FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
76% of UAE is Muslim, the migrant workers are treated as slaves and Sharia Law sees to it that they don't step out of line
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Well, Bradshaw asserted Brexit was engineered by the Russians, so he's clearly the perpetual fountain of truth and good sense.
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
It won't budge the polls.
Are you sure.
If the voting public believe what PB Tories believe, Mrs May, armed with her Heckler and Koch MP5 was scrambled in eight minutes and personally blew away the bad guys.
That being the case it will change the polling
Ah, you are trolling.
The old "I am too dim and ill-informed to win a real argument with anyone of any political persuasion, so I will create a man of straw and label it "PB tories" "card being played, I think.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
Gorman: Oh, great. Wonderful. Shit! [talking with the intercommunicator] Look... Uh... Apone. Look, we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody. Hudson: Is he fucking crazy? Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?
Aliens really does encapsulate the whole of human life. And extraterrestrial life too, come to think of it.
Love the Aliens reference probably my favorite movie of all time.
If I am an armed police officer I would of course weight up the situation but I am taking the shot. And it's not like they take the decision lightly, after firearm incidents they are fully investigated afterwards.
Getting rid of shoot to kill or changing the rules and regulations so it makes the decision much tougher to do it won't make the public safer, the opposite in fact.
The distinction is in the rules of engagement. A "shoot to kill" policy means shooting when no immediate threat to bystanders or law enforcement is apparent. Legitimate in war, but not policing. In London there was obvious immediate risk so legitimate to shoot, without a challenge to surrender. I think this is the sense of what Corbyn means.
In the "Aliens" film, the reason that the marines were disarmed was because the nest was in a place where gunfire would potentially trigger an explosion. The concern was not squeamishness about killing aliens.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
It won't budge the polls.
Are you sure.
If the voting public believe what PB Tories believe, Mrs May, armed with her Heckler and Koch MP5 was scrambled in eight minutes and personally blew away the bad guys.
That being the case it will change the polling
Ah, you are trolling.
Perhaps the armed and dangerous Mrs May is not quite accurate, but the mood music from the PM today has been on the button, and it will play well.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Corbyn is publicly opposed to shooting dead active terrorists, he wants the police to arrest them. Last night those rules would have caused further loss of life and put the police in mortal danger.
The IRA attack video (5.94m views) has a clip of him saying "I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy." The clip clearly ends mid-sentence so we don't get to hear why not.
Here is his full response, the question was specifically about shoot-to-kill in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
He should be sent for re-education.
Can you recommend a madrassa ?
I hear the The Rajdoot in Marylebone does a mean one...Oh you I thought you said madras as we are normally talking about food on here.
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Well, absolutely. It's ridiculous to assume that the BBC wouldn't edit an interview to decontextualise a term that the interviewer understood perfectly well, isn't it?
In the real word I agree with you of course - you don't give adverse sound bites that can be deployed against you on a complex topic you're perceived as weak on. It's moronic. Much of Corbyn's media engagement has been and the recent improvement is too late.
I'm not trying to explain or change minds here though, I'm trying to find out if the posters here claiming that Corbyn wouldn't support reasonable force a) have other evidence I've missed b) genuinely don't understand the terminology or c) think it worth using deliberate misunderstanding as spin lines on PB.
I've been away for a few months, maybe I've forgotten the etiquette around these parts...
I would never trust a man with that bizarre hair loss pattern, plus the police have for years had an axe to grind with TMay for telling it like it is to them. Ignore.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
Gorman: Oh, great. Wonderful. Shit! [talking with the intercommunicator] Look... Uh... Apone. Look, we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody. Hudson: Is he fucking crazy? Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?
Aliens really does encapsulate the whole of human life. And extraterrestrial life too, come to think of it.
Love the Aliens reference probably my favorite movie of all time.
If I am an armed police officer I would of course weight up the situation but I am taking the shot. And it's not like they take the decision lightly, after firearm incidents they are fully investigated afterwards.
Getting rid of shoot to kill or changing the rules and regulations so it makes the decision much tougher to do it won't make the public safer, the opposite in fact.
The distinction is in the rules of engagement. A "shoot to kill" policy means shooting when no immediate threat to bystanders or law enforcement is apparent. Legitimate in war, but not policing. In London there was obvious immediate risk so legitimate to shoot, without a challenge to surrender. I think this is the sense of what Corbyn means.
