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.
I don't think it will alter views, so much as reinforce them. People will look at May and Hammond, and then look at Corbyn, Abbott, and McDonnell, and ask which of these do you want in charge of security in a dangerous world. And, that's an easy choice to make.
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 ?
There is a reason to hold it now - the EU is still in limbo until the French Elections are over. Once they are concluded the discussions will start in earnest from June 20th onwards. Hence they have to be conducted now...
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.
I am not sure he will get so much as 30%.
Time will tell. 3% is three times more then he deserves.
It seems everyone deliberately misinterprets what Enoch Powell actually said. His beef was with the SPEED of immigration. That a receiving culture can only absorb at a certain rate. It was not the FACT of immigration at all. He was, in retrospect, absolutely right. We took in Muslims faster than they could be absorbed or they themselves could absorb our cultural standards. And now we have regular 'rivers of blood' caused by our own cuckoos. It's the new normal.
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.
No they couldn't. 'War' is a constant state, by definition. It's also a lot more intense that one act every few years.
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 ?
Perhaps you might explain who will attend parliament until 2020 or whether we should continually defer general elections if a terrorist incident occurs again during future campaign.
Just asking for a friend ..... that is generations of our forebears who fought and died for our democracy.
@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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
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!
A point still made in the Simpsons today through Itchy and Scratchy.
@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
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 ?
There is a great reason, we don't have any MPs. Unlike other nations our MPs don't stop being MPs when they're replaced and new ones are inaugurated, but when Parliament is dissolved. Which has happened. Until the election happens there are no MPs so it can't be delayed back to 2020.
I'd maybe restart tomorrow. We're already arguing the betting implications.
It's a fucking horrible tragedy, and a barbaric crime - and I think it will affect us quite a lot, because of all the images and videos, and the youth of the victims - but we carry on, after a proper day or two of mourning.
How long will the Evening Standard give it before trolling of the Conservatives recommences? Corbyn needs a hand more than ever
The Standard is speaking to a city that is already Labour. Most outside the capital, and many inside it, could not give one f--k what it thinks: it's now a freebie rag no more relevant than the Metro.
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.
Not most of us. The bedwetters who lost control after a couple of mediocre polls for Tessy otoh..
@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
@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
Except the pickaninnies and Kenyan Asians he most took issue with are very well integrated. There was very little Muslim immigration into the UK until a flood of Bangladeshis arrived following the collapse of their economy in the late 1970s.
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 w
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
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.
No they couldn't. 'War' is a constant state, by definition. It's also a lot more intense that one act every few years.
They are incidents of violence that can be described as acts of civil war. They are killing members of their own country because of religious differences. Doesn't mean we are at war.
British people are murdering other British people, en masse, in the name of a religion that was practically unheard of in this country 50 years ago.
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.
Odd, because it really isn't difficult. Saliency is the answer: people can concentrate on a finite (and small) number of topics all at the same time. Yesterday it was dementia, today it is terrorism. They will therefore pay attention to what they are told about Corbyn's relations with terror, rather than let it go in one ear and out the other. Some very clever and highly paid people working for the Conservatives are going to do everything in their power to keep peoples' attention focused on terrorism, and Corbyn's relations with terrorists, every day for the next 17 days. This will make them angry, and cause them not to vote for Corbyn or his party. I am going to do my best to help.
The GE campaign has to recommence as soon as possible. There must be a time for reflection, a time to pay respects, but then life goes on. It has to. We must endure. That is how we win.
On Corbyn, he will be horrified and sickened to his core by what happened. It will revolt him. But there is no getting away from those he has chosen to associate with in the past. Forget the IRA. Think Stop the War. Remember what they have said after previous atrocities, remember who they have protested against and who they haven't. Remember what they have said about the deaths of British soldiers and civilians, and who they have blamed. Corbyn helped start Stop the War. He was its chair for over a decade. That cannot be brushed under the carpet. It has to be highlighted. Judge a man by the company he keeps. Always.
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.
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.
The problem in our current strategy of largely ineffectual soft engagement is that most of the population see its as political correctness and appeasment by yet more spineless politicians. If the policy doesnt grow some teeth and look like it is making a difference, people are going to lose confidence in mainstream parties to protect them, and start electing more fringe candidates in the hope they will be more effective.
Incidentally, how many similar attrocities in the next year do you think this country will tolerate before it elects and extremely right wing government, that will do all sorts of things you might find regretable. Might be better to look firmer and more effective now and head off that eventuality ?
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.
I don't think it will alter views, so much as reinforce them. People will look at May and Hammond, and then look at Corbyn, Abbott, and McDonnell, and ask which of these do you want in charge of security in a dangerous world. And, that's an easy choice to make.
