I was with my leftwing, eco-conscious and very lovely girlfriend last night. She's 21 years old, smart and politically aware.
She expressed some very Katie Hopkins-esque opinions re Islam in the West. I was properly shocked.
If a Corbynite Millennial is thinking that kind of thing, even in the context of a horrible attack., and a few glasses of wine...
Just so fucking sad. All those screaming kids. Jesus.
Looking at Twitter I'm not necessarily sure that masses of Corbynite millenials are thinking along the lines of Hopkins, especially after her recent comments.
Anecdotal experiences aren't necessarily reflective of the public mood. If I trusted my own circle, I'd be thinking that Corbyn was heading towards 50+ majority.
What Corbynite millenials chose to exhibit to their friends on Twitter might be slightly different to what they hold in their own hearts. After all, expressing even qualified support for even the most generous of Ms Hopkin's views on social media is probably enough to get you drummed out of the Tufty club (* shows age).
The politi
In my experhe end. The cognitive dissonance required to be feminist and leftwing and yet supportive and protective of conservative Islam is too painful to last forever.
Hmmm. I'm someone who
(a. Hates the misogyny and violence of radical Islam (b. Dislikes Conservative aspects of any religion
I'd wager most young people think this way. Yet I'm not on board with a general negative view of all Muslims, and in my own experience most of the Muslims I know also hate the misogyny and violence of radical Islam. I wouldn't equate hating radical Islamism with a Katie Hopkins view of the world.
You're free to disagree with me, but you're not free to dispute my experiences. I have encountered these views several times now - quite unexpectedly - amongst young people, even the most leftwing and Corbynite.
They absolutely loathe the burqa, as an example.
But I don't want to get into some huge argument about Islam. Too depressing and enervating, right now.
Let's talk about how this horror affects the betting. 12 hours have passed. Betting brings sanity to the site. What are the odds Andrew Neil asks Corbyn about his views on, say, Hamas when he finally interviews him?
Evens?
Neil won't really be doing his job if he doesn't. Cameron and miliband had their history dragged over.
I was with my leftwing, eco-conscious and very lovely girlfriend last night. She's 21 years old, smart and politically aware.
.
Looking at Twitter I'm not necessarily sure that masses of Corbynite millenials are thinking along the lines of Hopkins, especially after her recent comments.
Anecdotal experiences aren't necessarily reflective of the public mood. If I trusted my own circle, I'd be thinking that Corbyn was heading towards 50+ majority.
What Corbynite millenials chose to exhibit to their friends on Twitter might be slightly different to what they hold in their own hearts. After all, expressing even qualified support for even the most generous of Ms Hopkin's views on social media is probably enough to get you drummed out of the Tufty club (* shows age).
The political outlook of Corbyn supporters means that them entertaining Hopkins world view is incredibly unlikely. This is borne out on Twitter, and many other documented observations of their views. In previous incidents, most have taken a view that is more along the lines of being critical of Western foreign policy - that is part of a larger, 'anti-Imperialist/anti-Western' outlook.
In my experience, there is a subset of young lefties which is beginning to dislike and mistrust Islam or Islamism. They're still hugely critical of western foreign policy, but they abhor (in private, for now) the misogyny and violence of radical Islam.
It was inevitable, in the end. The cognitive dissonance required to be feminist and leftwing and yet supportive and protective of conservative Islam is too painful to last forever.
Hmmm. I'm someone who
(a. Hates the misogyny and violence of radical Islam (b. Dislikes Conservative aspects of any religion
I'd wager most young people think this way. Yet I'm not on board with a general negative view of all Muslim [...]
There is a difference between being more vigorous about the positive aspects of our society - including freedom of speech, defending our equality laws, promoting democracy and opposing violence - and measures that "clamp down" (as a previous post put it) on Islam, but will achieve nothing in terms of security and simply create new grievances - such as banning face veils.
I also share the concerns being expressed about faith schools, but most of those are Christian; there is currently only a handful of muslim schools.
Yep - a lot of what you've said sums up my position entirely.
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he expects us all to believe he expedited the NI peace process, when in reality he gave succour to one side, and one side only. That is not a peace broker, nor is it the actions of a pacifist.
This goes to the heart of what Corbyn is - a two headed snake. One head preaches domestic pacifism, the other anti British sentiment - including Irish Republican terrorism. There is no hiding place for Mr Corbyn any more on this matter - he cannot unsay what he said, and he cannot undo what he did.
He was an IRA sympathiser, and therefore a terrorist sympathiser, and therefore he was relaxed about their campaign of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
The public don't know, and if the political truce lasts until the weekend there's precious little time to make them aware.
Correction - they didn't know. That Sun headline changes all of that now, and security matters will start to dominate the narrative. Corbyn's worst nightmare is about to engulf him.
Labour put up a man as potential Prime Minister who has sided with terrorists in the past. With the enemies of this country. A man who would not use shoot to kill. A man who has serious qualms about using drones on those outside our country plotting to set up terror strikes within our country. A man who would have the farce of building submarines (because the unions still want the jobs) but who wouldn't arm them - or if he did, wouldn't fire them under any circumstances.
You, as an apologist for that man, have a much bigger fucking problem than Theresa May claiming she closed down the election.
Who are you calling an "apologist"? Can I be a "fellow traveller"?
It's you who have the problem. You're trying to say a terror attack on a pop concert in Manchester strengthens the case for Britain having strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed for use against cities, namely to massacre civilians.
I've now found Jeremy Corbyn's speech and watched it. It was even more crap than Theresa May's. Two lines stood out:
"This is an appalling act of violence against people." (Really?) "We have to make sure we live in a safe environment in the future." (What an embarrassing thing to say.)
