I had a (20W?) lightbulb moment reading the piece in die Welt below. It's worth persevering with Google Translate. The author asks why the government hasn't done a single thing to prepare the country for Brexit and thinks it isn't serious about Brexit. I would say more indecision than a plan but it comes to the same thing. There is plenty of argument in the UK about Brexit but very little discussion about how to achieve it.
I realised for the first time that there is a consensus of sorts in the UK about Brexit. Both Remainers and Leavers want Brexit to change things as little as possible. In the Remainers' case it's about damage limitation. In the Leavers' case it is an expectation that nothing important will change after Brexit - the absence of a Project Fear essentially. Patrick Minford's wildly misinformed report that Britain will be £135 billion better off after Brexit is predicated on us continuing to trade on exactly the same terms after Brexit as now.
I have always thought Leavers were making a mistake in thinking there would be no real change with Brexit but missed the much more important point that they don't actually want there to be change. They may talk, as Professor Minford does, of opportunities but virtually no-one is prepared to take responsibility for effecting change. Certainly none of the politicians are. I expect the job to end up with the civil servants who, in the absence of a steer from politicians, will aim not to rock the boat. The recent flurry of "position papers" are civil servants at their finest, articulating fluently about nothing much at all.
For the first time I am more concerned about the EU negotiators than the UK ones. We are waiting for them to tell us what's what - we are not going to do it ourselves - and therefore rely on the kindness of those we have estranged. I hope they are tolerant of our stupidity, give us our figleaves of control - our indirect jurisdictions, our new and special relationships - and don't screw us over just because they can. The UK is worth keeping in the EU camp.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
The article says he will be deported to Egypt to serve out his term, once he is no longer Cat A.
No idea how many years that is.
The real question is why there aren't the resources to deport people before they get to this point.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
The article says he will be deported to Egypt to serve out his term, once he is no longer Cat A.
Some taxpayer paid immigration lawyer is bound to play the "human rights" card at his inevitable appeal. He'll still be here years after his sentence is up.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
It does actually say in the article that he will be deported to Egypt to serve his sentence there.
I mentioned this morning. Still available at 11 on BF.
Definitely worth a few quid. Apart from anything else iirc her and Jezza are buddies and so he might well be happy to go at age 70 if she was going to run and had UNITE and momentum onboard.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
It does actually say in the article that he will be deported to Egypt to serve his sentence there.
We need some sort of Pre-Crime thingy with Tom Cruise involved, so we can kick 'em out before they do bad things.
Joking aside, I can see why this sort of case gets people riled. He was known to the police, and clearly a wrong 'un, but he kept being bailed because the systems in place were wank. The authorities bear some responsibility for messing up the system so badly.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
It does actually say in the article that he will be deported to Egypt to serve his sentence there.
It will be a long time before he isn’t a Class A offender, but there’s clearly a huge problem deporting people. Why did the magistrates give him bail in the first place if he’s an illegal awaiting deportation? He should be remanded awaiting his flight out.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
The article says he will be deported to Egypt to serve out his term, once he is no longer Cat A.
No idea how many years that is.
The real question is why there aren't the resources to deport people before they get to this point.
Being downgraded from Cat A status can occur within days of being sentenced.
However given his background, I suspect he won't get be downgraded for a few months, assuming he's a good boy in prison.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
Dr. Foxinsox, that's a conclusion that cannot be definitely inferred from the election, because the Conservatives/May ran the worst campaign in recent memory. It's worth noting that before the amazing ideas of Nick Timothy et al, Corbyn and Labour were a long way behind (after months of such attacks being made).
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
The chap was illegal. The problem is not the rules, it is the lack of enforcement by Mrs Mays Home Office.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yeah, cause personal attacks worked so well in June 2017 when the WWC would despise IRA linked Jezza.
I am in the Green on her, as the most likely female candidate.