In the USA, many people were happily donating to IRA funds for years; but after the 9/11 attack, sympathy for terrorists suddenly dried up.
What really matters, now, is how Mr Corbyn, Mr McDonnell & Ms Abbott handle the questions which will have very immediate relevance.
This isn't some far-off tale from by-gone days; how are they going to respond to this particular incident?
There's a chance in there for them to 'redeem' themselves, with those who feel they have been misguided in the past.
@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.
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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
I can only respond based on what my housemate reports about her life as a maths teacher in an Oxford secondary school.
She faces daily issues with male teenagers of Pakistani heritage who refuse to respect her as a teacher who happens to be female. She was recently threatened by a group of them because she dared to confiscate their spinners.
She has taught family members of those convicted in the Oxford Grooming trials and at least one of her former students is now serving a sentence for murder.
The issues she faces all come from one group.
This is not to say that all Muslim kids are the same. But there are serious issues within those communities that are making life difficult for teachers as well as fellow students - and it is rooted in the culture. It is not necessarily being passed on from parent to child - as the parents are often horrified at the behaviour of their children. But it is a powerful presence nonetheless.
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 ?
There is a great reason, we don't have any MPs. Unlike other nations our MPs don't stop being MPs when they're replaced and new ones are inaugurated, but when Parliament is dissolved. Which has happened. Until the election happens there are no MPs so it can't be delayed back to 2020.
Plus several million people have probably already voted.
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 theterday evening.
I think the medibbott, 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.
How can you possibly "imagine" Corbyn leading us through this? The man who thought Bin Laden's death was a "tragedy", the man who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his "friends", the man who has to point out that he is "not a supporter of ISIS by any means", because sometimes it seems like he fucking actually is.
Try and "imagine" what would he say at the Downing Street lectern, "what happened in Manchester was awful, but let's not forget the Americans dropped Agent Orange on Laos, and the way the British Empire profited from slavery."
He's an equivocating c*nt, and, at best, an appeaser of terror. He couldn't lead us out of a very very wet paper bag, let alone through terror attacks which he used to admire.
He doesn't admire terror attacks.
As I said, I can imagine him leading him through all this, with genuine empathy and without allowing ISIS to win by dividing us. I think May is doing this well too.
@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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
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 w
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
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.
No they couldn't. 'War' is a constant state, by definition. It's also a lot more intense that one act every few years.
They are incidents of violence that can be described as acts of civil war. They are killing members of their own country because of religious differences. Doesn't mean we are at war.
British people are murdering other British people, en masse, in the name of a religion that was practically unheard of in this country 50 years ago.
A 'civil war' means precisely that: a war. What is happening in Syria is a civil war.
Your language is hyperbolic and absurd. Get a grip.
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.
Your sadness and rage are understandable, but in political terms that's a cop out. To be meaningful you need to set out what you expect government to do by way of response. If it's the same list of "make life miserable for muslims" ideas that one PB'er advanced last night then, whilst you might feel better sitting in your armchair, another bunch of young people will sign up to ISIS's perverted cause and the threat we face simply escalates.
The principles are simple (the execution may not be):
Muslims (and anyone else) who wants to live in the UK must sign up to our values. If not, then they can leave and live elsewhere.
I wouldn't make that list of values exhaustive, but they include basic things such as freedom of religion (and the right to change or abandon your beliefs without consequence), equal treatment of women, etc.
@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
Except the pickaninnies and Kenyan Asians he most took issue with are very well integrated. There was very little Muslim immigration into the UK until a flood of Bangladeshis arrived following the collapse of their economy in the late 1970s.
Absolutely incorrect. Powell was talking about lack of integration of Pakistanis in Birmingham in the late 60s using data from 1964, and using that as a warning of what was to come/what has come to pass
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 w
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
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.
No they couldn't. 'War' is a constant state, by definition. It's also a lot more intense that one act every few years.
They are incidents of violence that can be described as acts of civil war. They are killing members of their own country because of religious differences. Doesn't mean we are at war.
British people are murdering other British people, en masse, in the name of a religion that was practically unheard of in this country 50 years ago.
A 'civil war' means precisely that: a war. What is happening in Syria is a civil war.
Your language is hyperbolic and absurd. Get a grip.
I'm perfectly ok. I understand what Powell meant by 'acts of violence that can only be described as akin to civil war" even if you don't or won't
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 ?
There is a great reason, we don't have any MPs. Unlike other nations our MPs don't stop being MPs when they're replaced and new ones are inaugurated, but when Parliament is dissolved. Which has happened. Until the election happens there are no MPs so it can't be delayed back to 2020.