BTW had you read Labour's manifesto you would know that they are promising to replace Trident. That is not because of trade unions wanting to protect jobs but because the Labour party hasn't got the guts to oppose the warfare state in a more profound way. The last thing they would want to do is upset the US government or call NATO membership into question or upset the British (or US) military-industrial complex too much - and in that respect they look just like the Tories. Where Jeremy Corbyn does deserve praise is at least he has said that he would not let loose these obscene weapons. As soon as Theresa May became PM she said hell yeah, she'd be blood-dripping-from-fangs willing to let them loose (i.e. nuke whole cities out of existence), so it can't be denied that there's a difference in attitudes between the parties here.
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he expects us all to believe he expedited the NI peace process, when in reality he gave succour to one side, and one side only. That is not a peace broker, nor is it the actions of a pacifist.
This goes to the heart of what Corbyn is - a two headed snake. One head preaches domestic pacifism, the other anti British sentiment - including Irish Republican terrorism. There is no hiding place for Mr Corbyn any more on this matter - he cannot unsay what he said, and he cannot undo what he did.
He was an IRA sympathiser, and therefore a terrorist sympathiser, and therefore he was relaxed about their campaign of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
The public don't know, and if the political truce lasts until the weekend there's precious little time to make them aware.
Correction - they didn't know. That Sun headline changes all of that now, and security matters will start to dominate the narrative. Corbyn's worst nightmare is about to engulf him.
I wish you were right, but suspending the campaign means he can't be attacked on it right away.
The Tories need to go hammer and tongs on him, McDonnell and Abbott from tomorrow.
The Manchester bombing will dominate from now to the weekend. Any polls that have been taken before that time now become somewhat meaningless. The ones from about this Friday will be those that need to be looked at. A bit like after 7/7 be prepared for many more sirens around our cities over the next 2 weeks. Everytime tjat people hear one it will focus their attention on their and their families security. Corbyn will do well to push his parties poll rating up from 34%
I've no doubt that Jezza is well-meaning, but he has the fantastic ability to shoot himself in the foot unprompted. What really began the rot was his comments on Jihadi John. Had they come from the Archbishop of Canterbury, they might have passed unnoticed, but not from a potential PM.
I summarise. We can't possibly use the drones, that would be unfair. Sent him a strongly-worded e-mail asking him to present himself at the nearest police station, if that's convenient.
Sergeant Wilson from Dad's Army was meant to be a comedy sketch.
I presume the ISIS aligned tweet apparently posted 6pm last night referring to terror and specifically tagging the Manchester Arena, which the Daily Mail has picked up and publicised, is a fake?
I was with my leftwing, eco-conscious and very lovely girlfriend last night. She's 21 years old, smart and politically aware.
She expressed some very Katie Hopkins-esque opinions re Islam in the West. I was properly shocked.
If a Corbynite Millennial is thinking that kind of thing, even in the context of a horrible attack., and a few glasses of wine...
Just so fucking sad. All those screaming kids. Jesus.
Looking at Twitter I'm not necessarily sure that masses of Corbynite millenials are thinking along the lines of Hopkins, especially after her recent comments.
Anecdotal experiences aren't necessarily reflective of the public mood. If I trusted my own circle, I'd be thinking that Corbyn was heading towards 50+ majority.
What Corbynite millenials chose to exhibit to their friends on Twitter might be slightly different to what they hold in their own hearts. After all, expressing even qualified support for even the most generous of Ms Hopkin's views on social media is probably enough to get you drummed out of the Tufty club (* shows age).
The politi
In my experhe end. The cognitive dissonance required to be feminist and leftwing and yet supportive and protective of conservative Islam is too painful to last forever.
Hmmm. I'm someone who negative view of all Muslims, and in my own experience most of the Muslims I know also hate the misogyny and violence of radical Islam. I wouldn't equate hating radical Islamism with a K
You're free to disagree with me, but you're not free to dispute my experiences. I have encountered these views several times now - quite unexpectedly - amongst young people, even the most leftwing and Corbynite.
They absolutely loathe the burqa, as an example.
But I don't want to get into some huge argument about Islam. Too depressing and enervating, right now.
Let's talk about how this horror affects the betting. 12 hours have passed. Betting brings sanity to the site. What are the odds Andrew Neil asks Corbyn about his views on, say, Hamas when he finally interviews him?
Evens?
I'm not disputing the fact you've experienced these things - just questioning the extent to which they are representative of young people as a whole. I'll leave it at that, as I think both you and I don't want to get into this big kind of discussion today.
Neil interview will probably be v bad for Corbyn. But I think a lot of the problematic aspects of Corbyn are already factored in at this stage. His past has been well documented and known by now - which is why Corbyn will lose on June 8th.
The Manchester bombing will dominate from now to the weekend. Any polls that have been taken before that time now become somewhat meaningless. The ones from about this Friday will be those that need to be looked at. A bit like after 7/7 be prepared for many more sirens around our cities over the next 2 weeks. Everytime tjat people hear one it will focus their attention on their and their families security. Corbyn will do well to push his parties poll rating up from 34%
If he did that, he'd be approaching a Lazarus style miracle. Be lucky to get over 30% now.
I presume the ISIS aligned tweet apparently posted 6pm last night referring to terror and specifically tagging the Manchester Arena, which the Daily Mail has picked up and publicised, is a fake?
I was with my leftwing, eco-conscious and very lovely girlfriend last night. She's 21 years old, smart and politically aware.
She expressed some very Katie Hopkins-esque opinions re Islam in the West. I was properly shocked.
If a Corbynite Millennial is thinking that kind of thing, even in the context of a horrible attack., and a few glasses of wine...
Just so fucking sad. All those screaming kids. Jesus.
