This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
I agree with OGH. I have every sympathy for those affected by Manchester but the election must go on as it is about making choices where there are differences. That's democracy. 99.99% of us would agree that today's outrage was barbaric. That's what makes us a civilized country. Now we should have the maturity to return to respectful debate where we diverge and do so with the same energy and passion as before yesterday evening.
I think the media will control the agenda, both broadcast and print, and I cannot see a sudden return to the campaign as events will dictate the pace which no doubt over the rest of the week will hopefully provide a balance return to the GE
However, I do expect the press to turn their anger on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott in an entirely fair context due to their history. As my wife just said could you even start to imagine Corbyn leading the Nation through this and Abbott, of all people, Home Secretary
Because I was like 6 months old at the time, was the 1979 election campaign suspended when Airey Neave was murdered?
The HoC was still sitting doing washup and the GE campaign hadn't yet started.
Cheers.
Of course it was only a few days after the Vote of No Confidence.
The Guildford Pub Bombing happened 5 days before the October GE - I don't think there was any suspension - we made up for it by locking up the wrong people for 15 years.....
I used to be a supporter of the death penalty. It was incidents like that (not to mention Timothy Evans revelations) that encouraged me to move on.
‘Everyone calm down. Love is the answer.’ Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.
I do not feel rage. I feel determination that the loonies of ISIS will have no effect no matter how much they try. Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence is not an answer.
Marxism was an utter failure, Mr O'Neill seems to need a new target for his anger and vitriol.
+1.
Feeling determination that x will be the case is fine and dandy, but it doesn't have much bearing on whether x turns out to be the case or not. The loonies of ISIS had quite an effect last night, irrespective of how you feel about it, and I'd like them to have the further effect of causing steps to be taken which will prevent recurrences of last night. What does "Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence" actually mean? Is the point you are making that we should not start slaughtering children in recrimination, or what?
Given some of the queries in your post I'm rather bemused you didn't post this reply to @Beverley_C.
The loonies of ISIS obviously 'had quite an effect' as you say but we can't allow them to further disrupt our way of life.
Also, I didn't see anything in Beverly C's post which disputed the need to take steps to prevent another attack.
I interpreted the 'starting from the Jihad side of the fence' to mean that anger and rage will not solve this problem we have.
I agree with OGH. I have every sympathy for those affected by Manchester but the election must go on as it is about making choices where there are differences. That's democracy. 99.99% of us would agree that today's outrage was barbaric. That's what makes us a civilized country. Now we should have the maturity to return to respectful debate where we diverge and do so with the same energy and passion as before yesterday evening.
I think the media will control the agenda, both broadcast and print, and I cannot see a sudden return to the campaign as events will dictate the pace which no doubt over the rest of the week will hopefully provide a balance return to the GE debate
However, I do expect the press to turn their anger on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott in an entirely fair context due to their history. As my wife just said could you even start to imagine Corbyn leading the Natuon through this and Abbott, of all people, Home Secretary
I can imagine Corbyn leading the nation through this. But I can't imagine Abbot as Home Secretary. I couldn't imagine Amber Rudd either.
Sir Roger definitely. He was also the star of my favourite thriller, the late sixties classic The Man Who Haunted Himself.
Yes, interesting film that one. I still think of Roger Moore as Simon Templar rather than Bond. When I was very young there was an episode in which The Saint was sentenced to death. I thought it meant that he would have to write lines until he died.
‘Everyone calm down. Love is the answer.’ Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.
I do not feel rage. I feel determination that the loonies of ISIS will have no effect no matter how much they try. Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence is not an answer.
Marxism was an utter failure, Mr O'Neill seems to need a new target for his anger and vitriol.
+1.
Feeling determination that x will be the case is fine and dandy, but it doesn't have much bearing on whether x turns out to be the case or not. The loonies of ISIS had quite an effect last night, irrespective of how you feel about it, and I'd like them to have the further effect of causing steps to be taken which will prevent recurrences of last night. What does "Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence" actually mean? Is the point you are making that we should not start slaughtering children in recrimination, or what?
Given some of the queries in your post I'm rather bemused you didn't post this reply to @Beverley_C.
The loonies of ISIS obviously 'had quite an effect' as you say but we can't allow them to further disrupt our way of life.
Also, I didn't see anything in Beverly C's post which disputed the need to take steps to prevent another attack.
I interpreted the 'starting from the Jihad side of the fence' to mean that anger and rage will not solve this problem we have.
Sorry, I thought "+1" indicated agreement with the post above it, silly me.
Because I was like 6 months old at the time, was the 1979 election campaign suspended when Airey Neave was murdered?
The HoC was still sitting doing washup and the GE campaign hadn't yet started.
Cheers.
Of course it was only a few days after the Vote of No Confidence.
The Guildford Pub Bombing happened 5 days before the October GE - I don't think there was any suspension - we made up for it by locking up the wrong people for 15 years.....
I used to be a supporter of the death penalty. It was incidents like that (not to mention Timothy Evans revelations) that encouraged me to move on.