I genuinely did find her bizarre attitude about the white van and the England flag really strange. It was probably the first time a Labour politician had so openly sneered at the wwc of England. It'll probably be all forgotten when she makes her run, as you say, personal attacks didn't do Corbyn any damage, but i genuinely couldn't vote for Labour with her in charge.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
But this is attacking the voters directly. It’s like Hillary and the Deplorables.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
What would your answer to it all be?
Oh I see I need to an answer to it all before I can point out there's a problem without people like you jumping all over me.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
JC would go diamond hard Brexit if it meant the difference between winning a GE or not, wouldn't he?
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
The article says he will be deported to Egypt to serve out his term, once he is no longer Cat A.
No idea how many years that is.
The real question is why there aren't the resources to deport people before they get to this point.
Being downgraded from Cat A status can occur within days of being sentenced.
However given his background, I suspect he won't get be downgraded for a few months, assuming he's a good boy in prison.
Isn't Cat A for those whose escape would pose a big risk to the public?
Dr. Foxinsox, that's a conclusion that cannot be definitely inferred from the election, because the Conservatives/May ran the worst campaign in recent memory. It's worth noting that before the amazing ideas of Nick Timothy et al, Corbyn and Labour were a long way behind (after months of such attacks being made).
Sure, every GE is different. The PB Tories are very keen to pin it all on May* so as to not look at how unpopular the rest of the Conservative party is, as such they are due another kicking at the next GE.
*some of us have always said that she was useless, but PB Tories seem to be late to this assessment.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
But this is attacking the voters directly. It’s like Hillary and the Deplorables.
Hillary still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
But this is attacking the voters directly. It’s like Hillary and the Deplorables.
Hillary still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
But lost the key parts of important rust belt states where the deplorables hang out in bars.
Why is that even a question that needs to be asked? It should be standard procedure to deport any foreigner as they leave prison, if they wish to apply to come back they can do so from abroad and at their own expense.
The article says he will be deported to Egypt to serve out his term, once he is no longer Cat A.
No idea how many years that is.
The real question is why there aren't the resources to deport people before they get to this point.
Being downgraded from Cat A status can occur within days of being sentenced.
However given his background, I suspect he won't get be downgraded for a few months, assuming he's a good boy in prison.
Isn't Cat A for those whose escape would pose a big risk to the public?
Not quite.
Most prisoners become Cat A prisoners by simple geography, all the big courts are in the cities, and most of the Cat A/B prisons are in the big cities.
A Cat B prison/prisoner is 'those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape still needs to be made very difficult.'
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
What would your answer to it all be?
Oh I see I need to an answer to it all before I can point out there's a problem without people like you jumping all over me.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
What is your answer to it all?
Although this is a discussion board, I don't believe that someone who wishes to end Islamic integration has shown themselves worth discussing with.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
But this is attacking the voters directly. It’s like Hillary and the Deplorables.
Hillary still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
Because of NY and California. She lost pretty much every swing state though, as The Deplorables turned out in huge numbers to give her a bloody nose.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
What would your answer to it all be?
Oh I see I need to an answer to it all before I can point out there's a problem without people like you jumping all over me.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
What is your answer to it all?
Although this is a discussion board, I don't believe that someone who wishes to end Islamic integration has shown themselves worth discussing with.
I guessed that you would be incapable of discussing the matter without the same old tedious mock outrage.
Or indeed straw man arguments such as "end Islamic integration" which I never said.
Same old stuff from the same old people I suppose.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yet Corbyn's past comments and views about the IRA wasn't a hindrance with the voters, Lady Nugee's observations about the cross of that Middle Eastern chap who never set foot in England won't be an issue either.
But this is attacking the voters directly. It’s like Hillary and the Deplorables.
Hillary still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
It's like Labour or the Tories winning an election on a third of the vote. It's a shit system, but it's still the system, and I bet Hilary wouldn't have been bleating if it had been the other way around
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
Back to staring at our shoes.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
What would your answer to it all be?