Lookinding towards 50+ majority.
What Corbynite in's views on social media is probably enough to get you drummed out of the Tufty club (* shows age).
The politi
In my experhe end. The cognitive dissonance required to be feminist and leftwing and yet supportive and protective of conservative Islam is too painful to last forever.
Hmmmorld.
You're free to disagree with me, but you're not free to dispute my experiences. I have encountered these views several times now - quite unexpectedly - amongst young people, even the most leftwing and Corbynite.
They absolutely loathe the burqa, as an example.
But I don't want to get into some huge argument about Islam. Too depressing and enervating, right now.
Let's talk about how this horror affects the betting. 12 hours have passed. Betting brings sanity to the site. What are the odds Andrew Neil asks Corbyn about his views on, say, Hamas when he finally interviews him?
Evens?
Neil won't really be doing his job if he doesn't. Cameron and miliband had their history dragged over.
Yes. Quite right. It is Neil's job. I hope he goes - forensically - for the jugular. Everyone needs the harshest scrutiny, and Corbyn's previous record on terror and terrorism is just unacceptable. ESPECIALLY now.
Labour will no doubt blame scheduling difficulties for why Corbyn won't appear with Neil.
Appropriate IMO that the interviews are suspended, hopefully they’ll be on again next week.
I think politics is off for the rest of the week now, probably until Sunday. Everyone needs to echo the PMs comments then say nothing for a few days. There has to be a non-negligible chance that someone will open their mouth only to insert their foot.
Agreed. There are several examples on this thread.
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he expects us all to believe he expedited the NI peace process, when in reality he gave succour to one side, and one side only. That is not a peace broker, nor is it the actions of a pacifist.
This goes to the heart of what Corbyn is - a two headed snake. One head preaches domestic pacifism, the other anti British sentiment - including Irish Republican terrorism. There is no hiding place for Mr Corbyn any more on this matter - he cannot unsay what he said, and he cannot undo what he did.
He was an IRA sympathiser, and therefore a terrorist sympathiser, and therefore he was relaxed about their campaign of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
I appreciate your strongly believe views.Did he ever support bombing innocent civilians !Or did he support the political objective of a united Ireland.I remember in the 80s many did including I think Ken Livingstone who went onto be London Mayor.As I say he seems to me a pacifist .He was against the Iraq war and Libya .I supported the Iraq war so I now listen to what he says as I was wrong due to all the implications from that decision.I just think that things are not as black and white as you make out..What war with UK involvement did you object to since world war 2 ?
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time in terms of number dead, suicide bomber etc etc etc. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
I also share the concerns being expressed about faith schools, but most of those are Christian; there is currently only a handful of muslim schools.
According to the BBC, the COnservative manifesto includes the following interesting snippet|:
New faith schools will now have to prove parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school
That's much better. I've no objection to faith schools if the Department of Education really does impose and enforce that stipulation.
That's a very neat and impecably Conservative solution to the thorny problem of how the government can distinguish between the sorts of faith school which are fine and those which definitely aren't: let the free market decide.
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
They've probably been explicitly asked to not name him so they can get his associates. US media sticking their oar in.
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time in terms of number dead, suicide bomber etc etc etc. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
Suggestions that UK intelligence sources briefed their US colleagues, who then leaked it all.
So we broadly now fit into two camps. Those of us who want Corbyn's past associations blazoned all over the media, right now, to do the maximum amount of damage, and his apologists who want this line of discussion to be quashed (all in the name of good taste, of course) in case it maximises the damage against him.
I'm happy to admit I want to see him crushed into a pulp by any means possible, and I make no apology for it.
His apologists have to reconcile themselves with their own motives for propping up a terrorist sympathiser.
A really positive side of social media. So glad that girl is safe. Poor thing must be traumatised. The surviving victims are going to need a ton of councilling and support, as well as the grieving families of the deceased.
The Manchester bombing will dominate from now to the weekend. Any polls that have been taken before that time now become somewhat meaningless. The ones from about this Friday will be those that need to be looked at. A bit like after 7/7 be prepared for many more sirens around our cities over the next 2 weeks. Everytime tjat people hear one it will focus their attention on their and their families security. Corbyn will do well to push his parties poll rating up from 34%
The media over the next few days will be dominated by images of bright young girls cut down. Or maimed for life.
And Corbyn's, and McDonnell's, and Abbot's, views on terrorists. I wonder if the failure of MI5 to stop this bomber counts as a "defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us". Eh Diane?
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he expects us all to believe he expedited the NI peace process, when in reality he gave succour to one side, and one side only. That is not a peace broker, nor is it the actions of a pacifist.
This goes to the heart of what Corbyn is - a two headed snake. One head preaches domestic pacifism, the other anti British sentiment - including Irish Republican terrorism. There is no hiding place for Mr Corbyn any more on this matter - he cannot unsay what he said, and he cannot undo what he did.
He was an IRA sympathiser, and therefore a terrorist sympathiser, and therefore he was relaxed about their campaign of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
I appreciate your strongly believe views.Did he ever support bombing innocent civilians !Or did he support the political objective of a united Ireland.I remember in the 80s many did including I think Ken Livingstone who went onto be London Mayor.As I say he seems to me a pacifist .He was against the Iraq war and Libya .I supported the Iraq war so I now listen to what he says as I was wrong due to all the implications from that decision.I just think that things are not as black and white as you make out..What war with UK involvement did you object to since world war 2 ?
My motives aren't relevant, but an individual presenting himself to be the PM of the country I live in certainly are. Yes, he supported the political objective of a united Ireland, but that nevertheless involved him associating and supporting the IRA.
