I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
Complete deradicalisation is impossible without a draconian repression of free speech that would grossly impinge upon the rights of everybody else. Some are always going to slip through the net.
Its impossible to stop young men getting access to radicalising material in a free society.
Oh well, that policy will save a few quid. We can just sit back and let them go out and kill and bomb because "Its [sic] impossible to stop"
Perhaps you can opine if the costs of damage caused would be less than the deradicalisation spend?
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
The trouble with VAR for handball or offside is that it takes forever and does not replace the referee's subjective opinion with an objective one (like in tennis) but with another subjective view but from a different camera angle and repeated viewings.
To do a cricket analogy then multiple angles for handball is fair enough, like a stumping/run out or even a low catch which go frame by frame or multiple angles and even predate DRS.
VAR for offside is what really should have the Umpire's Call element like the ball tracker in DRS. DRS ball tracker takes a moment to appear but the second it appears the result is there with the trafic light coding - no squabbling.
In DRS the whole ball width needs to be either on the stumps or off the stumps for it not to be umpire's call - I'd use the same logic in football. The moment the lines appear if they are not at least a football's width apart then stick with the on field referees call. If they are at least a football's width apart then you have an instant decision from VAR. Job done.
Take offside, even if we grant that whether a player is offside or not can be determined objectively by VAR and cleverly drawn, pixel-wide lines, the trouble is there is then a highly subjective decision about whether the offside player is interfering with play. There is no scientifically objective truth to be discovered by VAR.
That's simple, let the referee determine who was interfering with play. That's his job. If he needs to check the pitchside monitor that should also be his job.
No, it is not simple. For VAR to work properly, we need to turn a subjective criterion like involvement in play into an objective one, like is the player on the field or standing upright or something along those lines.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
It only works if every sentence is a life sentence. Otherwise they eventually get out and since you have done nothing to help them or change their mind they will simply carry on as before.
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
There's going to be a ban on electric vehicles? Banning petrol or diesel is no different to banning lead vehicles.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
It was briefly discussed. @Philip_Thompson wanted to know if Sinn Fein in the Republic had different policies than the party in the north. Apart from some knowledgeable contributors, PB doesn't really do Ireland, although hopefully it'll up its game for this one.
SF are going withdraw the 26 counties from the NATO PfP program which is perceived as step toward full membership.
Excitingly for Leavers they are also going to pull out of PESCO; the nascent "EU Army" the horror of which haunts their every waking hour.
They also plan to allow collective bargaining for military pay and conditions (like Denmark and the Netherlands). A progressive move which will increase the effectiveness of their armed forces and one the UK should definitely follow but never will because the Daily Mail gripped by palsied fingers and read by rheumy eyes would not stand for it.
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
Complete deradicalisation is impossible without a draconian repression of free speech that would grossly impinge upon the rights of everybody else. Some are always going to slip through the net.
Its impossible to stop young men getting access to radicalising material in a free society.
Oh well, that policy will save a few quid. We can just sit back and let them go out and kill and bomb because "Its [sic] impossible to stop"
Perhaps you can opine if the costs of damage caused would be less than the deradicalisation spend?
The deradicalism spend should be replaced with a T shirt and underpants with 'get with the programme' on them.
Britain is one of the freest, wealthiest societies in the world. Opportunities abound for all and protections against discrimination are enshrined in law. All communities grasp this, and many in the muslim community do to.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.
The Streatham lad was imprisoned precisely for those lesser orders of terrorist activity. A useful question may be would intervention have worked at that point.
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
It was briefly discussed. @Philip_Thompson wanted to know if Sinn Fein in the Republic had different policies than the party in the north. Apart from some knowledgeable contributors, PB doesn't really do Ireland, although hopefully it'll up its game for this one.
SF are going withdraw the 26 counties from the NATO PfP program which is perceived as step toward full membership.
Excitingly for Leavers they are also going to pull out of PESCO; the nascent "EU Army" the horror of which haunts their every waking hour.
They also plan to allow collective bargaining for military pay and conditions (like Denmark and the Netherlands). A progressive move which will increase the effectiveness of their armed forces and one the UK should definitely follow but never will because the Daily Mail gripped by palsied fingers and read by rheumy eyes would not stand for it.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
No I am advocating very long sentences for people who want to use indiscrimate murder and mayhem to fundamentally destroy a society I think is worth fighting for.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
Actually it is a smart move.