Oh I see I need to an answer to it all before I can point out there's a problem without people like you jumping all over me.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
What is your answer to it all?
Although this is a discussion board, I don't believe that someone who wishes to end Islamic integration has shown themselves worth discussing with.
I guessed that you would be incapable of discussing the matter without the same old tedious mock outrage.
Or indeed straw man arguments such as "end Islamic integration" which I never said.
Same old stuff from the same old people I suppose.
She’s 10/1 second favourite on Betfair - and would make the Tories a shoo-in at the subsequent election.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Yeah, cause personal attacks worked so well in June 2017 when the WWC would despise IRA linked Jezza.
I am in the Green on her, as the most likely female candidate.
I genuinely did find her bizarre attitude about the white van and the England flag really strange. It was probably the first time a Labour politician had so openly sneered at the wwc of England. It'll probably be all forgotten when she makes her run, as you say, personal attacks didn't do Corbyn any damage, but i genuinely couldn't vote for Labour with her in charge.
I could see her winning the leadership, and she is great at TV and interviews.
The Jezza phenomenon does show the importance of impassioned speaking and willingness to oppose orthodoxy, and I think she would struggle there.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
JC would go diamond hard Brexit if it meant the difference between winning a GE or not, wouldn't he?
Is he content to lead a party of ten MPs, i.e. himself, McD, Skinner, Mann, Hoey, Field et al? Plus the young new members from London are probably all ardent believers in a new Europe without borders.
If the 2017 election was the Remainers' revenge, I can't see how it helps to alienate Remain voters further. Some might realise that he's as Europhobic as John Redwood and decamp to the Lib.Dems.
But I suppose that LINO is a great way to cover up cracks, in one's floor covering if nothing else.
What is the pattern? Criminal commits crime? Anything else?
I actually doubted if there were still some die hard idiots around who try to ridicule anyone pointing out problems with immigration, but apparently there are.
What would your answer to it all be?
Oh I see I need to an answer to it all before I can point out there's a problem without people like you jumping all over me.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
What is your answer to it all?
Although this is a discussion board, I don't believe that someone who wishes to end Islamic integration has shown themselves worth discussing with.
I guessed that you would be incapable of discussing the matter without the same old tedious mock outrage.
Or indeed straw man arguments such as "end Islamic integration" which I never said.
Same old stuff from the same old people I suppose.
"no more Islamic immigration at all"
Did you say that?
Yes I did. Clearly I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here. I think even you are capable of telling the difference.
Read your replies in this thread between us. Literally all your posts are just snide remarks, straw men or mock outrage which are designed I'm guessing to try and end the discussion. You've added absolutely nothing worthwhile whatsoever and I'm guessing you do this to anyone that brings up the subject.
Are you aware you do this? Why bother exactly?
Why not say something constructive. What would you do about the problems? What flaws are there in my logic?
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
Sounds suitably 70s, not the 'luxury vinyl' option some were expecting.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
JC would go diamond hard Brexit if it meant the difference between winning a GE or not, wouldn't he?
Is he content to lead a party of ten MPs, i.e. himself, McD, Skinner, Mann, Hoey, Field et al? Plus the young new members from London are probably all ardent believers in a new Europe without borders.
If the 2017 election was the Remainers' revenge, I can't see how it helps to alienate Remain voters further. Some might realise that he's as Europhobic as John Redwood and decamp to the Lib.Dems.
But I suppose that LINO is a great way to cover up cracks, in one's floor covering if nothing else.
a) JC doesn't give a fuck about his MPs opinions on any subject and b) they would fall into slavish obeisance if he led them to the Valhalla of an overall majority.
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
It is actually a very different article to what you depict. Did you actually read it?
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
Well that's more like it.
Surely you can see how less Islamic immigration now will mean less Islamic terrorism in the future? Yes it wouldn't stop the problem that is already here, but it will reduce it in future. Obviously I don't think it would solve all the issues by itself.