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987: MP hails IRA dead A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago. Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster… He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time in terms of number dead, suicide bomber etc etc etc. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
Suggestions that UK intelligence sources briefed their US colleagues, who then leaked it all.
Not happy.
Real, or a joke regarding Trump? (sorry, not sure)
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time in terms of number dead, suicide bomber etc etc etc. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
Were US media following Ariana Grande's tour? She is American after all.
So we broadly now fit into two camps. Those of us who want Corbyn's past associations blazoned all over the media, right now, to do the maximum amount of damage, and his apologists who want this line of discussion to be quashed (all in the name of good taste, of course) in case it maximises the damage against him.
I'm happy to admit I want to see him crushed into a pulp by any means possible, and I make no apology for it.
His apologists have to reconcile themselves with their own motives for propping up a terrorist sympathiser.
Jason, I think you will get what you want. But, can't you wait 48 hours? It really doesn't have to be right now.
The stuff about the IRA won't resonate with anyone younger than about 40,
But, Jazza's past statements on middle-east terrorism, on Hamas and Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden, will be extremely difficult for him.
I expect the Tories to go dirty. I would have more sympathy for Labour if they hadn't already smeared the Tories over the 'dementia tax'.
I presume the ISIS aligned tweet apparently posted 6pm last night referring to terror and specifically tagging the Manchester Arena, which the Daily Mail has picked up and publicised, is a fake?
Time zone difference?
Yes, I didn't think of that right away, and it doesn't look like it has occurred to the DM, which is reporting "Terrifyingly, two tweets (left) posted four hours before the attack appeared to predict it".
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he expects us all to believe he expedited the NI peace process, when in reality he gave succour to one side, and one side only. That is not a peace broker, nor is it the actions of a pacifist.
This goes to the heart of what Corbyn is - a two headed snake. One head preaches domestic pacifism, the other anti British sentiment - including Irish Republican terrorism. There is no hiding place for Mr Corbyn any more on this matter - he cannot unsay what he said, and he cannot undo what he did.
He was an IRA sympathiser, and therefore a terrorist sympathiser, and therefore he was relaxed about their campaign of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
I appreciate your strongly believe views.Did he ever support bombing innocent civilians !Or did he support the political objective of a united Ireland.I remember in the 80s many did including I think Ken Livingstone who went onto be London Mayor.As I say he seems to me a pacifist .He was against the Iraq war and Libya .I supported the Iraq war so I now listen to what he says as I was wrong due to all the implications from that decision.I just think that things are not as black and white as you make out..What war with UK involvement did you object to since world war 2 ?
My motives aren't relevant, but an individual presenting himself to be the PM of the country I live in certainly are. Yes, he supported the political objective of a united Ireland, but that nevertheless involved him associating and supporting the IRA.
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987: MP hails IRA dead A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago. Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster… He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
I've no doubt that Jezza is well-meaning, but he has the fantastic ability to shoot himself in the foot unprompted. What really began the rot was his comments on Jihadi John. Had they come from the Archbishop of Canterbury, they might have passed unnoticed, but not from a potential PM.
I summarise. We can't possibly use the drones, that would be unfair. Sent him a strongly-worded e-mail asking him to present himself at the nearest police station, if that's convenient.
Sergeant Wilson from Dad's Army was meant to be a comedy sketch.
Very true that is how I see him ? That might be a better way of portraying him rather than foaming at the mouth making out he is a terrorist.
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
They've probably been explicitly asked to not name him so they can get his associates. US media sticking their oar in.
Erm, won't his associates already know they are his associates?
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
They've probably been explicitly asked to not name him so they can get his associates. US media sticking their oar in.
Erm, won't his associates already know they are his associates?
Yes, but they may be unaware it was him if they were not directly involved in the plot.
It is interesting the us media are again way ahead on the story.
D notice?
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
They've probably been explicitly asked to not name him so they can get his associates. US media sticking their oar in.
Erm, won't his associates already know they are his associates?
Presumably the thinking is that if the authorities don't know who he was then they are safe.
As the authorities do know, then this gives them notice to do a disappearing act.
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he exn of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
I apprewar with UK involvement did you object to since world war 2 ?
My motives aren't relevant, but an individual presenting himself to be the PM of the country I live in certainly are. Yes, he supported the political objective of a united Ireland, but that nevertheless involved him associating and supporting the IRA.
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987: MP hails IRA dead A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago. Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster… He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
And let us not forget the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, who said we should "honour the bombs and bullets of the IRA", those same bombs and bullets which killed innocent men, women and children in Warrington, and which blitzed the centre of Manchester.
"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle.
"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA."
I also share the concerns being expressed about faith schools, but most of those are Christian; there is currently only a handful of muslim schools.
According to the BBC, the COnservative manifesto includes the following interesting snippet|:
New faith schools will now have to prove parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school
That's much better. I've no objection to faith schools if the Department of Education really does impose and enforce that stipulation.
Personally I don't have a problem with faith schools. However, for those that do I suspect this snippet isn't the good news that some think.
The full sentence in the Conservative manifesto is, "We will replace the unfair and ineffective inclusivity rules that prevent the establishment of new Roman Catholic schools, instead requiring new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school." The "unfair and ineffective inclusivity rule" to which they refer is the requirement that any new faith school must allocate at least 50% of its places without reference to faith.
The Catholic Education Service objects strongly to this, arguing that it means some Catholic children would be excluded from Catholic schools because they are Catholic. They argue that part of the Admissions Code means that they can allocate 50% of places to Catholic applicants but must then allocate the other 50% to non-Catholic applicants. Since the second 50% must be allocated without reference to faith their interpretation is clearly wrong. Nonetheless, on the back of this the Catholic church has not allowed the establishment of any Catholic free schools. Near me, a Catholic independent school was prevented from becoming a free school based entirely on objections to this part of the Admissions Code. This happened notwithstanding the fact that the school currently allocates 100% of its places without reference to faith - those who perform best at the entrance exam get places. Apparently no bread at all is better than half a loaf.