In the "Aliens" film, the reason that the marines were disarmed was because the nest was in a place where gunfire would potentially trigger an explosion. The concern was not squeamishness about killing aliens.
Corbyn's shoot to kill interview is no 4 on the BBC most watched videos.
The problem for him is that he is going to be questioned on his beliefs and as you know, once you are having to explain ........
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
Why would police shoot to kill if arrest was "safe and possible"
The contention was that at times in NI, STK was carried out when arrest was possible.
Possibly bollocks, but that was the heart of the STK controversy there.
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and in primate communities there has to be an alpha male. In the UK/Europe the alpha male was Christianity. As long as other religions were too small in number to mount an attack everything was ok. Now one is growing and beginning to want power, trouble is inevitable
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
There are 500,000 Bangladeshis, 1.2m Pakistanis , 450,000 Egyptians, 100,000 Iraqis, 100,000 Palestinians amongst other Muslims in the UAE. That takes care of your theory.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Right now I don't think any of us should be demanding that anyone says anything. It's sensible to discuss what needs to be done (e.g. have we changed our views on how much snooping the intelligence people can reasonably do? I think maybe yes), but let's wait till the day is out as our various parties have requested before we resume bashing each other.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Right now I don't think any of us should be demanding that anyone says anything. It's sensible to discuss what needs to be done (e.g. have we changed our views on how much snooping the intelligence people can reasonably do? I think maybe yes), but let's wait till the day is out as our various parties have requested before we resume bashing each other.
It is your ex (ex for two reasons) fellow Labour MPs putting this up for discussion, not us.
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Well, absolutely. It's ridiculous to assume that the BBC wouldn't edit an interview to decontextualise a term that the interviewer understood perfectly well, isn't it?
In the real word I agree with you of course - you don't give adverse sound bites that can be deployed against you on a complex topic you're perceived as weak on. It's moronic. Much of Corbyn's media engagement has been and the recent improvement is too late.
I'm not trying to explain or change minds here though, I'm trying to find out if the posters here claiming that Corbyn wouldn't support reasonable force a) have other evidence I've missed b) genuinely don't understand the terminology or c) think it worth using deliberate misunderstanding as spin lines on PB.
I've been away for a few months, maybe I've forgotten the etiquette around these parts...
Very fair response but the problem for Cornyn is not only the BBC recording but the perception of him
"Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it."
Historically ... no.
In many countries, Christianity began as a minority religion and gradually took over peacefully. Admittedly, In Rome, the ascent of Constantine, the Tyke, gave them a big push. This was against pagan rule, though.
The migrants in the UAE are treated badly but not because they are mainly non-muslims.
"There are an estimated 450,000 Egyptians living in the UAE,[16] forming the largest community of non-citizens from the Arab world in the UAE. - Muslims.
Iraqis in the UAE have a population exceeding 100,000.-Muslims
As of 2009, the Jordanian population was estimated at 250,000 -Muslims
There are an estimated 80,000[24] Lebanese living in the UAE,
Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates include expatriates from Pakistan who have settled in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as Emirati people who have Pakistani heritage. With a population of over 1.2 million,[6] Pakistanis are the second largest national group in the UAE after Indians, constituting 12.5% of the country's total population.- also Muslim
and the indians in the UAE will also be mainly muslims
I don't know where foxinsox is getting his claim that most migrants in the UAE are mainly all christian and hindu from. Nonsense.
Also isam's claim theory of Alpha religion preventing all this is farfetched.
"Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it."
Historically ... no.
In many countries, Christianity began as a minority religion and gradually took over peacefully. Admittedly, In Rome, the ascent of Constantine, the Tyke, gave them a big push. This was against pagan rule, though.
Wasn't that through mass conversion of the population?
Today, I went delivering the Conservative newspaper in Torbay. Basically, as a Screw You! to those amongst us who would seek to impose their will by violence - and without even asking the voters.
It pissed down. I got drenched. I carried on. It was slow. Folding a soon-to-be-papier-mache blob under an umbrella is tedious work. I thought - I bet a good chunk of those I am delivering to have already voted. Those that haven't - how many will read this thing? How many votes will 400 deliveries really change? One, maybe, by now? Dispiriting.