'Let him have it' ended any chance of the death penalty being used again. Any justice system that could condemn someone of questionable mental stability and fragility to death on an interpretation of one statement that could equally be read as an appeal to surrender could not be trusted to do so in future
I am not going to talk politics as such, but buried behind the tragic news from Manchester was a poll in the North Wales Daily Post. It claimed among other things that Labour was 10% down in North Wales but was poised to win Clwyd West. I think it probably qualifies as a voodo poll
Whilst I think that Corbyn and especially McDonnell fully deserve to have heaps of vitriol blasted their way for their abysmal record on terrorism, as a matter of political campaign tactics I think the Conservative approach should be to portray Corbyn more as a bumbling old bearded lefty who is naive, credulous, and weak on terrorism, rather than as a supporter of and apologist for it.
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.
Partly, yes, it is polling but also:
- Not contesting even close to every seat: on a par with Greens. - Truly dismal local election results, which give credence to the polls. - Zero MPs and little prospect of winning any MPs.
To be treated like a big party, I'd suggest that you need either significant national support, which at the very least means an average of 5% across the whole country, given that that's deposit-losing level, but more probably something like 10%; or the likelihood of returning a parliamentary party which would have a significant presence in the House i.e. at least 10, perhaps 20.
We could argue the detail of both current criteria and relevance of historic record but there has to be a cut-off somewhere and to my mind, UKIP now fall below that level. Why, for example, is UKIP there but the Greens not?
Isn't it because they look over several national elections, not just the last one? And actual elections as well as polls.
Probably. This is likely to be the last election that they get treated as a big party for any purpose though.
I must be a very bad person (or my laptop truly evil) because i cannot get past 3 or 4 posts on here without getting barred and not being able to find out why. But the dark events of last night prompt me to try again. So as I say hello I may as well also say goodbye.
Cyan has being doing some desperate cheerleading for Corbyn. Cyan says the Arndale bomb killed nobody. It killed two people. It was a 3000lb truck bomb - it could have killed dozens. Cyan says the only people who made a killing were developers. Nasty. In fact the Labour hegemony in Manchester had regularly refused private finance - hence resulting in developments like the Arndale which was known locally as 'the biggest lavatory wall in europe'. The scale of the wider Manchester redevelopment (driven by a desire to be a world city) brought in private finance.
Cyan says let Corbyn speak for himself. Well he has for over 30 years. Now he seeks to rewrite history - both his own and the history of the real facts.
'Uncle Joe' Corbyn had a choice if he was genuinely concerned for peace in NI - a choice between the SDLP and the IRA. He chose the IRA and thus stabbed a true democrat and peacemaker, Gerry Fitt, in the back... repeatedly.
It's nice to see that the Tycho Magnetic Anomaly 1 has a voice
'Its purpose and origins still a complete mystery'
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Whilst I think that Corbyn and especially McDonnell fully deserve to have heaps of vitriol blasted their way for their abysmal record on terrorism, as a matter of political campaign tactics I think the Conservative approach should be to portray Corbyn more as a weak and bumbling bearded lefty who is naive, credulous, and weak on terrorism, rather than as a supporter of and apologist for it.
Oh the other hand, we could bury them all under the effluent of their stated views.
‘Everyone calm down. Love is the answer.’ Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.
I do not feel rage. I feel determination that the loonies of ISIS will have no effect no matter how much they try. Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence is not an answer.
Marxism was an utter failure, Mr O'Neill seems to need a new target for his anger and vitriol.
+1.
Feeling determination that x will be the case is fine and dandy, but it doesn't have much bearing on whether x turns out to be the case or not. The loonies of ISIS had quite an effect last night, irrespective of how you feel about it, and I'd like them to have the further effect of causing steps to be taken which will prevent recurrences of last night. What does "Starting the Jihad from this side of the fence" actually mean? Is the point you are making that we should not start slaughtering children in recrimination, or what?
Given some of the queries in your post I'm rather bemused you didn't post this reply to @Beverley_C.
The loonies of ISIS obviously 'had quite an effect' as you say but we can't allow them to further disrupt our way of life.
Also, I didn't see anything in Beverly C's post which disputed the need to take steps to prevent another attack.
I interpreted the 'starting from the Jihad side of the fence' to mean that anger and rage will not solve this problem we have.
Sorry, I thought "+1" indicated agreement with the post above it, silly me.
Obviously, but its still odd that you'd direct your response to me instead of the original poster.
I agree with OGH. I have every sympathy for those affected by Manchester but the election must go on as it is about making choices where there are differences. That's democracy. 99.99% of us would agree that today's outrage was barbaric. That's what makes us a civilized country. Now we should have the maturity to return to respectful debate where we diverge and do so with the same energy and passion as before yesterday evening.
I think the media will control the agenda, both broadcast and print, and I cannot see a sudden return to the campaign as events will dictate the pace which no doubt over the rest of the week will hopefully provide a balance return to the GE
However, I do expect the press to turn their anger on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott in an entirely fair context due to their history. As my wife just said could you even start to imagine Corbyn leading the Nation through this and Abbott, of all people, Home Secretary
If this is the case then I hope it is done in a measured fashion because (a) the victims of yesterday's atrocity should not be made to feel that their pain is being used in some way and (b) it may make Corbyn look like a victim and that would not be fair in my opinion. He should be brought to account for his views in a clinical way so that we can see which way his moral compass points. Andrew Neil is the man to do this.
