they've created a rod for their own backs with that market.
I note the user posted up a sportsbook from his mobile, exchange betting on somewhat obscure markets is almost impossible from a mobile I've found - it is set up well enough for football ACCAs though........
Jack Jones stood as National Socialist in 1918 according to wikipedia.
*cough*temperaturecarbondioxide*cough*
De Maizière said there had been problems questioning him in the past because no translator could be found who spoke Baluchi.
But not the Cabinet Minister that I was thinking of...