But...then it stopped raining. The sun broke through. And suddenly, I was delivering with a Spitfire overhead. And I thought FUCK YES! THIS IS WHY WE DO THIS!!
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
This really is appalling. Gaining political advantage from such a terrible failure?
Labour paying the price for such a terrible failure of a candidate for PM you mean?
We were told this after the Manchester murders, the IRA attack video, and on a number of occasions in other countries, such as France or Germany.
There was no polling evidence that voters altered their choice as a result, so Ibdont think there will be this time either.
Thing is, where we are now no one would hang a dog on the basis of polling evidence. If TMay does well on Thursday I shall be inclined to attribute that partly to this. Of course we will never know for sure.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
And yet every time something is suggested to try and bridge the divide - making people learn English, stamping out unacceptable religious practices or making people abide by British laws with no exceptions - and deal with extremism, people like you shout 'RACISM'.
If you want to look for one of the root causes of this problem look to yourself Roger.
It's pretty universal on the left to support language-teaching provision for non-English speaking immigrant communities, including opposing funding cuts in recent years. I'm struggling to think of parts of criminal law that are not universally applicable,
What concrete steps to deal with extremism do you feel the government failed to take because of people shouting "racism" rather than for reasons of maintaining civil liberties that we value as a society, or because they were incompatible with cutting spending? I'm not clear what May means to do as a result of claiming "enough is enough".
I am not talking about supporting language teaching I am talking about enforcing it.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Sounds like a good policy to me. Who pays?
It should be the immigrant. If I went to live in a foreign country, I would expect to learn the language at my own expense.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Right now I don't think any of us should be demanding that anyone says anything. It's sensible to discuss what needs to be done (e.g. have we changed our views on how much snooping the intelligence people can reasonably do? I think maybe yes), but let's wait till the day is out as our various parties have requested before we resume bashing each other.
The problem Nick is that this is no 4 on the BBC site and is becoming the story
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
There are 500,000 Bangladeshis, 1.2m Pakistanis , 450,000 Egyptians, 100,000 Iraqis, 100,000 Palestinians amongst other Muslims in the UAE. That takes care of your theory.
Christians and Hindus make up a bigger percentage than the 10% isam specified. This is even more so in specific locations like Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Now the question is this...are they seeing the opportunity to hammer Jezza just because...or is there genuine worried about the polling and think they need to hammer him.
EDIT: shooting report false. But it is an arrest of another London Bridge suspect, apparently.
East Ham and Barking.. whoever would have thought it
Remember the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets too.
I live next to a mosque in Tower Hamlets and came back from the cinema at 11pm last night to see that it was completely packed. Didn't know why until I switched on the TV, saw the news and realised my Muslim neighbours had come together to pray about what had happened.
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
There are 500,000 Bangladeshis, 1.2m Pakistanis , 450,000 Egyptians, 100,000 Iraqis, 100,000 Palestinians amongst other Muslims in the UAE. That takes care of your theory.
Christians and Hindus make up a bigger percentage than the 10% isam specified. This is even more so in specific locations like Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
And yet every time something is suggested to try and bridge the divide - making people learn English, stamping out unacceptable religious practices or making people abide by British laws with no exceptions - and deal with extremism, people like you shout 'RACISM'.
If you want to look for one of the root causes of this problem look to yourself Roger.
It's pretty universal on the left to support language-teaching provision for non-English speaking immigrant communities, including opposing funding cuts in recent years. I'm struggling to think of parts of criminal law that are not universally applicable,
What concrete steps to deal with extremism do you feel the government failed to take because of people shouting "racism" rather than for reasons of maintaining civil liberties that we value as a society, or because they were incompatible with cutting spending? I'm not clear what May means to do as a result of claiming "enough is enough".
I am not talking about supporting language teaching I am talking about enforcing it.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Sounds like a good policy to me. Who pays?
Not sure. I actually started the course when it looked like I might have to move to Norway in the late 90s rather than commuting from the UK. But when I then started my own business it became easier for me to commute. In that instance I was paying for it with some help from my French employer.
Back then it was only 200 hours but has now been increased. At a couple of hours a week assuming you are also doing a job, it is a long process.