With all due respect to Roger Moore, he was a thoroughly implausible Bond and never believed in the character himself. Licence to kill? Not really.
Craig, Dalton and Connery are the only ones to have got it right, when given a decent script.
I am bemused by all this praise for Dalton. He looked so uncomfortable in every scene. When he fondled the women, it looked like he'd never done this before in his life. I was genuinely amazed to learn he was straight.
edit: of all of them, Connery was the only who looked good in a dinner jacket but also looked like he would and could kill you without even thinking about it. Craig comes close, but unfortunately he's too much the latter.
I am not going to talk politics as such, but buried behind the tragic news from Manchester was a poll in the North Wales Daily Post. It claimed among other things that Labour was 10% down in North Wales but was poised to win Clwyd West. I think it probably qualifies as a voodoo poll
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Apologies if the above upsets anyone; if it seems too raw a time to be bringing it up; if you judge it inappropriate. But I feel it has to be said. I will not argue the point. I'll say no more.
For some here (not you obvs) it seems there is no good time to discuss Corbyn's history of support for terrorists.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
We haven't had violence on a par with civil war. Those incidents were tragic and abhorrent but they were not indicative of a country embedded in a constant spell of violence or civil war.
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
No. Once you start to push the boundaries of ratcheting up the gratuitous violence then how does each next movie top the last. Most TV so called 'drama' is going the same way. Inevitably with the BBC leading the pack. As I keep saying to whoever will listen - 'whatever happened to entertainment?'
With all due respect to Roger Moore, he was a thoroughly implausible Bond and never believed in the character himself. Licence to kill? Not really.
Craig, Dalton and Connery are the only ones to have got it right, when given a decent script.
I am bemused by all this praise for Dalton. He looked so uncomfortable in every scene. When he fondled the women, it looked like he'd never done this before in his life. I was genuinely amazed to learn he was straight.
edit: of all of them, Connery was the only who looked good in a dinner jacket but also looked like he would and could kill you without even thinking about it. Craig comes close, but unfortunately he's too much the latter.
Whilst I think that Corbyn and especially McDonnell fully deserve to have heaps of vitriol blasted their way for their abysmal record on terrorism, as a matter of political campaign tactics I think the Conservative approach should be to portray Corbyn more as a bumbling old bearded lefty who is naive, credulous, and weak on terrorism, rather than as a supporter of and apologist for it.
Pointing out the enormity of Labour's spending black hole would do it for me. How big is it now by the way and does it include the impossibility of its funding for Labours social care fantasies?
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
We haven't had violence on a par with civil war. Those incidents were tragic and abhorrent but they were not indicative of a country embedded in a constant spell of violence or civil war.
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
We have had several incidents of violence, and dozens prevented, that are on a par with civil war - British people slaughtering other British people in the name of a cause that is more important to them than being British.
Post war doesn't matter. 21st century terrorism in Britain is almost exclusively Islamic inspired and carried out by British citizens. As Enoch Powell predicted. The surprise is the lack of retaliation, thank God.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
This is not the time to play party politics, it is inappropriate and in bad taste.innocent people have died and that is all that should be remembered. I am sure that the party rivalry will begin again when the campaign resumes but today should be a day to respect the dead and to hope for the survival of the injured.
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
Cancelling a democratic election would be the ultimate gift to Terrorists. GE2017 will happen.
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
You've been holding meetings in a lunatic asylum to discuss sending PC 49 to Syria ....
@isam We've had incidents of violence, but that doesn't equal that the country is in a civil war. For the most part post war and 21st century life has been one of peace, not of frequent violence all the time. Most people have been able to get on with their lives.
Post war doesn't matter - oh how convenient, of course post war matters, it's when the commonwealth immigrants that you take issue came to the country.
Enoch Powell predicted some kind of chaotic, violent, unstable society - THAT has not happened. The remarkable success story of this country is integration of people of many different people.
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
WE ARE NOT CANCELLING DEMOCRACY FOR ISIS.
They'd bloody well love that.
It would be absurd to overreact that way.
Last night I was caught up in a crowd turning out from a pop concert at about 2230, and the day before I was part of a 32000 strong crowd pouring out of a football stadium.
Apart from intelligence it is near impossible to prevent the sorts of attacks that we have recently seen in Manchester, Westminster and other places.
Getting on with life is the way to fight back. These terrorists are scum, but we should not aid their cause by destroying our own liberties.
@isam We've had incidents of violence, but that doesn't equal that the country is in a civil war. For the most part post war and 21st century life has been one of peace, not of frequent violence all the time. Most people have been able to get on with their lives.
Post war doesn't matter - oh how convenient, of course post war matters, it's when the commonwealth immigrants that you take issue came to the country.
Enoch Powell predicted some kind of chaotic, violent, unstable society - THAT has not happened. The remarkable success story of this country is integration of people of many different people.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
Now we know what Isis are trying to achieve by bombing Manchester because they told us.