By joining with David Attenborough in announcing the ban on new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035 he will have almost certainly caused panic in Germany and added some substance to Nissan closing their european factories and concentrating electric car production in the UK, almost certainly capturing a large market share. I notice Ireland have announced 2030 for the same ban
It must be remembered that Boris is surrounded by green supporters including Cummings, Carrie and Gove and expect to hear a lot more on saving the planet as we move to Cop 26
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
The 'real problem' is decades of mass immigration of people with a conflicting religious, social and political outlook to the host country, and that is probably unsolvable now
Worse. He thinks the people who vote for him believe this crap. He’s applying the “fool some of the people” principle of politics. It’s worked for him so far.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
It was briefly discussed. @Philip_Thompson wanted to know if Sinn Fein in the Republic had different policies than the party in the north. Apart from some knowledgeable contributors, PB doesn't really do Ireland, although hopefully it'll up its game for this one.
SF are going withdraw the 26 counties from the NATO PfP program which is perceived as step toward full membership.
Excitingly for Leavers they are also going to pull out of PESCO; the nascent "EU Army" the horror of which haunts their every waking hour.
They also plan to allow collective bargaining for military pay and conditions (like Denmark and the Netherlands). A progressive move which will increase the effectiveness of their armed forces and one the UK should definitely follow but never will because the Daily Mail gripped by palsied fingers and read by rheumy eyes would not stand for it.
Just finally watching the BBC documentary on The Troubles and was at the bit which showed Maggie in a PARA Reg beret.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.
The Streatham lad was imprisoned precisely for those lesser orders of terrorist activity. A useful question may be would intervention have worked at that point.
A properly constituted and funded deradicalisation program would probably have answered that question prior to his release.
To be honest, I think releasing terrorists is fine, so long as armed police are watching/following them. If they commit or attempt to commit an act of terror, they'll get what they deserve. Seems reasonable to me.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
No I am advocating very long sentences for people who want to use indiscrimate murder and mayhem to fundamentally destroy a society I think is worth fighting for.
What level of intent are we looking at here? 20 years for some inadequate arsehole texting his inadequate arsehole pal that he wants to kill kafirs (or indeed eg Sturgeon/Johnson/Corbyn)?
The anticlimax has completely screwed the campaigns of Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar. It will be Biden or Sanders now as everyone else was working on an Iowa bounce.
Worse. He thinks the people who vote for him believe this crap. He’s applying the “fool some of the people” principle of politics. It’s worked for him so far.
He was the bl%$£*y Foreign Secretary for some of that time! Is he trying to suggest he was just the EU Commission's puppet at that time?
“This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion,” said Mandy McClure, the Iowa party’s communications director. “The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
No I am advocating very long sentences for people who want to use indiscrimate murder and mayhem to fundamentally destroy a society I think is worth fighting for.
What - like the US where you can get 180 year sentences (providing they do not execute you)?
You do know that their prisons are stuffed solid, they incarcerate more of their population than just about any other 1st world country and that the prisons are a wonderful recruiting ground for gangs and dealers?
And they still have way more violence than we do.You are safer in Sudan or Bangladesh than the US
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
I think a little detail on how the whole 'get with the program' program might be embodied in law might be... instructive.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of people know exactly what it means because its what they do every day.
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry) probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.
The Streatham lad was imprisoned precisely for those lesser orders of terrorist activity. A useful question may be would intervention have worked at that point.
A properly constituted and funded deradicalisation program would probably have answered that question prior to his release.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
I think a little detail on how the whole 'get with the program' program might be embodied in law might be... instructive.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of people know exactly what is means because its what they do every day.
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry_ probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
Looks like the most serious consequence of the coronavirus is that it might delay the production/release of the next generation of iPhones (due in September.)
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
I think a little detail on how the whole 'get with the program' program might be embodied in law might be... instructive.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of people know exactly what is means because its what they do every day.
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry_ probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
Terrorism? nope. Zero tolerance. Zero.
So you're proposing detention without trial ?