Today, I went delivering the Conservative newspaper in Torbay. Basically, as a Screw You! to those amongst us who would seek to impose their will by violence - and without even asking the voters.
It pissed down. I got drenched. I carried on. It was slow. Folding a soon-to-be-papier-mache blob under an umbrella is tedious work. I thought - I bet a good chunk of those I am delivering to have already voted. Those that haven't - how many will read this thing? How many votes will 400 deliveries really change? One, maybe, by now? Dispiriting.
But...then it stopped raining. The sun broke through. And suddenly, I was delivering with a Spitfire overhead. And I thought FUCK YES! THIS IS WHY WE DO THIS!!
Sounds like the best thing you could be doing is offering to help the oldies make sure their mobility scooters are all working and fully charged!!!!
Even though I'm a Love Your Neighbour kind of guy, I do believe in "national character" and preservation of same. Most immigrants do too - people come here because it's a nice place with certain qualities and values and they don't want it to change. Witness the paradox of immigrant families becoming anti-immigration. So although govts should be respectful of people's rights of free speech, of religious belief, the freedom to dress how one likes, etc. this shouldn't be at any price. That's what British Values education is supposed to be about. One thing which needs addressing is birth rates. When I was little it was the era of family planning - what happened to that? I think if we had a family-planning culture fewer immigrant families would think it normal/acceptable to have 6 kids. Did the govt finally change the rules so that families only get benefits for the first couple of kids? That's a start. No more immigration-by-arranged-marriage would be good too.
If families have fewer children that likely leads to more immigration in future. Therefore, assuming the immigration system does not start discriminating against those from cultures unlikely to integrate, discouraging large families implies a higher proportion of poorly integrated children in future.
I'd rather have more immigrants who share our values (whatever their nationality) than larger families of people who still think they're living in some backward village somewhere, think it's okay to marry cousins, or teenagers, or teenage cousins, and don't want their family members mixing with people from other backgrounds. Re-educating people is an exhausting and expensive process and we've allowed some people to be almost unreachable.
OK, but reducing benefits for the whole population (of whom the "backward village" group forms a much smaller proportion than it does of new immigrants) will discourage childbirth among people who do share those values leading to a higher proportion of folks with the "backward village" mentality.
Now the question is this...are they seeing the opportunity to hammer Jezza just because...or is there genuine worried about the polling and think they need to hammer him.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
Theresa May is going to win a comfortable majority on Thursday by default. Because the opposition are unelectable. Possibly even a landslide.
Unless the yoof turn out in huge numbers...
Looks like it might be raining.
I'm pretty sceptical they would even if the weather is decent. I just think we would be hearing more about it by now if their intention is to vote in massive numbers. Haven't read anything from people who have been campaigning out in these seats to say it's on the cards.
Can't rule it out I guess and it's probably the only way Corbyn can deprive May of her majority.
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
This really is appalling. Gaining political advantage from such a terrible failure?
Labour paying the price for such a terrible failure of a candidate for PM you mean?
We were told this after the Manchester murders, the IRA attack video, and on a number of occasions in other countries, such as France or Germany.
There was no polling evidence that voters altered their choice as a result, so Ibdont think there will be this time either.
Thing is, where we are now no one would hang a dog on the basis of polling evidence. If TMay does well on Thursday I shall be inclined to attribute that partly to this. Of course we will never know for sure.
The French polls were extremely accurate and showed no discernable change after atrocities, and while our own polls start at different baselines, the temporal trends are highly congruent. I do not expect a noticeable polling change as a result of this latest attack either. Voters rarely seem convinced that different leaders would have made different outcomes, and they are probably right. The Madrid train bombing was perhaps an exception.
For some time now I have been predicting a Con majority of 76, I am not minded to revise it.
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet,
Being a friend of Hamas is good.
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we need tough action from the top. The fact you say being a 'friend' or terrorists is good says all you need to know about what a disaster for our country a Corbyn premiership would be
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Corbyn said that it was a tragedy that Bin Laden was not captured alive and put on trial. I am not sure that that was feasible, but it may well have been a far better demolition of Islamism than merely killing him.