..... in revenge for Allah‘s religion, in an endeavour to terrorise the mushrikin, and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims.
On Topic, New Thread. We are certainly faced with a binary choice about the suspension of Campaigning. Either its a token pause of a couple of Days or we suspend The election altogether. I get the arguments about not wanting to seem to give The Terrorists what they want but does that in any way compare with the suffering of The Families? I just worry that divisive Political Campaigning will seem disrespectful while The Funerals take place. Will Campaigners unintentionally add to the pain ? Theres no great reason to have an Election now, why not delay it till September, or next May or go back to May 2020 ?
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
I doubt that cancelling the election would be possible. Parliament has been dissolved and cannot be recalled.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
There's been precious little logic around today, for sure.
No. Once you start to push the boundaries of ratcheting up the gratuitous violence then how does each next movie top the last. Most TV so called 'drama' is going the same way. Inevitably with the BBC leading the pack. As I keep saying to whoever will listen - 'whatever happened to entertainment?'
You don't need to ratchet it up each time. But there is an appropriate level of violence to films centred on a licenced killer and while they don't need to be Tarantino bloodbaths, nor should they be Tom-and-Jerry knockabouts.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home so to speak.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
Since this morning when I advocated cancelling the election others have been expressing similar views. Lets deploy the security that would have been given over to election candidates, meetings etc to the actual fight on the ground against the terrorists.
And give ISIS the propaganda coup that they have been able to interfere in our democratic process? Terrible idea. Also redeploying security from the election to a "fight on the ground against the terrorists" is meaningless. Such activities are highly specialised.
No. Let us pause in respect for the victims of this atrocity and their families and friends. Then let us get back to business. Andrew Neil interviews, the lot.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
OK. I was saying earlier that I think there is a palpable anger and that it's boiling over as these attacks on western societies mount up. Killing kids at a concert is probably one that will tip that anger into open rage. The disquiet that many may have previously felt over the comments of the Labour front bench may now be much more than disquiet and more open hostility. It's very easy to hold views at odds with the general society around you, it's harder to have and justify those beliefs after events such as this, and whilst I appreciate he has no choice but to make a public statement as the LOTO, it will not sit well with many who know what he is on record as believing and saying.
On Topic, New Thread. We are certainly faced with a binary choice about the suspension of Campaigning. Either its a token pause of a couple of Days or we suspend The election altogether. I get the arguments about not wanting to seem to give The Terrorists what they want but does that in any way compare with the suffering of The Families? I just worry that divisive Political Campaigning will seem disrespectful while The Funerals take place. Will Campaigners unintentionally add to the pain ? Theres no great reason to have an Election now, why not delay it till September, or next May or go back to May 2020 ?
Now we know what Isis are trying to achieve by bombing Manchester because they told us.
..... in revenge for Allah‘s religion, in an endeavour to terrorise the mushrikin, and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims.
Does revenge and punishment include attending "Steps" concerts?
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
We haven't had violence on a par with civil war. Those incidents were tragic and abhorrent but they were not indicative of a country embedded in a constant spell of violence or civil war.
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
We have had several incidents of violence, and dozens prevented, that are on a par with civil war - British people slaughtering other British people in the name of a cause that is more important to them than being British.
Post war doesn't matter. 21st century terrorism in Britain is almost exclusively Islamic inspired and carried out by British citizens. As Enoch Powell predicted. The surprise is the lack of retaliation, thank God.
Do as you please
For comparison, when Britain had a series of actual Civil Wars, it lasted about nine years and killed about 200,000 people out of a population of 5m, or the equivalent of about 2.5m people today.
What happened in Manchester last night was terrible but keep a sense of perspective.
No. Once you start to push the boundaries of ratcheting up the gratuitous violence then how does each next movie top the last. Most TV so called 'drama' is going the same way. Inevitably with the BBC leading the pack. As I keep saying to whoever will listen - 'whatever happened to entertainment?'
You don't need to ratchet it up each time. But there is an appropriate level of violence to films centred on a licenced killer and while they don't need to be Tarantino bloodbaths, nor should they be Tom-and-Jerry knockabouts.
I'm old enough remember when Mary Whitehouse wanted to ban Tom & Jerry because it was too violent!
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
We haven't had violence on a par with civil war. Those incidents were tragic and abhorrent but they were not indicative of a country embedded in a constant spell of violence or civil war.
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
We have had several incidents of violence, and dozens prevented, that are on a par with civil war - British people slaughtering other British people in the name of a cause that is more important to them than being British.
Post war doesn't matter. 21st century terrorism in Britain is almost exclusively Islamic inspired and carried out by British citizens. As Enoch Powell predicted. The surprise is the lack of retaliation, thank God.
Do as you please
For comparison, when Britain had a series of actual Civil Wars, it lasted about nine years and killed about 200,000 people out of a population of 5m, or the equivalent of about 2.5m people today.