What this proposal means is that new faith schools will no longer be required to allocate 50% of their places without reference to faith. Instead they will simply have to show that parents of other faiths and none will be prepared to send their children to that school. So new Catholic schools will be able to allocate 100% of their places to Catholics provided they can show that some non-Catholics would like their children to attend the school. This is much weaker than the current provision. I doubt it meets SeanT's concerns.
I expect that they'll be rescheduled for later in the campaign. Or they might just bump Nuttall out if campaigning's back on tomorrow (which'd feel a bit early, to my mind). UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance.
No chance. The BBC would not need that kind of controversy. Nuttall will get his turn, and so he should.
One thing I'd like to see happen is for these cretins issuing fake tweets about missing youngsters to be crucified by the courts. A slap on the wrist is not good enough, we need naming, shaming, and jail sentences.
OK, serious thoughts as to how this will affect the election. I say it will crystalise the public's view that Corbyn would be a massive risk and a completely irrational choice as a PM, not that he was going to ever achieve that anyway.
But even less so now.
Thoughts, anyone?
It was a forgone conclusion anyway.I do not believe anyone rally thought he would be PM.What are you really saying that he encourages terrorism ? He always comes across as a pacifist to me .
No, he exn of murder - including women and children. It's why his words were so hard to stomach this morning. The very people he unashamedly - and unequivocally supported - killed women and children.
I apprewar with UK involvement did you object to since world war 2 ?
My motives aren't relevant, but an individual presenting himself to be the PM of the country I live in certainly are. Yes, he supported the political objective of a united Ireland, but that nevertheless involved him associating and supporting the IRA.
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987: MP hails IRA dead A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago. Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster… He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
And let us not forget the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, who said we should "honour the bombs and bullets of the IRA", those same bombs and bullets which killed innocent men, women and children in Warrington, and which blitzed the centre of Manchester.
"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle.
"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA."
I've no doubt that Jezza is well-meaning, but he has the fantastic ability to shoot himself in the foot unprompted. What really began the rot was his comments on Jihadi John. Had they come from the Archbishop of Canterbury, they might have passed unnoticed, but not from a potential PM.
I summarise. We can't possibly use the drones, that would be unfair. Sent him a strongly-worded e-mail asking him to present himself at the nearest police station, if that's convenient.
Sergeant Wilson from Dad's Army was meant to be a comedy sketch.
Wilson was prepared to fight for his country, and did so.
"Didn't realise I needed credentials to post here. Why the hell should I bother where you are or who you are? Does your opinion count more than mine? do you have a second preferential opinion or is it FPTP? As others have alluded to, Manchester and the North West is very subdued today. The relevance of Warrington is because that is where I am now, born and bred. I had kids in that town centre, that morning. Do you have any concept of what that is like? No mobiles, no social media, just silence until they walked through the door. Forgive me if I am upsetting your sensibilities on pointing out the well documented attitude of Jeremy Corbyn on the subject of terrorism. Please let me know when you feel it would be suitable to express my opinion on this subject and I will duly ignore you. Thanks"
****
You're free to say almost anything you like on here, which is what makes it such a great site. So: don't let anyone silence you, but don't expect to comment without pushback, either.
My motives aren't relevant, but an individual presenting himself to be the PM of the country I live in certainly are. Yes, he supported the political objective of a united Ireland, but that nevertheless involved him associating and supporting the IRA.
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987: MP hails IRA dead A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago. Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster… He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
Besides which, he is standing on a platform which includes his friend and Chancellor who said, while speaking at an event commemorating the death of Bobby Sands no less:
'It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. 'The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.'
I expect that they'll be rescheduled for later in the campaign. Or they might just bump Nuttall out if campaigning's back on tomorrow (which'd feel a bit early, to my mind). UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance.
No chance. The BBC would not need that kind of controversy. Nuttall will get his turn, and so he should.
Agreed in a democracy he should especially as they have differing views to the main parties.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
1/10 about a Tory majority looks like free money. Certainly safer than the 1/10 NOM in 2015
This attack will dominate the next months news, Corbyn cannot win.
Laying Corbyn at 11.5 for PM after the election, the DUP won't prop him up even if the Tories fall short - which seems incredibly unlikely. I see no way he can command the confidence of the house.
I dont know, right from the get go they knew way ahead of bbc / sky, so much so sky were quoting nbc most of the time in terms of number dead, suicide bomber etc etc etc. It was suggested us media were getting their info from us intelligence sources.
Suggestions that UK intelligence sources briefed their US colleagues, who then leaked it all.
Not happy.
Are you not missing 'who briefed the White House' out of that chain?
I've no doubt that Jezza is well-meaning, but he has the fantastic ability to shoot himself in the foot unprompted. What really began the rot was his comments on Jihadi John. Had they come from the Archbishop of Canterbury, they might have passed unnoticed, but not from a potential PM.
I summarise. We can't possibly use the drones, that would be unfair. Sent him a strongly-worded e-mail asking him to present himself at the nearest police station, if that's convenient.
Sergeant Wilson from Dad's Army was meant to be a comedy sketch.
Very true that is how I see him ? That might be a better way of portraying him rather than foaming at the mouth making out he is a terrorist.
Nobody ever said he was a terrorist himself, ever as far as I'm aware. What I said is that he is a two headed snake, because he has totally different motivations when it comes to the enemies of Britain and domestic thinking. He'd happily disarm this country, I believe, if he thought he could get away with it. On the other hand, he would send a hand written apology to the family of a dead terrorist in Sudan or Somalia for inconveniencing them.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
That's a stretch.