I suspect it probably could, under the Civil Contingencies Act, but it'd need an expert on that to confirm one way or the other, and whatever the possibilities, it'd be a ridiculous overreaction.
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 ?
There is a great reason, we don't have any MPs. Unlike other nations our MPs don't stop being MPs when they're replaced and new ones are inaugurated, but when Parliament is dissolved. Which has happened. Until the election happens there are no MPs so it can't be delayed back to 2020.
Is that a problem? We can just accept that everything Mrs May says is the last word, and get on with being obedient. That is the objective in holding this election anyway, isn`t 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 theterday evening.
I think the medibbott, 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.
How can you possibly "imagine" Corbyn leading us through this? The man who thought Bin Laden's death was a "tragedy", the man who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his "friends", the man who has to point out that he is "not a supporter of ISIS by any means", because sometimes it seems like he fucking actually is.
Try and "imagine" what would he say at the Downing Street lectern, "what happened in Manchester was awful, but let's not forget the Americans dropped Agent Orange on Laos, and the way the British Empire profited from slavery."
He's an equivocating c*nt, and, at best, an appeaser of terror. He couldn't lead us out of a very very wet paper bag, let alone through terror attacks which he used to admire.
He doesn't admire terror attacks.
As I said, I can imagine him leading him through all this, with genuine empathy and without allowing ISIS to win by dividing us. I think May is doing this well too.
Yes he does.
Sunday Express on May 17, 1987. “Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists. “Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province. “He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
Personally I don't think he will be impeached, but I'm still taking the evens about him going early.
In today's climate I think Trump is what Americans want even with all his baggage, his Muslim immigration ban was far more popular in the rustbelt than the liberal elite would care to admit, impeaching him over sharing information with Putin about ISIS won't wash
@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.
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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
I can only respond based on what my housemate reports about her life as a maths teacher in an Oxford secondary school.
She faces daily issues with male teenagers of Pakistani heritage who refuse to respect her as a teacher who happens to be female. She was recently threatened by a group of them because she dared to confiscate their spinners.
She has taught family members of those convicted in the Oxford Grooming trials and at least one of her former students is now serving a sentence for murder.
The issues she faces all come from one group.
This is not to say that all Muslim kids are the same. But there are serious issues within those communities that are making life difficult for teachers as well as fellow students - and it is rooted in the culture. It is not necessarily being passed on from parent to child - as the parents are often horrified at the behaviour of their children. But it is a powerful presence nonetheless.
Political correctness and identity politics will not allow an issue like this to be discussed, let alone acted upon. We are terrified, we are cowed, and we have slowly but surely become ashamed of our own way of life.
@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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
Yes, these Muslims schoolkids are so aware of the challenges they face "reconciling" their "western values" with their "more traditional" parents, they have become MORE radical than their parents, and some have gone off to join ISIS. There were no burqas on the streets of Britain twenty years ago, now I see them on my high street daily. The same goes for islam around the world. It is MORE radical, MORE conservative, and MORE violent.
Why do you bother with pathetic, mewling lies like this? We can all see the truth, we cannot be deceived any more. Grow the fuck up, you stupid little tit of a man.
You'd made a good point up til the last three sentences, when you went a bit Trumpish.
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 ?
Perhaps you might explain who will attend parliament until 2020 or whether we should continually defer general elections if a terrorist incident occurs again during future campaign.
Just asking for a friend ..... that is generations of our forebears who fought and died for our democracy.
Margaret Thatcher carried on with her conference speech after nearly been killed in Brighton in 1983 .That is what we as a country should have done today.The country says it will carry on as normal but ever does.Maybe something changed with the tragic death of Diana. I
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 ?
There is a great reason, we don't have any MPs. Unlike other nations our MPs don't stop being MPs when they're replaced and new ones are inaugurated, but when Parliament is dissolved. Which has happened. Until the election happens there are no MPs so it can't be delayed back to 2020.
I suspect it probably could, under the Civil Contingencies Act, but it'd need an expert on that to confirm one way or the other, and whatever the possibilities, it'd be a ridiculous overreaction.
Well yes there is that but we'd be living under the absolute rule of May without any checks from Parliament until 2020. Not sure that is what Mr Barker was proposing ...
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.
Your prognosis is characteristicly hysterical.
(Snip)
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
I can only respond based on what my housemate reports about her life as a maths teacher in an Oxford secondary school.
She faces daily issues with male teenagers of Pakistani heritage who refuse to respect her as a teacher who happens to be female. She was recently threatened by a group of them because she dared to confiscate their spinners.
She has taught family members of those convicted in the Oxford Grooming trials and at least one of her former students is now serving a sentence for murder.
The issues she faces all come from one group.