What happened in Manchester last night was terrible but keep a sense of perspective.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
Our political class have failed us. It's not just politicians like Corbyn and Abbott who have the blood of innocents on his hands; it's the entire lot of you. You were warned this would happen, you were told. Yet you stood by and did nothing. Thanks to your appeasement of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
"Go back home" are yours and Nunu's words, not mine.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Suggesting that Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn are in any way responsible for last night's incident is misguided and lacks logic. Those who say that May is responsible because she had been the Home Secretary for so long, should not place blame on her for unforseen failures.
Jeremy Corbyn has always promoted the avoidance of military conflict and has stated that long term peace can only be achieved through dialogue. Who would have thought that Queen Elizabeth would be on cordial terms with both Nelson Mandela and Martin McGuiness? History makes strange bedfellows of us all.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
We haven't had violence on a par with civil war. Those incidents were tragic and abhorrent but they were not indicative of a country embedded in a constant spell of violence or civil war.
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
We have had several incidents of violence, and dozens prevented, that are on a par with civil war - British people slaughtering other British people in the name of a cause that is more important to them than being British.
Post war doesn't matter. 21st century terrorism in Britain is almost exclusively Islamic inspired and carried out by British citizens. As Enoch Powell predicted. The surprise is the lack of retaliation, thank God.
Do as you please
For comparison, when Britain had a series of actual Civil Wars, it lasted about nine years and killed about 200,000 people out of a population of 5m, or the equivalent of about 2.5m people today.
What happened in Manchester last night was terrible but keep a sense of perspective.
Doesn't matter. He didn't say, and I'm not saying, we are in constant state of civil war, but that there would be, as there are, incidents of violence that could be described as acts of civil war.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
OK. I was saying earlier that I think there is a palpable anger and that it's boiling over as these attacks on western societies mount up. Killing kids at a concert is probably one that will tip that anger into open rage. The disquiet that many may have previously felt over the comments of the Labour front bench may now be much more than disquiet and more open hostility. It's very easy to hold views at odds with the general society around you, it's harder to have and justify those beliefs after events such as this, and whilst I appreciate he has no choice but to make a public statement as the LOTO, it will not sit well with many who know what he is on record as believing and saying.
Nope, still don't have a clue. What comments of Corbyn are you referring to that will cause open rage amongst the public?
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
"Go back home" are yours and Nunu's words, not mine.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
It's not a simple fact at all. The 2005 London bombers were British. The killers of Lee Rigby were British. It's been suggested that the perpetrator here may well be British.
Compared to pesky immigrants like my wife who's been terrorising only me ever since she said 'I do', then this is just lazy stereotyping and we are better than this.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
The reason that people say that is because they know that if people talked politics now then folk would reach conclusions that the political class don't want us to reach. It why had these 22 been murdered by a gunman in the US they'd be talking politics about gun-control but when a muslim blows up 22 young people we aren't supposed to talk about it.
.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
"Go back home" are yours and Nunu's words, not mine.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
It's not a simple fact at all. The 2005 London bombers were British. The killers of Lee Rigby were British. It's been suggested that the perpetrator here may well be British.
Compared to pesky immigrants like my wife who's been terrorising only me ever since she said 'I do', then this is just lazy stereotyping and we are better than this.
The fact they are/were British is the entire point
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
OK. I was saying earlier that I think there is a palpable anger and that it's boiling over as these attacks on western societies mount up. Killing kids at a concert is probably one that will tip that anger into open rage. The disquiet that many may have previously felt over the comments of the Labour front bench may now be much more than disquiet and more open hostility. It's very easy to hold views at odds with the general society around you, it's harder to have and justify those beliefs after events such as this, and whilst I appreciate he has no choice but to make a public statement as the LOTO, it will not sit well with many who know what he is on record as believing and saying.
Nope, still don't have a clue. What comments of Corbyn are you referring to that will cause open rage amongst the public?
Come on now, quotes please.
Not Corbyn, but his right hand man - John McDonnell
"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.”
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Or something like that ....
I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either.
On Topic, New Thread. We are certainly faced with a binary choice about the suspension of Campaigning. Either its a token pause of a couple of Days or we suspend The election altogether. I get the arguments about not wanting to seem to give The Terrorists what they want but does that in any way compare with the suffering of The Families? I just worry that divisive Political Campaigning will seem disrespectful while The Funerals take place. Will Campaigners unintentionally add to the pain ? Theres no great reason to have an Election now, why not delay it till September, or next May or go back to May 2020 ?
The politicians can decide how much campaigning is fitting or otherwise. And people can decide whether they were right about that, and about everything else. And then on 8th June we have the election.
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
"Go back home" are yours and Nunu's words, not mine.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
It's not a simple fact at all. The 2005 London bombers were British. The killers of Lee Rigby were British. It's been suggested that the perpetrator here may well be British.
Compared to pesky immigrants like my wife who's been terrorising only me ever since she said 'I do', then this is just lazy stereotyping and we are better than this.
The fact they are/were British is the entire point
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
of Islam we are where we are and 22 young girls and boys are dead. Fuck all you politicians. Fuck you all.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
For comparison, when Britain had a series of actual Civil Wars, it lasted about nine years and killed about 200,000 people out of a population of 5m, or the equivalent of about 2.5m people today.
What happened in Manchester last night was terrible but keep a sense of perspective.