The question to ask is had a terrorist sympathiser not been LotO would the PM have said the same thing? Yes, she would as it was entirely relevant.
It's not the PM's fault that the LotO was a keen advocate for those who bombed Manchester or my hometown of Warrington etc - she shouldn't censor her sympathy to Mancs because of that.
I visited the Arndale many times during February and March when I stayed in Manchester (two weeks in total) during my railway "Northern Expedition". I did the National Football Museum in March, and used Victoria station a lot too.
That's much better. I've no objection to faith schools if the Department of Education really does impose and enforce that stipulation.
Personally I don't have a problem with faith schools. However, for those that do I suspect this snippet isn't the good news that some think.
The full sentence in the Conservative manifesto is, "We will replace the unfair and ineffective inclusivity rules that prevent the establishment of new Roman Catholic schools, instead requiring new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school." The "unfair and ineffective inclusivity rule" to which they refer is the requirement that any new faith school must allocate at least 50% of its places without reference to faith.
The Catholic Education Service objects strongly to this, arguing that it means some Catholic children would be excluded from Catholic schools because they are Catholic. They argue that part of the Admissions Code means that they can allocate 50% of places to Catholic applicants but must then allocate the other 50% to non-Catholic applicants. Since the second 50% must be allocated without reference to faith their interpretation is clearly wrong. Nonetheless, on the back of this the Catholic church has not allowed the establishment of any Catholic free schools. Near me, a Catholic independent school was prevented from becoming a free school based entirely on objections to this part of the Admissions Code. This happened notwithstanding the fact that the school currently allocates 100% of its places without reference to faith - those who perform best at the entrance exam get places. Apparently no bread at all is better than half a loaf.
What this proposal means is that new faith schools will no longer be required to allocate 50% of their places without reference to faith. Instead they will simply have to show that parents of other faiths and none will be prepared to send their children to that school. So new Catholic schools will be able to allocate 100% of their places to Catholics provided they can show that some non-Catholics would like their children to attend the school. This is much weaker than the current provision. I doubt it meets SeanT's concerns.
Exactly. Faith schools generally oppose the requirement to take a proportion of other(/non)-faith pupils, intended to ensure some diversity at all schools and make it less likely that schools flout the other requirements to teach a balanced curriculum etc, because they aspire to a mono-faith pupil base. This is the Tories pandering to the faith school lobby - the precise opposite of what they should be doing.
In what way? Reminding Corbyn of his actual views and deeds isn't dirty, clearly.
You have slightly taken my words out of context.
My point was (as someone's whose mother died of dementia and understands the present system), the Labour party already smeared the Tories on the dementia tax.
Corbyn is in a difficult & vulnerable position. I expect the nuances of his position to be ignored and him to be smeared. (I mean, I think his position is more nuanced than "I love terrorists")
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn,
I thought the PM showed restraint by not mentioning the authors of the earlier Manchester bomb (or fatal Warrington bomb, which killed children also) - Corbyn's IRA support is not her fault.
I expect that they'll be rescheduled for later in the campaign. Or they might just bump Nuttall out if campaigning's back on tomorrow (which'd feel a bit early, to my mind). UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance.
No chance. The BBC would not need that kind of controversy. Nuttall will get his turn, and so he should.
They could put him on BBC3?
Being serious, I don't think he should get a turn. UKIP is now on a par with Plaid and the Greens in terms of significance, not the SNP, Lib Dems, Tories or Labour.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
Funny thing is, that the IRA bomb in 96 was the trigger for the wholesale regeneration of the Arndale Centre area, but never had the impetus until the area needed rebuilding. Growing up in Manchester, it felt the 2 step-changes in terms of development were this and the 2002 Commonwealth Games (where everything untidy was finished or badly covered up but at least it improved the appearance of the city no end.)
I think this will have a huge impact on our national mood - as well as feeling close to home as I've been to the Arena (alas never to see Steps) I think the bombardment we're about to get of pictures of such young victims is likely to strike even more of a chord than the Westminster attack. It's one thing seeing adult victims, but kids having a night out at a concert? Barbaric.
As for the politics (and I agree that there are others days for this) my guess is that it'll affect things far less than we might imagine today. No-one will hold back on condemning this, TM looks presidential but she's already locked up the voters who are looking for that. I hope that's the case - while I'll mourn the victims I don't want to give an ounce of publicity to the person / people who did this, and I don't want them to be able to take credit for influencing our democracy in the slightest.
In what way? Reminding Corbyn of his actual views and deeds isn't dirty, clearly.
Yes. In fairness the Tories don't need to exploit this. In the event of a terror attack Corbyn was going to look weak, hypocritical and treacherous. Sadly in the current climate there was always a chance it would happen in the campaigning cycle, if not here then in Paris or Berlin. This particular attack is on a huge scale and affects the most vulnerable and will spark the greatest emotive reaction in years from the British public.
No doubt some on the far left will blame false flags, MSM or Lynton Crosby for potential electoral defeat but the truth is the baggage Corbyn has built up over decades with regards IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah associations and with his soft line on dealing with terror was always going to be a huge risk for any party leader in the event of a security incident. It is he and McDonnell who will shoulder the blame, no one aiming for the PM job should ever leave themselves so open to weakness due to indiscretions in their past.
In what way? Reminding Corbyn of his actual views and deeds isn't dirty, clearly.
You have slightly taken my words out of context.
My point was (as someone's whose mother died of dementia and understands the present system), the Labour party already smeared the Tories on the dementia tax.
Corbyn is in a difficult & vulnerable position. I expect the nuances of his position to be ignored and him to be smeared. (I mean, I think his position is more nuanced than "I love terrorists")
So be it. What goes around comes around.