This is not to say that all Muslim kids are the same. But there are serious issues within those communities that are making life difficult for teachers as well as fellow students - and it is rooted in the culture. It is not necessarily being passed on from parent to child - as the parents are often horrified at the behaviour of their children. But it is a powerful presence nonetheless.
For sure, there are issues, as there are within all communities including our indigenous Brits who struggled for generations to free themselves from the yoke of the Normans.
But talking with Muslim teenagers in the UK reassures me that things are generally trending in the right, not the wrong, direction. We do face a serious problem with the attractiveness of Islamism to a small minority who simply cannot reconcile the attitudes of their background with the world in which they now live. But the majority are coping just fine, and are up for the challenge. I bet there were a fair few Muslim kids at that concert last night?
The one thing beyond doubt is that the likes of SeanT getting drunk every night and posting his poisonous bile up here every time there is a terrorist incident contributes precisely nothing to taking our society towards resolving the situation.
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.
Your sadness and rage are understandable, but in political terms that's a cop out. To be meaningful you need to set out what you expect government to do by way of response. If it's the same list of "make life miserable for muslims" ideas that one PB'er advanced last night then, whilst you might feel better sitting in your armchair, another bunch of young people will sign up to ISIS's perverted cause and the threat we face simply escalates.
The principles are simple (the execution may not be):
Muslims (and anyone else) who wants to live in the UK must sign up to our values. If not, then they can leave and live elsewhere.
I wouldn't make that list of values exhaustive, but they include basic things such as freedom of religion (and the right to change or abandon your beliefs without consequence), equal treatment of women, etc.
Muslims in Britain are more likely to identify as British, and more optomistic about the future of Britain than non-muslims.
There is certainly a disaffected minority, but chucking out the baby with the bathwater is not wise. To quote the conclusion in the article:
"Politicians of all parties want Muslims to take up British values and show loyalty to Queen and country. But what is more likely to achieve that? Talking of a Muslim "fifth column", as Mr Farage does, or noting that British Muslims, are, well, British?
As Edmund Burke once said: "To make men love their country, their country ought to be lovable.""
Well she should not have said it but it does help the government in power at the time normally.However I do remember back in 2005 many blaming 7/7 on Blair and Iraq.
I can understand the desire to show solidarity and hold a rally in the centre of Manchester -but does anybody else think that the security services must be thinking "there's been a suicide bomber out there last night - who knows how many other suicide vests/bombs were manufactured at the same time, and by whom - really guys, we could do without this today...."
Just seems to me there is scope for an even greater tragedy than last night. I hope to God I am wrong, but tens of thousands of people packed in a small area is a) not business as usual and b) perhaps predictable, so if there were to be another bomber out there....
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.
Your sadness and rage are understandable, but in political terms that's a cop out. To be meaningful you need to set out what you expect government to do by way of response. If it's the same list of "make life miserable for muslims" ideas that one PB'er advanced last night then, whilst you might feel better sitting in your armchair, another bunch of young people will sign up to ISIS's perverted cause and the threat we face simply escalates.
The principles are simple (the execution may not be):
Muslims (and anyone else) who wants to live in the UK must sign up to our values. If not, then they can leave and live elsewhere.
I wouldn't make that list of values exhaustive, but they include basic things such as freedom of religion (and the right to change or abandon your beliefs without consequence), equal treatment of women, etc.
Muslims in Britain are more likely to identify as British, and more optomistic about the future of Britain than non-muslims.
I'm sure they are. That is not as mutually exclusive with Jihad as you seem to think it is.
"For sure, there are issues, as there are within all communities including our indigenous Brits who struggled for generations to free themselves from the yoke of the Normans.
But talking with Muslim teenagers in the UK reassures me that things are generally trending in the right, not the wrong, direction. We do face a serious problem with the attractiveness of Islamism to a small minority who simply cannot reconcile the attitudes of their background with the world in which they now live. But the majority are coping just fine, and are up for the challenge. I bet there were a fair few Muslim kids at that concert last night?
The one thing beyond doubt is that the likes of SeanT getting drunk every night and posting his poisonous bile up here every time there is a terrorist incident contributes precisely nothing to taking our society towards resolving the situation."
*****
lol. The fucking NORMANS? Really?
You're comparing our problem with Islam to the fucking Anglo-Saxons under the fucking NORMANS
LOLolol
On a very grim day, you have, in your flailing and craven stupidity, at least provided a moment of light relief.
I thought a bit of light relief was the right way to lead into a serious comment about the ignorance and stupidity of the nonsense you post up here once the cork has come out of the bottle.
@JackW What do you reckon for turnout this time round ?
Tricky ....