You can still work with the muslims here to try and integrate them more (I don't think it will work, but there is no harm in trying). I've no idea how you can't see the difference between those two things - future immigration and integration of Muslims currently living here.
The comment about Roman Catholics doesn't make any sense to me I'm afraid.
You have still yet to tell me any measures you would like to see taken. Or is terrorism just something we've got to learn to live with?
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
It is actually a very different article to what you depict. Did you actually read it?
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
I agree seems to hit the nail on the head.LINO seem to have cut through ,unlike all the bluster we have heard so far regarding our negotiation positions.
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
Well that's more like it.
Surely you can see how less Islamic immigration now will mean less Islamic terrorism in the future? Yes it wouldn't stop the problem that is already here, but it will reduce it in future. Obviously I don't think it would solve all the issues by itself.
You can still work with the muslims here to try and integrate them more (I don't think it will work, but there is no harm in trying). I've no idea how you can't see the difference between those two things - future immigration and integration of Muslims currently living here.
The comment about Roman Catholics don't make any sense to me I'm afraid.
You have still yet to tell me any measures you would like to see taken. Or is terrorism just something we've got to learn to live with?
When it's happening you must learn to live with it; at the same time as working to defeat it tactically and strategically, as the police and security services are doing, and also to defeat the ideology. There really is no other way.
I get it also - you want gradually to eradicate all muslims from the UK. May I say I profoundly disagree with such a proposition to the point whereby you disqualify yourself from further engagement.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
I agree seems to hit the nail on the head.LINO seem to have cut through ,unlike all the bluster we have heard so far regarding our negotiation positions.
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
It is actually a very different article to what you depict. Did you actually read it?
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
How do the HuffPost know that the ex army security men weren't like that before they became soldiers?
I think the Huffpost is being compassionate in believing them as good people who are victims of the barbarity of war themselves. I agree that there are other possibilities including them being racists before they joined who persist in those beliefs, or possibly they are Walts pretending to be vets for the credibility that this brings.
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
Well that's more like it.
Surely you can see how less Islamic immigration now will mean less Islamic terrorism in the future? Yes it wouldn't stop the problem that is already here, but it will reduce it in future. Obviously I don't think it would solve all the issues by itself.
You can still work with the muslims here to try and integrate them more (I don't think it will work, but there is no harm in trying). I've no idea how you can't see the difference between those two things - future immigration and integration of Muslims currently living here.
The comment about Roman Catholics don't make any sense to me I'm afraid.
You have still yet to tell me any measures you would like to see taken. Or is terrorism just something we've got to learn to live with?
When it's happening you must learn to live with it; at the same time as working to defeat it tactically and strategically, as the police and security services are doing, and also to defeat the ideology. There really is no other way.
I get it also - you want gradually to eradicate all muslims from the UK. May I say I profoundly disagree with such a proposition to the point whereby you disqualify yourself from further engagement.
Sozza.
So true to form you decided to go back to straw men and ridiculous hyperbole to avoid answering a pretty simple question.
I see you have similar interactions on here with people all the time.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
I agree seems to hit the nail on the head.LINO seem to have cut through ,unlike all the bluster we have heard so far regarding our negotiation positions.
Labour In Name Only?
Possibly but Leaving in name only seems to me a realistic possibility. Which will then be the question why bother with all this angst.
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
It is actually a very different article to what you depict. Did you actually read it?
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
How do the HuffPost know that the ex army security men weren't like that before they became soldiers?
I think the Huffpost is being compassionate in believing them as good people who are victims of the barbarity of war themselves. I agree that there are other possibilities including them being racists before they joined who persist in those beliefs, or possibly they are Walts pretending to be vets for the credibility that this brings.
Seems like they are assuming people who they disagree with must have an illness to me
Yes, that's an interesting article. They say essentially that British policy is oriented to leaving in name only, and that the tabloids and Leave voters haven't yet woken up to it. They conclude that either Britain will remain effectively members, or the government will need to be replaced by one that's serious about leaving. And that isn't really going to happen.