But what do you mean by 'smeared' though?
Reminding him of his actual views and deeds isn't smearing, nor is it a personal attack.
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn,
I thought the PM showed restraint by not mentioning the authors of the earlier Manchester bomb (or fatal Warrington bomb, which killed children also) - Corbyn's IRA support is not her fault.
Yep. You can't blame May for mentioning previous atrocities in the same City. Cyan, really my friend, you seriously need to re-evaluate your thinking on this subject. You're on the wrong side, I'm afraid, and in your heart, you probably already know that.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
Or she was stating an inconvenient fact.
She could have made it a lot more inconvenient by mentioning who did it....which she didn't...
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
Good lord - has someone taken your stone because you'd really be better off crawling back under it.
In what way? Reminding Corbyn of his actual views and deeds isn't dirty, clearly.
Yes. In fairness the Tories don't need to exploit this. In the event of a terror attack Corbyn was going to look weak, hypocritical and treacherous. Sadly in the current climate there was always a chance it would happen in the campaigning cycle, if not here then in Paris or Berlin. This particular attack is on a huge scale and affects the most vulnerable and will spark the greatest emotive reaction in years from the British public.
No doubt some on the far left will blame false flags, MSM or Lynton Crosby for potential electoral defeat but the truth is the baggage Corbyn has built up over decades with regards IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah associations and with his soft line on dealing with terror was always going to be a huge risk for any party leader in the event of a security incident. It is he and McDonnell who will shoulder the blame, no one aiming for the PM job should ever leave themselves so open to weakness due to indiscretions in their past.
I expect that they'll be rescheduled for later in the campaign. Or they might just bump Nuttall out if campaigning's back on tomorrow (which'd feel a bit early, to my mind). UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance.
No chance. The BBC would not need that kind of controversy. Nuttall will get his turn, and so he should.
They could put him on BBC3?
"UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance."?? On the polling, you mean? I don't think the Beeb should react to short-term stimuli like that, esp. with pollsters being on probation from the last GE. Bumping him out after last night would be the biggest political present anyone could give him; nothing would reinvigorate his troops like a plausible claim that the establishment had conspired to prevent him telling it like it is about Manchester.
1/10 about a Tory majority looks like free money. Certainly safer than the 1/10 NOM in 2015
This attack will dominate the next months news, Corbyn cannot win.
Laying Corbyn at 11.5 for PM after the election, the DUP won't prop him up even if the Tories fall short - which seems incredibly unlikely. I see no way he can command the confidence of the house.
Any Labour MP who supported him would be smearing the name of the party they claim to love.
Exactly. Faith schools generally oppose the requirement to take a proportion of other(/non)-faith pupils, intended to ensure some diversity at all schools and make it less likely that schools flout the other requirements to teach a balanced curriculum etc, because they aspire to a mono-faith pupil base. This is the Tories pandering to the faith school lobby - the precise opposite of what they should be doing.
To be fair, I don't think the Anglican church is opposed - certainly not to the same extent as the Catholics. An increasing number of existing Anglican schools reserve a proportion of their places for applicants of other faiths or no faith even though they are not required to do so. It is the Catholics and at least some non-Christian faiths that want to be able to allocate 100% of their places to faith applicants.
Insidious, really? "Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects", you're havin' a larf. :-) , never mind, nice to talk, I hope the next time our paths cross it will be under happier circumstances.
You stated you had been a lurker for many years and yet you do not know where I am based. You can't have been lurking very often if you are unaware of my location, or my identity generally. I've been posting since March 2005 (the first 10,000 or so posts were under a very slightly different username, before Mike switched to Vanilla) so to regulars I should think I'm almost family.
Excuse me if I find your credentials a bit thin.
Didn't realise I needed credentials to post here. Why the hell should I bother where you are or who you are? Does your opinion count more than mine? do you have a second preferential opinion or is it FPTP? As others have alluded to, Manchester and the North West is very subdued today. The relevance of Warrington is because that is where I am now, born and bred. I had kids in that town centre, that morning. Do you have any concept of what that is like? No mobiles, no social media, just silence until they walked through the door. Forgive me if I am upsetting your sensibilities on pointing out the well documented attitude of Jeremy Corbyn on the subject of terrorism. Please let me know when you feel it would be suitable to express my opinion on this subject and I will duly ignore you. Thanks
Lots of questions, Wire! I'll try to answer the more relevant ones.
No, of course everybody is free to post, subject to the Will Of Mike.
No reason why you should bother with me, but you did say you'd been a lurker for many years.
Strangely, I don't think all opinions are equal.
As you may know from your years of lurking, it would be very surprising if I were not familiar with the kind of anxieties about loved ones to which you fere. I was working in the City, ffs, when the July bombs went off.
I have no special sensibilities as regards Corbyn, which again you might know already from all your lurking.
Were the remarks in your first post 'opinions'? I called them insidious. Nothing you have posted since causes me to change my mind.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39996224
Take a look at the pictures.
It's like the 15th century.
New faith schools will now have to prove parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school
The Tories need to go hammer and tongs on him, McDonnell and Abbott from tomorrow.
A bit like after 7/7 be prepared for many more sirens around our cities over the next 2 weeks. Everytime tjat people hear one it will focus their attention on their and their families security. Corbyn will do well to push his parties poll rating up from 34%
I summarise. We can't possibly use the drones, that would be unfair. Sent him a strongly-worded e-mail asking him to present himself at the nearest police station, if that's convenient.
Sergeant Wilson from Dad's Army was meant to be a comedy sketch.