Plenty of churn and cross currents for a variety of reasons. I'm minded to think close to the 2015 turnout of 66%.
Turnout has gone up the last 4 national votes in a row: from 59% 2001, to 61% 2005, 65% 2010, 66% 2015 and 72% 2016.
It is unlikely to be as high as the referendum but on the other hand it is unlikely to go back more than a few points either. It 'feels' like people are more engaged than before, and turnout in recent by-elections and locals is a little higher than in the late 90s/ early 2000s nadir.
Looking at the Betfair markets there seems great value in turnout higher than 65%
Dr. Foxinsox, if you want to use data of that nature, then Trevor Phillips'[sp] programme on Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality, Sharia Law and the like should alarm you.
The truth would be easier if either Muslims were universally lovely or horrid. The problem is it's in between, with a small minority who are willing to commit vile acts in the name of their religion.
My concern is that the mainstream political parties will pussyfoot around this (as per Rotherham) and eventually people will become so frustrated they'll turn to the far right (whose measures they may consider excessive, but better than the status quo).
Mainstream politicians can head this off by a staunch defence of Western, British values (free speech being top of the list). I'll believe that when I see it, however.
On a completely different subject, an 'offer they can't refuse':
The European Commission aims to make adopting the euro more attractive to European Union members currently outside the currency bloc, the economics commissioner said on Tuesday, in a bid to make the union more tight-knit after Britain's vote to leave.
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 theterday evening.
I think the medibbott, 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.
How can you possibly "imagine" Corbyn leading us through this? The man who thought Bin Laden's death was a "tragedy", the man who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his "friends", the man who has to point out that he is "not a supporter of ISIS by any means", because sometimes it seems like he fucking actually is.
He doesn't admire terror attacks.
As I said, I can imagine him leading him through all this, with genuine empathy and without allowing ISIS to win by dividing us. I think May is doing this well too.
Yes he does.
Sunday Express on May 17, 1987. “Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists. “Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province. “He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
And he is friends with Hamas and Hezbollah and Syria, said that bin Laden's death was a tragedy and would not use drones to kill terrorist leaders.
He admires terror attacks.
He sure does like terrorist attacks, or any form of aggression, as long as they are directed against Western democracies and what he would consider to be the forces of Imperialism. Of course now he's not some obscure back bencher, and a man vying to become PM, his views and actions have come back to haunt him spectacularly.
A domestic terror attack was bound to bring this into sharp focus - and what's more, it must. It is absolutely critical that every single member of the voting public understand this. Yes, it's negative campaigning, yes, it's distasteful for his apologists (though not, ironically, having a terrorist sympathiser as their leader), and yes, it is hard hitting and hard to stomach.
But the uncensored truth has to be told about these three people - Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott - in the most uncompromising terms.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
I know I shouldn't but Jeremy Corbyn's official facebook page is choc full of comments suggesting the Tories organised last night's atrocity. The press will have a field day if they get hold of them. How on earth do these people end up so warped to think the Tories would kill 22 people to hold on to a 14 point polling lead? At the least the EDL sort on twitter have the common sense not to use their real names when talking bollocks.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
Good choice. Apart from anything else, there is a huge dearth of scientific minds in politics right now.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
He certainly is (The Tories are highly unlikely to win Cambridge of course)
I can't believe that there are people seriously advocating cancelling the election because of a terrorist attack.
Yes, we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists. When was the last time we could say that we weren't? There is nothing else to be done but to keep calm and carry on.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
Boooo!
It's Cambridge, do you want Daniel Zeichner sneaking in ?
This site is a nasty caricature of itself, whenever there is a terrorist attack.
In other matters, the campaign should not stop beyond today, nor the election be cancelled.
What is worth considering is that election campaigns do appear to attract these psychos. First Jo Cox, and now this. I wonder whether extra security is needed during campaigns? Or just a coincidence?
@JackW What do you reckon for turnout this time round ?
Tricky ....
Plenty of churn and cross currents for a variety of reasons. I'm minded to think close to the 2015 turnout of 66%.
Turnout has gone up the last 4 national votes in a row: from 59% 2001, to 61% 2005, 65% 2010, 66% 2015 and 72% 2016.
It is unlikely to be as high as the referendum but on the other hand it is unlikely to go back more than a few points either. It 'feels' like people are more engaged than before, and turnout in recent by-elections and locals is a little higher than in the late 90s/ early 2000s nadir.
Looking at the Betfair markets there seems great value in turnout higher than 65%
Remember also that IER has reduced the denominator.
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 theterday evening.
I think the medibbott, 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.
How can you possibly "imagine" Corbyn leading us through this? The man who thought Bin Laden's death was a "tragedy", the man who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his "friends", the man who has to point out that he is "not a supporter of ISIS by any means", because sometimes it seems like he fucking actually is.