And if the state continues to fail in its responsibility to protect its people and their children, then the people will take up arms to protect themselves and their children. And they will be right to do so.
@isam We've had incidents of violence, but that doesn't equal that the country is in a civil war. For the most part post war and 21st century life has been one of peace, not of frequent violence all the time. Most people have been able to get on with their lives.
Post war doesn't matter - oh how convenient, of course post war matters, it's when the commonwealth immigrants that you take issue came to the country.
Enoch Powell predicted some kind of chaotic, violent, unstable society - THAT has not happened. The remarkable success story of this country is integration of people of many different people.
Enoch Powell was wrong. The problem isn't Commonwealth immigrants, the problem isn't black or brown people - they are just people - the problem isn't migration itself.
The problem is ISLAM, which in the last few decades has, in many places, and across the world, evolved into some quasi-medieval, paranoid, retarded, psychotic incarnation of itself - intent on suppressing women, persecuting Jews, killing homosexuals, and fighting the kaffirs - and is also embroiled in a terrible, decades-long religious civil war between Shia and Sunni
The problem is religious. The problem is cultural. The problem is Islam. And as millions of Muslims now live in the UK, the problem, unfortunately, is now British, too.
No, he was right
If the commonwealth immigrants Enoch Powell wanted repatriated had been, there wouldn't be enough Muslims in the U.K. to be a problem
Mr. Pulpstar, that, and Diane Abbott's comments (recently highlighted in the press and uttered decades ago) will not be received warmly.
I do have concerns about May's meddling authoritarianism, but when the general public weigh up the leaders on terrorism, Corbyn comes off far worse. Wasn't he wibbling about whether or not it was ok to take out ISIS scumbags with drone strikes a year or so ago?
This 'now is not the time to talk politics' bollocks is exactly why people have such a low regard for politicians. If the slaughter of innocent children is not worth politics what is?
.
One of Enoch Powells best speeches was made during or slightly after the 1970 GE. It used to be on YouTube but alas no longer.
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
So we've now gone to condemning all immigration from the commonwealth now in light of last night's attack? Really?
Without the mass immigration from the commonwealth that Enoch Powell predicted world cause civil strife and violence on par with civil war, there would be no 7/7, no Lee Rigby murder, no Manchester attack, and no need for CAGE, tell Mama, or millions spent on preventing Islamic terrorism.
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
Very disappointed by this statement. Myabe I should just "go back home". Would that make you happy Mr isam?
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
He's said this kind of thing before.
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
"Go back home" are yours and Nunu's words, not mine.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
It's not a simple fact at all. The 2005 London bombers were British. The killers of Lee Rigby were British. It's been suggested that the perpetrator here may well be British.
Compared to pesky immigrants like my wife who's been terrorising only me ever since she said 'I do', then this is just lazy stereotyping and we are better than this.
The fact they are/were British is the entire point
Because I was like 6 months old at the time, was the 1979 election campaign suspended when Airey Neave was murdered?
The HoC was still sitting doing washup and the GE campaign hadn't yet started.
Cheers.
Of course it was only a few days after the Vote of No Confidence.
The Guildford Pub Bombing happened 5 days before the October GE - I don't think there was any suspension - we made up for it by locking up the wrong people for 15 years.....
Which is a good argument, as if one were needed, against the "rage" some are demanding we feel.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Or something like that ....
I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either.
The murder of Jo Cox only affected politicians which is why they went so over the top compared their reaction to the murder of Lee Rigby. Most people were sad, shrugged and moved on - it didn't affect them directly. This does. This is different. This is visceral.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
OK. I was saying earlier that I think there is a palpable anger and that it's boiling over as these attacks on western societies mount up. Killing kids at a concert is probably one that will tip that anger into open rage. The disquiet that many may have previously felt over the comments of the Labour front bench may now be much more than disquiet and more open hostility. It's very easy to hold views at odds with the general society around you, it's harder to have and justify those beliefs after events such as this, and whilst I appreciate he has no choice but to make a public statement as the LOTO, it will not sit well with many who know what he is on record as believing and saying.
Nope, still don't have a clue. What comments of Corbyn are you referring to that will cause open rage amongst the public?
Come on now, quotes please.
I think Jeremy Corbyn's views on the IRA, the death of Bin Laden, Hamas etc are a matter of public record. You can search for then if you like and decide whether they are comfortable reading and reasonable positions to hold. As will everyone else. I'm not going to be shouting at him personally, but he does disgust me. That's life, people don't like other people because of their views. Sometimes that's because they voted to cut benefits and sometimes it's because they form close relationships with terror supporting organisations and individuals. The nice guy who potters about the allotment and wants to end inequality myth is just that for me, a myth. A cruel and dangerous one. Each to their own though, he'll get his 30% of supporters and good luck to them.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Or something like that ....
I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either.
Neither France or Germany had or have a mainstream candidate with the type of record that Corbyn "enjoys".
Jezza is in a class of his own. Something I never expected to say but there again context is everything.