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
What a wonderful new acronym! I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it.
I agree seems to hit the nail on the head.LINO seem to have cut through ,unlike all the bluster we have heard so far regarding our negotiation positions.
Labour In Name Only?
Possibly but Leaving in name only seems to me a realistic possibility. Which will then be the question why bother with all this angst.
LINO would satisfy very few voters. It would be the British Sausage writ large.
I cannot see it happening as it would pass neither our parliament nor the EU parliament. The whole LINO discussion is just our politicians getting cold feet about a process that is going to cause a lot of pain. It is rather like stage fright when performing a badly written, under rehearsed and chaotically directed stage production. It is entirely understandable and indeed shows signs of insight. The show must go on, however!
"You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way."
It is actually a very different article to what you depict. Did you actually read it?
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
How do the HuffPost know that the ex army security men weren't like that before they became soldiers?
I think the Huffpost is being compassionate in believing them as good people who are victims of the barbarity of war themselves. I agree that there are other possibilities including them being racists before they joined who persist in those beliefs, or possibly they are Walts pretending to be vets for the credibility that this brings.
Seems like they are assuming people who they disagree with must have an illness to me
Suggesting PTSD as the cause of their radicalization is an interesting suggestion, but that sort of remote psychoanalysis is fraught with difficulty.
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
Well that's more like it.
Surely you can see how less Islamic immigration now will mean less Islamic terrorism in the future? Yes it wouldn't stop the problem that is already here, but it will reduce it in future. Obviously I don't think it would solve all the issues by itself.
You can still work with the muslims here to try and integrate them more (I don't think it will work, but there is no harm in trying). I've no idea how you can't see the difference between those two things - future immigration and integration of Muslims currently living here.
The comment about Roman Catholics don't make any sense to me I'm afraid.
You have still yet to tell me any measures you would like to see taken. Or is terrorism just something we've got to learn to live with?
When it's happening you must learn to live with it; at the same time as working to defeat it tactically and strategically, as the police and security services are doing, and also to defeat the ideology. There really is no other way.
I get it also - you want gradually to eradicate all muslims from the UK. May I say I profoundly disagree with such a proposition to the point whereby you disqualify yourself from further engagement.
Sozza.
It is obvious that the vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists, but all Islamists are Muslim. One is a prerequisite of the other. Therefore, if we take action to slow the growth of the 'pool' in which the preachers of hate can fish, we will likely reduce the growth of the problem we face in the future.
Comments
.......and when you've removed the desire for change what are you left with?
Blind prejudice
No idea how many years that is.
The real question is why there aren't the resources to deport people before they get to this point.
He'll still be here years after his sentence is up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/24/len-mccluskey-tips-emily-thornberry-as-next-labour-leader
Definitely worth a few quid. Apart from anything else iirc her and Jezza are buddies and so he might well be happy to go at age 70 if she was going to run and had UNITE and momentum onboard.
Seems to be still the case.
Hey plebs, this is what The Labour Party leader - THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER, thinks of you white trash and your football flags.
Joking aside, I can see why this sort of case gets people riled. He was known to the police, and clearly a wrong 'un, but he kept being bailed because the systems in place were wank.
The authorities bear some responsibility for messing up the system so badly.
I am in the Green on her, as the most likely female candidate.
However given his background, I suspect he won't get be downgraded for a few months, assuming he's a good boy in prison.
If Moamentum can be persuaded she is the anointed one, then it is all over for the others.
For a start I would say no more Islamic immigration at all. The crime rate is too high and the unemployment rate too low. That's before you factor in extremists and child sex gangs.
Same deal for other countries that fail to integrate properly.
For illegals more checks on people coming from the above countries, easier deportation rules and no access to public services whatsoever. This bloke seems to have escaped deportation several times somehow.
What is your answer to it all?