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
There are 500,000 Bangladeshis, 1.2m Pakistanis , 450,000 Egyptians, 100,000 Iraqis, 100,000 Palestinians amongst other Muslims in the UAE. That takes care of your theory.
Christians and Hindus make up a bigger percentage than the 10% isam specified. This is even more so in specific locations like Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
I'd say nearer 25-30% non-Muslim, the dozen or so churches are completely packed several times a day at the weekends. Dubai is one of the most ethnically diverse and multicultural cities in the world, there are people here from pretty much every country in the UN.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
And yet every time something is suggested to try and bridge the divide - making people learn English, stamping out unacceptable religious practices or making people abide by British laws with no exceptions - and deal with extremism, people like you shout 'RACISM'.
If you want to look for one of the root causes of this problem look to yourself Roger.
It's pretty universal on the left to support language-teaching provision for non-English speaking immigrant communities, including opposing funding cuts in recent years. I'm struggling to think of parts of criminal law that are not universally applicable,
What concrete steps to deal with extremism do you feel the government failed to take because of people shouting "racism" rather than for reasons of maintaining civil liberties that we value as a society, or because they were incompatible with cutting spending? I'm not clear what May means to do as a result of claiming "enough is enough".
I am not talking about supporting language teaching I am talking about enforcing it.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Sounds like a good policy to me. Who pays?
It should be the immigrant. If I went to live in a foreign country, I would expect to learn the language at my own expense.
I lived in one region here and sort of learned the language at my own expense... then I moved to a different region with a completely different language and am starting again... the fly in the ointment this time is there are no books written in the new language.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Right now I don't think any of us should be demanding that anyone says anything. It's sensible to discuss what needs to be done (e.g. have we changed our views on how much snooping the intelligence people can reasonably do? I think maybe yes), but let's wait till the day is out as our various parties have requested before we resume bashing each other.
Very poor attempt to kick this into touch. Corbyn is unelectable because of his back history and current statements. And yet you support such a man.
Theresa May is going to win a comfortable majority on Thursday by default. Because the opposition are unelectable. Possibly even a landslide.
Unless the yoof turn out in huge numbers...
Looks like it might be raining.
I'm pretty skeptical they would even if the weather is decent. I just think we would be hearing more about it by now if their intention is to vote in massive numbers. Haven't read anything from people who have been campaigning out in these seats to say it's on the cards.
Can't rule it out I guess and it's probably the only way Corbyn can deprive May of her majority.
Met a couple today who were mortified to learn that their grand-daughter was planning on voting for Corbyn. Sat her down, told her how the world worked.
She's now voting for May.
Also met a guy in his garden. Him and he wife were LibDem last time. She will be this time. He is now planning to vote for Theresa May. Not voting Conservative as such. Awkward, because he is a personal friend of the LibDem's candidate. But he thought Theresa May did brilliantly on the Question Time programme. "There's something about her...." Shows what we on here know.
The shoot to kill video is going viral, the iPlayer clip got shared in two WhatsApp groups I'm in, very negative reactions. I think Jez needs to say that he fully supports the police decision to kill the terrorists and he would do so again we're he PM, if he isn't forthright then I think we're back in landslide territory.
The shoot to kill video is going viral, the iPlayer clip got shared in two WhatsApp groups I'm in, very negative reactions. I think Jez needs to say that he fully supports the police decision to kill the terrorists and he would do so again we're he PM, if he isn't forthright then I think we're back in landslide territory.
Now the question is this...are they seeing the opportunity to hammer Jezza just because...or is there genuine worried about the polling and think they need to hammer him.
There is a definite change in tone today.
There's a whiff of panic in the air. When everyone believed Theresa was a political superhero, the Jezza factor could be largely left to take care of itself. But now Theresa's limitations have been cruelly exposed, it's time to summon up the bogeymen. (Actually, I doubt The Sun and The Mail really give a fig about Therea's fortunes one way or another now; it's the reputation of Brexit they see as in jeopardy and feel they need a healthy Tory majority to keep it afloat.)
Theresa May is going to win a comfortable majority on Thursday by default. Because the opposition are unelectable. Possibly even a landslide.
Unless the yoof turn out in huge numbers...
Looks like it might be raining.
I'm pretty skeptical they would even if the weather is decent. I just think we would be hearing more about it by now if their intention is to vote in massive numbers. Haven't read anything from people who have been campaigning out in these seats to say it's on the cards.