Try and "imagine" what would he say at the Downing Street lectern, "what happened in Manchester was awful, but let's not forget the Americans dropped Agent Orange on Laos, and the way the British Empire profited from slavery."
He's an equivocating c*nt, and, at best, an appeaser of terror. He couldn't lead us out of a very very wet paper bag, let alone through terror attacks which he used to admire.
He doesn't admire terror attacks.
As I said, I can imagine him leading him through all this, with genuine empathy and without allowing ISIS to win by dividing us. I think May is doing this well too.
Yes he does.
Sunday Express on May 17, 1987. “Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists. “Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province. “He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
And he is friends with Hamas and Hezbollah and Syria, said that bin Laden's death was a tragedy and would not use drones to kill terrorist leaders.
He admires terror attacks.
I saw his interview on Bin Laden's death. He said it was a tragedy that Bin Laden was simply gunned down (not in a fire fight but while watching a DVD) rather than brought back to face trial. That's a legitimate view. He wasn't supporting Bin Laden in any way. I actually disagree with Corbyn on this and I would dispense with a trial. I also approve of the use of drones to kill terrorists. But you can see it is a slippery slope. Maybe you can't. I think Corbyn can.
FWIW my postal ballot papers in Cambridge arrived today.
Undecided or ... ?
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
FYI - in the past I have stood as a Tory councillor; last time I spoiled my ballot. I vacillated for a while having received some annoying comms from LibDem central, but eventually I chose Huppert (LD) as the best individual candidate.
Boooo!
It's Cambridge, do you want Daniel Zeichner sneaking in ?
Personally I don't think he will be impeached, but I'm still taking the evens about him going early.
In today's climate I think Trump is what Americans want even with all his baggage, his Muslim immigration ban was far more popular in the rustbelt than the liberal elite would care to admit, impeaching him over sharing information with Putin about ISIS won't wash
It's a question of if/when he loses the Republican base, isn't it? 538 indicates his popularity rating has flattened out at 39%. That's dangerously low, I would have thought, but not necessarily terminal.
I suspect we're in one of those paradoxical situations where the GOP would like to see him gone, but the Dems want him to hang around, at least until the mid-terms.
I’m sure it has crossed the mind of many within Labour, but WTF is sick enough to tweet it.
It will have crossed the minds of plenty of Conservatives too.
Well, of course it has, but thinking is one thing and tweeting another. Tony Blair hammed unctuously as the Voice of the Nation over the death of Princess Di, even adding an entirely new sound to the human repertoire - a sort of oily glug at the back of the throat designed to indicate upwelling emotion, and Hague made a twat of himself by stating that Blair was making political capital out of it. Of course he was, but it was still Hague's duty to stfu about it and suck it up.
I’m sure it has crossed the mind of many within Labour, but WTF is sick enough to tweet it.
It will have crossed the minds of plenty of Conservatives too.
Indeed there were many on PB stating similarly that this changes the narrative of the election in May's favour.
Yes it was going to be a type of khaki election because of brexit.However that seemed to change to domestic concerns , I think it is back to war time narrative.I think UKIP might start to get a hearing again .
I thought a bit of light relief was the right way to lead into a serious comment about the ignorance and stupidity of the nonsense you post up here once the cork has come out of the bottle.
The problem is it all comes across as a bit handwringy. What I read between the lines is that its all a bit nasty and unfortunate, but we need to be good chaps play by the rules, and hope the other side are good chaps as well, but at all costs we must stop the silly proles from getting ansy and voting for any of those nasty populists with their simplistic solutions. Not sure it resonates with the voters
I thought a bit of light relief was the right way to lead into a serious comment about the ignorance and stupidity of the nonsense you post up here once the cork has come out of the bottle.
The problem is it all comes across as a bit handwringy. What I read between the lines is that its all a bit nasty and unfortunate, but we need to be good chaps play by the rules, and hope the other side are good chaps as well, but at all costs we must stop the silly proles from getting ansy and voting for any of those nasty populists with their simplistic solutions. Not sure it resonates with the voters
I know I shouldn't but Jeremy Corbyn's official facebook page is choc full of comments suggesting the Tories organised last night's atrocity. The press will have a field day if they get hold of them. How on earth do these people end up so warped to think the Tories would kill 22 people to hold on to a 14 point polling lead? At the least the EDL sort on twitter have the common sense not to use their real names when talking bollocks.
These are the people who propelled an obscure, mad, far left extremist to the leadership of the Labour party. Are they any different to the supporters of the BNP, or Storm Front? I say no, and in some cases, they are even worse, because they use their twisted version of morality to justify the means to an end.