Is there a cognitive dissonance going on with the Corbyn apologists? They read and hear exactly the same things as those of us who utterly detest him for his deeds and words involving not only the IRA, but also his involvement with anti-Semitism (not even discussed during this election campaign), and his equivocation regarding Islamic terrorism.
What other possible conclusion can any reasonable, right thinking objective person come to that Corbyn is an anti British terrorist sympathiser, appeaser, and supporter?
How much more evidence is there required to convince the naive few here that he is a mad, bad, dangerously unhinged far left extremist who would destroy the British economy overnight, and would also embolden every single one of our enemies the world over?
I cannot think such a character would ever get to the top of the Conservative party, and even if such a person did, they would be destroyed - rightly - by the electorate. I also cannot think of any Tory supporters here who would ever consider supporting such a person.
I know I wouldn't, even if it damaged the prospects of my own party at a general election. I could not show ambivalence, and even overt support, to such an individual, and I say shame and disgrace on all those who are his apologists and seek to airbrush away the things he said and did.
What a very dark place indeed the Labour party has become to give succour to these extremists and apologists.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Or something like that ....
I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either.
The honest truth is come June 9th, I suspect both your good self and @JackW will both be absolubtely correct.
Corbyn's biggest problem is that the focus on the Tory Dementia tax has made way for security, terrorism that the election will now be fought over. This means the Tories win convincingly, but they were going to do that anyway.
Whether Tory seats are a buy or sell at 383-389. No idea.
No. Once you start to push the boundaries of ratcheting up the gratuitous violence then how does each next movie top the last. Most TV so called 'drama' is going the same way. Inevitably with the BBC leading the pack. As I keep saying to whoever will listen - 'whatever happened to entertainment?'
You don't need to ratchet it up each time. But there is an appropriate level of violence to films centred on a licenced killer and while they don't need to be Tarantino bloodbaths, nor should they be Tom-and-Jerry knockabouts.
I'm old enough remember when Mary Whitehouse wanted to ban Tom & Jerry because it was too violent!
Good heavens, so many Labour partisans trying to shut down debate of a topic which is potentially ruinous to their team, after a few days of doing relatively well. Then there is the added bonus of people trying to use this as a springboard to try and cancel, or atleast reschedule, an election they fear they will lose, when we still had an election in 1945 while in a state of war!
If this wasnt bad enough we have to endure the barefaced cheek and effrontery of being told its all because of good taste. I am sure if a lot of people got killed in a factory accident owning to the negligence of some well paid boss they would be just as "tasteful" in not mentioning Tories/Donors/Fatcats for a few days.
Corbyn may well face some very vocal anger on any public walkabout for the rest of the campaign. As you sow.....
Exactly how is Jeremy Corbyn to blame for the Manchester atrocity?
He isn't. He is responsible for the positions he has taken over the years and should and will be judged on them.
So why will the public be angry with him now, when they weren't before the bombing happened? Please explain that as I'm buggered if I can understand your logic.
The public are terribly fickle and will probably hold Corbyn to account for his unequivocal and steadfast support of the armed forces, police and the victims of IRA terrorism.
Or something like that ....
I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either.
Jeremy "terrorist appeaser" Corbyn wasn't the opponent in those other elections.
Comments
I can't remember every word but it was roughly
"I predict, using what knowledge I have of human nature, & what I have learned of the world, that commonwealth immigration will cause civil strife of appalling dimension, & that laws and institutions, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it."
And here we are.
However, I do expect the press to turn their anger on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott in an entirely fair context due to their history. As my wife just said could you even start to imagine Corbyn leading the Nation through this and Abbott, of all people, Home Secretary
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fvuuAUJ2x6I
The loonies of ISIS obviously 'had quite an effect' as you say but we can't allow them to further disrupt our way of life.
Also, I didn't see anything in Beverly C's post which disputed the need to take steps to prevent another attack.
I interpreted the 'starting from the Jihad side of the fence' to mean that anger and rage will not solve this problem we have.
I agree, Mr. Smithson.
Mr. Barnesian, I said at the time that Rudd was only Home Secretary to make May look good.
(not talking about the libdems by the way)
edit: of all of them, Connery was the only who looked good in a dinner jacket but also looked like he would and could kill you without even thinking about it. Craig comes close, but unfortunately he's too much the latter.
Live And Let Die ....
Maybe the plus sides make up for it
As you sow.....
Most of the terrorism that Britain has faced post war has not been from commonwealth descendants.
I think I need to stay off this site for a while, as I need to remind myself that most Brits don't think this way, and would never question whether I am British and whether I belong in this society the way some people on this site with an agenda do.
Once you start to push the boundaries of ratcheting up the gratuitous violence then how does each next movie top the last. Most TV so called 'drama' is going the same way. Inevitably with the BBC leading the pack.
As I keep saying to whoever will listen - 'whatever happened to entertainment?'
How big is it now by the way and does it include the impossibility of its funding for Labours social care fantasies?
Post war doesn't matter. 21st century terrorism in Britain is almost exclusively Islamic inspired and carried out by British citizens. As Enoch Powell predicted. The surprise is the lack of retaliation, thank God.
Do as you please
Anyway, need to get away from this blog for a while.