Neil interview will probably be v bad for Corbyn. But I think a lot of the problematic aspects of Corbyn are already factored in at this stage. His past has been well documented and known by now - which is why Corbyn will lose on June 8th.
Not happy.
I'm happy to admit I want to see him crushed into a pulp by any means possible, and I make no apology for it.
His apologists have to reconcile themselves with their own motives for propping up a terrorist sympathiser.
His name origin won't come as a shock.
And Corbyn's, and McDonnell's, and Abbot's, views on terrorists. I wonder if the failure of MI5 to stop this bomber counts as a "defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us". Eh Diane?
I think it's time, once again, to quote this piece from the Sunday Express -
From the Sunday Express, May 1987:
MP hails IRA dead
A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago.
Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughgall police station in County Armagh, Ulster…
He told a meeting of the Wolf Tone Society: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”
This attack will dominate the next months news, Corbyn cannot win.
The stuff about the IRA won't resonate with anyone younger than about 40,
But, Jazza's past statements on middle-east terrorism, on Hamas and Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden, will be extremely difficult for him.
I expect the Tories to go dirty. I would have more sympathy for Labour if they hadn't already smeared the Tories over the 'dementia tax'.
The Twitter account is now suspended.
Maybe Trump is right and the US intelligence service does leak like a sieve.
And grr.. why would they even leak that?? What do they possibly have to gain?
As the authorities do know, then this gives them notice to do a disappearing act.
The full sentence in the Conservative manifesto is, "We will replace the unfair and ineffective inclusivity rules that prevent the establishment of new Roman Catholic schools, instead requiring new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school." The "unfair and ineffective inclusivity rule" to which they refer is the requirement that any new faith school must allocate at least 50% of its places without reference to faith.
The Catholic Education Service objects strongly to this, arguing that it means some Catholic children would be excluded from Catholic schools because they are Catholic. They argue that part of the Admissions Code means that they can allocate 50% of places to Catholic applicants but must then allocate the other 50% to non-Catholic applicants. Since the second 50% must be allocated without reference to faith their interpretation is clearly wrong. Nonetheless, on the back of this the Catholic church has not allowed the establishment of any Catholic free schools. Near me, a Catholic independent school was prevented from becoming a free school based entirely on objections to this part of the Admissions Code. This happened notwithstanding the fact that the school currently allocates 100% of its places without reference to faith - those who perform best at the entrance exam get places. Apparently no bread at all is better than half a loaf.
What this proposal means is that new faith schools will no longer be required to allocate 50% of their places without reference to faith. Instead they will simply have to show that parents of other faiths and none will be prepared to send their children to that school. So new Catholic schools will be able to allocate 100% of their places to Catholics provided they can show that some non-Catholics would like their children to attend the school. This is much weaker than the current provision. I doubt it meets SeanT's concerns.
'It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.
'The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.'
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
I see no way he can command the confidence of the house.
I'm sorry you cannot see him for what he is.
The question to ask is had a terrorist sympathiser not been LotO would the PM have said the same thing? Yes, she would as it was entirely relevant.
It's not the PM's fault that the LotO was a keen advocate for those who bombed Manchester or my hometown of Warrington etc - she shouldn't censor her sympathy to Mancs because of that.
Especially as you're Mancunian TSE, I hope you're okay today.
My point was (as someone's whose mother died of dementia and understands the present system), the Labour party already smeared the Tories on the dementia tax.
Corbyn is in a difficult & vulnerable position. I expect the nuances of his position to be ignored and him to be smeared. (I mean, I think his position is more nuanced than "I love terrorists")
So be it. What goes around comes around.
https://twitter.com/joelwilliams74/status/866984051898535936
https://twitter.com/joelwilliams74/status/866984855082553344
I'm a Sheffield lad who happens to work in Manchester.
Being serious, I don't think he should get a turn. UKIP is now on a par with Plaid and the Greens in terms of significance, not the SNP, Lib Dems, Tories or Labour.
I think this will have a huge impact on our national mood - as well as feeling close to home as I've been to the Arena (alas never to see Steps) I think the bombardment we're about to get of pictures of such young victims is likely to strike even more of a chord than the Westminster attack. It's one thing seeing adult victims, but kids having a night out at a concert? Barbaric.
As for the politics (and I agree that there are others days for this) my guess is that it'll affect things far less than we might imagine today. No-one will hold back on condemning this, TM looks presidential but she's already locked up the voters who are looking for that. I hope that's the case - while I'll mourn the victims I don't want to give an ounce of publicity to the person / people who did this, and I don't want them to be able to take credit for influencing our democracy in the slightest.
No doubt some on the far left will blame false flags, MSM or Lynton Crosby for potential electoral defeat but the truth is the baggage Corbyn has built up over decades with regards IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah associations and with his soft line on dealing with terror was always going to be a huge risk for any party leader in the event of a security incident. It is he and McDonnell who will shoulder the blame, no one aiming for the PM job should ever leave themselves so open to weakness due to indiscretions in their past.
Reminding him of his actual views and deeds isn't smearing, nor is it a personal attack.
I suspect they'll delay it 24hrs,
new thread
He once released a poll 3 months after the fieldwork had finished.
Lots of questions, Wire! I'll try to answer the more relevant ones.
No, of course everybody is free to post, subject to the Will Of Mike.
No reason why you should bother with me, but you did say you'd been a lurker for many years.
Strangely, I don't think all opinions are equal.
As you may know from your years of lurking, it would be very surprising if I were not familiar with the kind of anxieties about loved ones to which you fere. I was working in the City, ffs, when the July bombs went off.
I have no special sensibilities as regards Corbyn, which again you might know already from all your lurking.
Were the remarks in your first post 'opinions'? I called them insidious. Nothing you have posted since causes me to change my mind.