My question is why do the far left get a free pass from the media? These people are extremists - they don't have a Swastika, they have a hammer and sickle. The results are the same.
This site is a nasty caricature of itself, whenever there is a terrorist attack.
In other matters, the campaign should not stop beyond today, nor the election be cancelled.
What is worth considering is that election campaigns do appear to attract these psychos. First Jo Cox, and now this. I wonder whether extra security is needed during campaigns? Or just a coincidence?
I imagine this attack would have been planned before the election was called.
This site is a nasty caricature of itself, whenever there is a terrorist attack.
In other matters, the campaign should not stop beyond today, nor the election be cancelled.
What is worth considering is that election campaigns do appear to attract these psychos. First Jo Cox, and now this. I wonder whether extra security is needed during campaigns? Or just a coincidence?
Yes it will be interesting to know if he was known to the authorities .As the attacks in Europe many were and chances missed .This does not seem a lone wolf.
Personally I don't think he will be impeached, but I'm still taking the evens about him going early.
In today's climate I think Trump is what Americans want even with all his baggage, his Muslim immigration ban was far more popular in the rustbelt than the liberal elite would care to admit, impeaching him over sharing information with Putin about ISIS won't wash
It's a question of if/when he loses the Republican base, isn't it? 538 indicates his popularity rating has flattened out at 39%. That's dangerously low, I would have thought, but not necessarily terminal.
I suspect we're in one of those paradoxical situations where the GOP would like to see him gone, but the Dems want him to hang around, at least until the mid-terms.
Indeed, which is why I think he survives the year, easily. The Dems know full well that they are best served by his being the face of the GOP until the midterms, upon which they fancy delivering him a hammering. The value bet might be to bet against the hammering, as received wisdom has it as a racing cert.
Personally I don't think he will be impeached, but I'm still taking the evens about him going early.
In today's climate I think Trump is what Americans want even with all his baggage, his Muslim immigration ban was far more popular in the rustbelt than the liberal elite would care to admit, impeaching him over sharing information with Putin about ISIS won't wash
It's a question of if/when he loses the Republican base, isn't it? 538 indicates his popularity rating has flattened out at 39%. That's dangerously low, I would have thought, but not necessarily terminal.
I suspect we're in one of those paradoxical situations where the GOP would like to see him gone, but the Dems want him to hang around, at least until the mid-terms.
If Trump is impeached before he's alienated the majority of Republican support, then there will surely be a tremendous backlash from Republican voters against what they will see as a Washington conspiracy against their standard bearer.
I’m sure it has crossed the mind of many within Labour, but WTF is sick enough to tweet it.
It will have crossed the minds of plenty of Conservatives too.
Indeed there were many on PB stating similarly that this changes the narrative of the election in May's favour.
Stating something that is objectively is the case, and on which many members have money riding seems a little different to making implications that the Tories might be in some way complicit, as seems to be the case with many Labour tweeters.
Comments
Just asking for a friend ..... that is generations of our forebears who fought and died for our democracy.
Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected.
The sort of numb-nut solutions you tend to advocate after a bottle or two of overpriced wine of an evening will simply make our future far worse.
The bedwetters who lost control after a couple of mediocre polls for Tessy otoh..
If I were Prime Minister I would be calling for a two minutes' silence on Thursday at 11am, following which we should resume our everyday activities.
British people are murdering other British people, en masse, in the name of a religion that was practically unheard of in this country 50 years ago.
Clear now?
most of the population see its as political correctness and appeasment by yet more spineless politicians. If the policy doesnt grow some teeth and look like it is making a difference, people are going to lose confidence in mainstream parties to protect them, and start electing more fringe candidates in the hope they will be more effective.
Incidentally, how many similar attrocities in the next year do you think this country will tolerate before it elects and extremely right wing government, that will do all sorts of things you might find regretable. Might be better to look firmer and more effective now and head off that eventuality ?
What really matters, now, is how Mr Corbyn, Mr McDonnell & Ms Abbott handle the questions which will have very immediate relevance.
This isn't some far-off tale from by-gone days; how are they going to respond to this particular incident?
There's a chance in there for them to 'redeem' themselves, with those who feel they have been misguided in the past.
She faces daily issues with male teenagers of Pakistani heritage who refuse to respect her as a teacher who happens to be female. She was recently threatened by a group of them because she dared to confiscate their spinners.
She has taught family members of those convicted in the Oxford Grooming trials and at least one of her former students is now serving a sentence for murder.
The issues she faces all come from one group.