Can't rule it out I guess and it's probably the only way Corbyn can deprive May of her majority.
Met a couple today who were mortified to learn that their grand-daughter was planning on voting for Corbyn. Sat her down, told her how the world worked.
She's now voting for May.
Also met a guy in his garden. Him and he wife were LibDem last time. She will be this time. He is now planning to vote for Theresa May. Not voting Conservative as such. Awkward, because he is a personal friend of the LibDem's candidate. But he thought Theresa May did brilliantly on the Question Time programme. "There's something about her...." Shows what we on here know.
Bugger all....!
I wonder how many returning students complete with their Moamentum t-shirts and posters of Jezza have had a similar talk from the folks?
EDIT: shooting report false. But it is an arrest of another London Bridge suspect, apparently.
East Ham and Barking.. whoever would have thought it
Remember the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets too.
I live next to a mosque in Tower Hamlets and came back from the cinema at 11pm last night to see that it was completely packed. Didn't know why until I switched on the TV, saw the news and realised my Muslim neighbours had come together to pray about what had happened.
I don't think so. It's Ramadhan, many muslims normally go to the mosques to pray at night during this month.
Now the question is this...are they seeing the opportunity to hammer Jezza just because...or is there genuine worried about the polling and think they need to hammer him.
There is a definite change in tone today.
There's a whiff of panic in the air. When everyone believed Theresa was a political superhero, the Jezza factor could be largely left to take care of itself. But now Theresa's limitations have been cruelly exposed, it's time to summon up the bogeymen. (Actually, I doubt The Sun and The Mail really give a fig about Therea's fortunes one way or another now; it's the reputation of Brexit they see as in jeopardy and feel they need a healthy Tory majority to keep it afloat.)
There is...but it is odd, until the attack the Tories still hadn't deployed any of this. Now it appears to be ramping up.
I was only saying this time yesterday how confused I was by the lack of the buckets of shit, and they didn't really have anything massive in the first editions of the Sundays.
Now it is they again got the wobbles from the polls and thought we got go with this? Or seen an opportunity to pile in and get a landslide?
I noticed today that whilst the enemies of our country were busy slaying our people in the name of their religion, a group of Labour activists had been out in Totnes, tearing down all the Sarah Wollaston posters and replacing them with Labour ones.
I noticed today that whilst the enemies of our country were busy slaying our people in the name of their religion, a group of Labour activists had been out in Totnes, tearing down all the Sarah Wollaston posters and replacing them with Labour ones.
Classy, guys. Real fucking classy.
I really don't know what they are hoping to achieve. If I saw a defaced poster like that it would make me even more determined to vote Tory.
Theresa May is going to win a comfortable majority on Thursday by default. Because the opposition are unelectable. Possibly even a landslide.
Unless the yoof turn out in huge numbers...
Looks like it might be raining.
I'm pretty skeptical they would even if the weather is decent. I just think we would be hearing more about it by now if their intention is to vote in massive numbers. Haven't read anything from people who have been campaigning out in these seats to say it's on the cards.
Can't rule it out I guess and it's probably the only way Corbyn can deprive May of her majority.
Met a couple today who were mortified to learn that their grand-daughter was planning on voting for Corbyn. Sat her down, told her how the world worked.
She's now voting for May.
Also met a guy in his garden. Him and he wife were LibDem last time. She will be this time. He is now planning to vote for Theresa May. Not voting Conservative as such. Awkward, because he is a personal friend of the LibDem's candidate. But he thought Theresa May did brilliantly on the Question Time programme. "There's something about her...." Shows what we on here know.
Bugger all....!
I wonder how many returning students complete with their Moamentum t-shirts and posters of Jezza have had a similar talk from the folks?
Yougov today have 63% of 18-24 year olds absolutely certain to vote, in election 2015 43% of 18 to 24s actually turned cast a ballot. 76% of 65+ are absolutely certain to vote and in election 2015 78% of over 65 year olds voted
The shoot to kill video is going viral, the iPlayer clip got shared in two WhatsApp groups I'm in, very negative reactions. I think Jez needs to say that he fully supports the police decision to kill the terrorists and he would do so again we're he PM, if he isn't forthright then I think we're back in landslide territory.