They'd bloody well love that.
I am sure that the party rivalry will begin again when the campaign resumes but today should be a day to respect the dead and to hope for the survival of the injured.
This one's for people betting on whether he'll survive to the end of his first term. It's long, so I'll tell you the short answer is 'probably not'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2O9MY-krUI
Personally I don't think he will be impeached, but I'm still taking the evens about him going early.
It's a view ....
We've had incidents of violence, but that doesn't equal that the country is in a civil war. For the most part post war and 21st century life has been one of peace, not of frequent violence all the time. Most people have been able to get on with their lives.
Post war doesn't matter - oh how convenient, of course post war matters, it's when the commonwealth immigrants that you take issue came to the country.
Enoch Powell predicted some kind of chaotic, violent, unstable society - THAT has not happened. The remarkable success story of this country is integration of people of many different people.
Last night I was caught up in a crowd turning out from a pop concert at about 2230, and the day before I was part of a 32000 strong crowd pouring out of a football stadium.
Apart from intelligence it is near impossible to prevent the sorts of attacks that we have recently seen in Manchester, Westminster and other places.
Getting on with life is the way to fight back. These terrorists are scum, but we should not aid their cause by destroying our own liberties.
..... in revenge for Allah‘s religion, in an endeavour to terrorise the mushrikin, and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims.
We are certainly faced with a binary choice about the suspension of Campaigning. Either its a token pause of a couple of Days or we suspend The election altogether.
I get the arguments about not wanting to seem to give The Terrorists what they want but does that in any way compare with the suffering of The Families? I just worry that divisive Political Campaigning will seem disrespectful while The Funerals take place. Will Campaigners unintentionally add to the pain ?
Theres no great reason to have an Election now, why not delay it till September, or next May or go back to May 2020 ?
It looks like several PBers including myself would have to go back home so to speak.
And of course the Commonwealth countries never contributed to Britain's success via the Empire either....
No. Let us pause in respect for the victims of this atrocity and their families and friends. Then let us get back to business. Andrew Neil interviews, the lot.
It's very easy to hold views at odds with the general society around you, it's harder to have and justify those beliefs after events such as this, and whilst I appreciate he has no choice but to make a public statement as the LOTO, it will not sit well with many who know what he is on record as believing and saying.
Good afternoon, everybody.
What happened in Manchester last night was terrible but keep a sense of perspective.
It's a simple fact that most 21st century terrorism in the U.K is perpatrated by the people Powell predicted it would be. That's not to cast aspersions on all commonwealth immigrants, I'm sorry you take offence.
Or something like that ....
Jeremy Corbyn has always promoted the avoidance of military conflict and has stated that long term peace can only be achieved through dialogue. Who would have thought that Queen Elizabeth would be on cordial terms with both Nelson Mandela and Martin McGuiness? History makes strange bedfellows of us all.
not saying, we are in constant state of civil war, but that there would be, as there are, incidents of violence that could be described as acts of civil war.
Come on now, quotes please.
Poor girl though - it'll be tough on her as anyone bar the close relatives and friends of those murdered.
Compared to pesky immigrants like my wife who's been terrorising only me ever since she said 'I do', then this is just lazy stereotyping and we are better than this.
"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.”
If the commonwealth immigrants Enoch Powell wanted repatriated had been, there wouldn't be enough Muslims in the U.K. to be a problem
I do have concerns about May's meddling authoritarianism, but when the general public weigh up the leaders on terrorism, Corbyn comes off far worse. Wasn't he wibbling about whether or not it was ok to take out ISIS scumbags with drone strikes a year or so ago?
Each to their own though, he'll get his 30% of supporters and good luck to them.
Jezza is in a class of his own. Something I never expected to say but there again context is everything.
What other possible conclusion can any reasonable, right thinking objective person come to that Corbyn is an anti British terrorist sympathiser, appeaser, and supporter?
How much more evidence is there required to convince the naive few here that he is a mad, bad, dangerously unhinged far left extremist who would destroy the British economy overnight, and would also embolden every single one of our enemies the world over?
I cannot think such a character would ever get to the top of the Conservative party, and even if such a person did, they would be destroyed - rightly - by the electorate. I also cannot think of any Tory supporters here who would ever consider supporting such a person.
I know I wouldn't, even if it damaged the prospects of my own party at a general election. I could not show ambivalence, and even overt support, to such an individual, and I say shame and disgrace on all those who are his apologists and seek to airbrush away the things he said and did.
What a very dark place indeed the Labour party has become to give succour to these extremists and apologists.
Corbyn's biggest problem is that the focus on the Tory Dementia tax has made way for security, terrorism that the election will now be fought over. This means the Tories win convincingly, but they were going to do that anyway.
Whether Tory seats are a buy or sell at 383-389. No idea.
If this wasnt bad enough we have to endure the barefaced cheek and effrontery of being told its all because of good taste. I am sure if a lot of people got killed in a factory accident owning to the negligence of some well paid boss they would be just as "tasteful" in not mentioning Tories/Donors/Fatcats for a few days.
Jeremy "terrorist appeaser" Corbyn wasn't the opponent in those other elections.