This is not to say that all Muslim kids are the same. But there are serious issues within those communities that are making life difficult for teachers as well as fellow students - and it is rooted in the culture. It is not necessarily being passed on from parent to child - as the parents are often horrified at the behaviour of their children. But it is a powerful presence nonetheless.
As I said, I can imagine him leading him through all this, with genuine empathy and without allowing ISIS to win by dividing us. I think May is doing this well too.
Your language is hyperbolic and absurd. Get a grip.
Muslims (and anyone else) who wants to live in the UK must sign up to our values. If not, then they can leave and live elsewhere.
I wouldn't make that list of values exhaustive, but they include basic things such as freedom of religion (and the right to change or abandon your beliefs without consequence), equal treatment of women, etc.
See here 14:45 for 5 mins or so
https://youtu.be/nN6sTBSAp-A
If you have to explain......
I won't comment on your use of language
Plenty of churn and cross currents for a variety of reasons. I'm minded to think close to the 2015 turnout of 66%.
Sunday Express on May 17, 1987. “Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists. “Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province. “He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
Read more at: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757
And he is friends with Hamas and Hezbollah and Syria, said that bin Laden's death was a tragedy and would not use drones to kill terrorist leaders.
He admires terror attacks.
Which party will electors see as having the best policies on law and order?
I think we all know the answer to that.
But talking with Muslim teenagers in the UK reassures me that things are generally trending in the right, not the wrong, direction. We do face a serious problem with the attractiveness of Islamism to a small minority who simply cannot reconcile the attitudes of their background with the world in which they now live. But the majority are coping just fine, and are up for the challenge. I bet there were a fair few Muslim kids at that concert last night?
The one thing beyond doubt is that the likes of SeanT getting drunk every night and posting his poisonous bile up here every time there is a terrorist incident contributes precisely nothing to taking our society towards resolving the situation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12000042/How-patriotic-are-British-Muslims-Much-more-than-you-think-actually.html
There is certainly a disaffected minority, but chucking out the baby with the bathwater is not wise. To quote the conclusion in the article:
"Politicians of all parties want Muslims to take up British values and show loyalty to Queen and country. But what is more likely to achieve that? Talking of a Muslim "fifth column", as Mr Farage does, or noting that British Muslims, are, well, British?
As Edmund Burke once said: "To make men love their country, their country ought to be lovable.""
stroudclp@tiscali.co.uk
Just seems to me there is scope for an even greater tragedy than last night. I hope to God I am wrong, but tens of thousands of people packed in a small area is a) not business as usual and b) perhaps predictable, so if there were to be another bomber out there....
It is unlikely to be as high as the referendum but on the other hand it is unlikely to go back more than a few points either. It 'feels' like people are more engaged than before, and turnout in recent by-elections and locals is a little higher than in the late 90s/ early 2000s nadir.
Looking at the Betfair markets there seems great value in turnout higher than 65%
A fair few of us are betting on Cambridge here
Congratulations to the winner, Stroud Labour Party.
Presumably the first of many on all sides.
The truth would be easier if either Muslims were universally lovely or horrid. The problem is it's in between, with a small minority who are willing to commit vile acts in the name of their religion.
My concern is that the mainstream political parties will pussyfoot around this (as per Rotherham) and eventually people will become so frustrated they'll turn to the far right (whose measures they may consider excessive, but better than the status quo).
Mainstream politicians can head this off by a staunch defence of Western, British values (free speech being top of the list). I'll believe that when I see it, however.
The European Commission aims to make adopting the euro more attractive to European Union members currently outside the currency bloc, the economics commissioner said on Tuesday, in a bid to make the union more tight-knit after Britain's vote to leave.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/5/23/after-brexit-eu-plans-offer-you-cannot-refuse-to-expand-euro-zone-moscovici
A domestic terror attack was bound to bring this into sharp focus - and what's more, it must. It is absolutely critical that every single member of the voting public understand this. Yes, it's negative campaigning, yes, it's distasteful for his apologists (though not, ironically, having a terrorist sympathiser as their leader), and yes, it is hard hitting and hard to stomach.
But the uncensored truth has to be told about these three people - Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott - in the most uncompromising terms.
Yes, we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists. When was the last time we could say that we weren't? There is nothing else to be done but to keep calm and carry on.
In other matters, the campaign should not stop beyond today, nor the election be cancelled.
What is worth considering is that election campaigns do appear to attract these psychos. First Jo Cox, and now this. I wonder whether extra security is needed during campaigns? Or just a coincidence?
I suspect we're in one of those paradoxical situations where the GOP would like to see him gone, but the Dems want him to hang around, at least until the mid-terms.
My question is why do the far left get a free pass from the media? These people are extremists - they don't have a Swastika, they have a hammer and sickle. The results are the same.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/