So is the police union one too though.
Not seen that one just yet on my fb feed or on WhatsApp, I'm not a huge twatter user.
The shoot to kill video is going viral, the iPlayer clip got shared in two WhatsApp groups I'm in, very negative reactions. I think Jez needs to say that he fully supports the police decision to kill the terrorists and he would do so again we're he PM, if he isn't forthright then I think we're back in landslide territory.
So is the police union one too though.
Not seen that one just yet on my fb feed or on WhatsApp, I'm not a huge twatter user.
Its all over my FB. But then I am friends with lots of Corbynistas.
The Daily Mail is always so angry and so silly, it's become a joke newspaper.
The events in London are indeed terrible and it is difficult to see how the public can be protected from such attacks, political point scoring has no place in today's news.
Both May and Corbyn are decent people with their own flaws, one of them will become Prime Minister next week but the world will still revolve whatever happens.
I hope that the time that is left will be spent in positive campaigning and not mud-slinging.
The shoot to kill video is going viral, the iPlayer clip got shared in two WhatsApp groups I'm in, very negative reactions. I think Jez needs to say that he fully supports the police decision to kill the terrorists and he would do so again we're he PM, if he isn't forthright then I think we're back in landslide territory.
So is the police union one too though.
Not seen that one just yet on my fb feed or on WhatsApp, I'm not a huge twatter user.
Its all over my FB. But then I am friends with lots of Corbynistas.
Laura KuenssbergVerified account @bbclaurak 7s8 seconds ago More Irony - May's Counter-Terror and Extremism Bill she started in 2015 fell because she called the election
The Daily Mail is always so angry and so silly, it's become a joke newspaper.
Except despite all the bashing it gets, it is one of the most visited websites in the world, and not just among ultra right wing / throw all the immigrants out types
Now a lot of people go for the sidebar of shame / gossip, but they also click on all sorts of other articles. It has a huge female viewership.
Their reach is why they are really the only newspaper making money.
Laura KuenssbergVerified account @bbclaurak 7s8 seconds ago More Irony - May's Counter-Terror and Extremism Bill she started in 2015 fell because she called the election
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
If we treated Muslims in the UK how non muslims are treated in UAE I agree there would be virtually no terrorism. The alpha male is in charge
As I said
"Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it."
I live one stop away from a terrorist hotspot!
*and wimmin
They caused terror, mass casualties and deaths, thats the objective.
Don't kid yourself, it was successful in meeting most of its basic objectives other than one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJfbcUpO5bM&feature=youtu.be
In the "Aliens" film, the reason that the marines were disarmed was because the nest was in a place where gunfire would potentially trigger an explosion. The concern was not squeamishness about killing aliens.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3721190/video-of-corbyn-saying-he-opposes-shoot-to-kill-policy-rises-to-the-top-of-bbc-website-in-wake-of-london-attack/
In the real word I agree with you of course - you don't give adverse sound bites that can be deployed against you on a complex topic you're perceived as weak on. It's moronic. Much of Corbyn's media engagement has been and the recent improvement is too late.
I'm not trying to explain or change minds here though, I'm trying to find out if the posters here claiming that Corbyn wouldn't support reasonable force a) have other evidence I've missed b) genuinely don't understand the terminology or c) think it worth using deliberate misunderstanding as spin lines on PB.
I've been away for a few months, maybe I've forgotten the etiquette around these parts...
The problem for him is that he is going to be questioned on his beliefs and as you know, once you are having to explain ........
Possibly bollocks, but that was the heart of the STK controversy there.
There was no polling evidence that voters altered their choice as a result, so I don't think there will be this time either.
"Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it."
Historically ... no.
In many countries, Christianity began as a minority religion and gradually took over peacefully. Admittedly, In Rome, the ascent of Constantine, the Tyke, gave them a big push. This was against pagan rule, though.
The migrants in the UAE are treated badly but not because they are mainly non-muslims.
"There are an estimated 450,000 Egyptians living in the UAE,[16] forming the largest community of non-citizens from the Arab world in the UAE. - Muslims.