*some of us have always said that she was useless, but PB Tories seem to be late to this assessment.
Most prisoners become Cat A prisoners by simple geography, all the big courts are in the cities, and most of the Cat A/B prisons are in the big cities.
A Cat B prison/prisoner is 'those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape still needs to be made very difficult.'
Or indeed straw man arguments such as "end Islamic integration" which I never said.
Same old stuff from the same old people I suppose.
https://twitter.com/brittpettibone/status/900729967847235585
Did you say that?
The Jezza phenomenon does show the importance of impassioned speaking and willingness to oppose orthodoxy, and I think she would struggle there.
If the 2017 election was the Remainers' revenge, I can't see how it helps to alienate Remain voters further. Some might realise that he's as Europhobic as John Redwood and decamp to the Lib.Dems.
But I suppose that LINO is a great way to cover up cracks, in one's floor covering if nothing else.
Read your replies in this thread between us. Literally all your posts are just snide remarks, straw men or mock outrage which are designed I'm guessing to try and end the discussion. You've added absolutely nothing worthwhile whatsoever and I'm guessing you do this to anyone that brings up the subject.
Are you aware you do this? Why bother exactly?
Why not say something constructive. What would you do about the problems? What flaws are there in my logic?
Always hard to see how others will view someone, though.
The flag issue might be worse for her than people think. Identity and culture are higher up the agenda than they were. Again, hard to judge.
The Huffpost article discusses the fact that the security for the neo-Nazis, KKK and white supremacists was provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It considers them as brave people whose minds have been warped by PTSD as a result of combat experience.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/becoming-a-racist-the-unfortunate-side-effect-of-serving_us_5995afe4e4b056a2b0ef038c
First, I don't really understand your explanation "I didn't say end integration of the muslims already here". What does that mean?
Secondly, you want Islamic immigration stopped. And that is a solution, is it? Presumably you mean from Bradford to London, if you are serious about stopping terror attacks? Sorry, we can't stop them. You hate that, I hate it, but only one of us realises the reality of the situation. We can only fight it by proving we have a superior ideology and that will take generation(s).
Thirdly, we have immigration and some immigrants commit crime. BFD. They are criminals. We have white Christian criminals here, some work in the church. Would you also not end integration of the Roman Catholics here? It is nonsensical.
You are angry and feel powerless because there are crimes committed and you can't do anything about it and you believe the government is staring at its shoes. I daresay it was because of that feeling of powerlessness that you voted Brexit (taking a SWAG here). But some kind of coherent policy strategy it is not.
This is assuming you are not a troll, which your posts are just good enough to be a product of.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/08/did-mainstream-media-smear-jeremy-corbyn-over-traingate
Surely you can see how less Islamic immigration now will mean less Islamic terrorism in the future? Yes it wouldn't stop the problem that is already here, but it will reduce it in future.
Obviously I don't think it would solve all the issues by itself.
You can still work with the muslims here to try and integrate them more (I don't think it will work, but there is no harm in trying). I've no idea how you can't see the difference between those two things - future immigration and integration of Muslims currently living here.
The comment about Roman Catholics doesn't make any sense to me I'm afraid.
You have still yet to tell me any measures you would like to see taken. Or is terrorism just something we've got to learn to live with?
I get it also - you want gradually to eradicate all muslims from the UK. May I say I profoundly disagree with such a proposition to the point whereby you disqualify yourself from further engagement.
Sozza.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/economy/france-emmanuel-macron-eastern-europe.html
I see you have similar interactions on here with people all the time.
What exactly is the point?
Can't Agree Nothing, Vicissitude Arriving Shortly
NEW THREAD
I cannot see it happening as it would pass neither our parliament nor the EU parliament. The whole LINO discussion is just our politicians getting cold feet about a process that is going to cause a lot of pain. It is rather like stage fright when performing a badly written, under rehearsed and chaotically directed stage production. It is entirely understandable and indeed shows signs of insight. The show must go on, however!