Iraqis in the UAE have a population exceeding 100,000.-Muslims
As of 2009, the Jordanian population was estimated at 250,000 -Muslims
There are an estimated 80,000[24] Lebanese living in the UAE,
Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates include expatriates from Pakistan who have settled in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as Emirati people who have Pakistani heritage. With a population of over 1.2 million,[6] Pakistanis are the second largest national group in the UAE after Indians, constituting 12.5% of the country's total population.- also Muslim
and the indians in the UAE will also be mainly muslims
I don't know where foxinsox is getting his claim that most migrants in the UAE are mainly all christian and hindu from. Nonsense.
Also isam's claim theory of Alpha religion preventing all this is farfetched.
It pissed down. I got drenched. I carried on. It was slow. Folding a soon-to-be-papier-mache blob under an umbrella is tedious work. I thought - I bet a good chunk of those I am delivering to have already voted. Those that haven't - how many will read this thing? How many votes will 400 deliveries really change? One, maybe, by now? Dispiriting.
But...then it stopped raining. The sun broke through. And suddenly, I was delivering with a Spitfire overhead. And I thought FUCK YES! THIS IS WHY WE DO THIS!!
'Corbyn says shoot to kill is wrong'
(unless it's the IRA murdering British soldiers and Police Officers)
Now the question is this...are they seeing the opportunity to hammer Jezza just because...or is there genuine worried about the polling and think they need to hammer him.
There is a definite change in tone today.
Sometimes, but not usually under pain of death. Apostates were routinely killed.
Back then it was only 200 hours but has now been increased. At a couple of hours a week assuming you are also doing a job, it is a long process.
By the way, if Labour thought Theresa May's Dementia Tax was toxic - ain't nothing compared to the reaction to Jeremy Corbyn's Garden Tax.
Can't rule it out I guess and it's probably the only way Corbyn can deprive May of her majority.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4567270/Labour-anarchists-plot-burn-rob-Tory-homes.html
Here's a chart of the SNP vote share to turnout at Holyrood.
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/729997538372259840
For some time now I have been predicting a Con majority of 76, I am not minded to revise it.
Well spotted! Missionaries didn't usually go armed, they might bore them to death, but it was unintentional.
I'd certainly agree it was a shame
I lived in one region here and sort of learned the language at my own expense... then I moved to a different region with a completely different language and am starting again... the fly in the ointment this time is there are no books written in the new language.
Pffffffffffff
She's now voting for May.
Also met a guy in his garden. Him and he wife were LibDem last time. She will be this time. He is now planning to vote for Theresa May. Not voting Conservative as such. Awkward, because he is a personal friend of the LibDem's candidate. But he thought Theresa May did brilliantly on the Question Time programme. "There's something about her...." Shows what we on here know.
Bugger all....!
"If it wasn't religion, it would be something else"
Indeed.
When people talk about the radicalization of Islam, they're wrong.
It's the Islamicisation of radicalism.
And anyway, it doesn't count as he's changed his tie since. And learned to do it up properly (mostly)
I was only saying this time yesterday how confused I was by the lack of the buckets of shit, and they didn't really have anything massive in the first editions of the Sundays.
Now it is they again got the wobbles from the polls and thought we got go with this? Or seen an opportunity to pile in and get a landslide?
I noticed today that whilst the enemies of our country were busy slaying our people in the name of their religion, a group of Labour activists had been out in Totnes, tearing down all the Sarah Wollaston posters and replacing them with Labour ones.
Classy, guys. Real fucking classy.
Getting on front page of Mail tomorrow would be the ideal I guess, but terrible events have intervened.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f3ruqo8k0q/SundayTimesResults_170602_VI_W.pdf
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015?language_content_entity=en-uk
The events in London are indeed terrible and it is difficult to see how the public can be protected from such attacks, political point scoring has no place in today's news.
Both May and Corbyn are decent people with their own flaws, one of them will become Prime Minister next week but the world will still revolve whatever happens.
I hope that the time that is left will be spent in positive campaigning and not mud-slinging.
The one big unknown is what the Standard will do tomorrow.
More
Irony - May's Counter-Terror and Extremism Bill she started in 2015 fell because she called the election
Now a lot of people go for the sidebar of shame / gossip, but they also click on all sorts of other articles. It has a huge female viewership.
Their reach is why they are really the only newspaper making money.