Internment did wonders for Northern Ireland *sarcasm emoji*
The anticlimax has completely screwed the campaigns of Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar. It will be Biden or Sanders now as everyone else was working on an Iowa bounce.
Sanders too was counting on Iowa to kick Biden out. Only Biden and Trump have won from this mess.
Worse. He thinks the people who vote for him believe this crap. He’s applying the “fool some of the people” principle of politics. It’s worked for him so far.
He was the bl%$£*y Foreign Secretary for some of that time! Is he trying to suggest he was just the EU Commission's puppet at that time?
He is telling his supporters what they want to hear. Just like all good megalomaniacs...
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
No I am advocating very long sentences for people who want to use indiscrimate murder and mayhem to fundamentally destroy a society I think is worth fighting for.
What - like the US where you can get 180 year sentences (providing they do not execute you)?
You do know that their prisons are stuffed solid, they incarcerate more of their population than just about any other 1st world country and that the prisons are a wonderful recruiting ground for gangs and dealers?
And they still have way more violence than we do.You are safer in Sudan or Bangladesh than the US
Good points but I think drug related gang crime and terrorism are two completely separate social problems with very different roots and solutions.
IF it was me I'd advocate widespread legalisation of drugs, but as I say that's a separate issue for me.
The 'real problem' is decades of mass immigration of people with a conflicting religious, social and political outlook to the host country, and that is probably unsolvable now
This particular individual was not an immigrant. And his mother is not an extremist, as far as we know. So attributing his move to extremism in the last few years to what happened decades ago may or may not be correct. Quite why some of those born, brought up here and educated here turn to extremism needs more Intelligent attention than it is getting.
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.
The Streatham lad was imprisoned precisely for those lesser orders of terrorist activity. A useful question may be would intervention have worked at that point.
A properly constituted and funded deradicalisation program would probably have answered that question prior to his release.
His Mum says what a nice quiet boy he was.
I thought the giveaway as to being a hardened terrorist was that the neighbours describe them as being very polite and keeping themselves to themselves.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
The 'real problem' is decades of mass immigration of people with a conflicting religious, social and political outlook to the host country, and that is probably unsolvable now
This particular individual was not an immigrant. And his mother is not an extremist, as far as we know. So attributing his move to extremism in the last few years to what happened decades ago may or may not be correct. Quite why some of those born, brought up here and educated here turn to extremism needs more Intelligent attention than it is getting.
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
I think a little detail on how the whole 'get with the program' program might be embodied in law might be... instructive.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of people know exactly what is means because its what they do every day.
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry_ probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
Terrorism? nope. Zero tolerance. Zero.
So you're proposing detention without trial ?
Absolutely not. 100% opposed. Innocent until proven guilty.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
'On the prime minister personally, she said: “My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises – whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees or indeed, to family members – is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money is in the bank.”'
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
What are you proposing? Death penalty for parking offences? Or just branding on the cheek?
I think a little detail on how the whole 'get with the program' program might be embodied in law might be... instructive.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of people know exactly what is means because its what they do every day.
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry_ probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
Terrorism? nope. Zero tolerance. Zero.
So you're proposing detention without trial ?
Absolutely not. 100% opposed. Innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but under what laws are you proposing to incarcerate these people for life ? Because they don't exist at the moment.
The 'real problem' is decades of mass immigration of people with a conflicting religious, social and political outlook to the host country, and that is probably unsolvable now
This particular individual was not an immigrant. And his mother is not an extremist, as far as we know. So attributing his move to extremism in the last few years to what happened decades ago may or may not be correct. Quite why some of those born, brought up here and educated here turn to extremism needs more Intelligent attention than it is getting.
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
In response to @isam (as I appear to have messed up the block quotes again):-
Understood. By the same token you could say that allowing migration / free movement from Ireland was responsible for every single Irish terrorist attack in Britain in the last century. You can try and reverse this or stop further migration. But you still have to deal with why those born here turn to extremism, try and stop that and take steps to reverse this when it happens.
Simply saying that the problem arises from decisions taken years ago, - even if true - and that there is nothing therefore to be done is a counsel of despair and may not even be true.
Conservative Abrahamic religions are extremely hard to convince people out of. Judaism and Islam in particular also have very militant parts of the holy texts, with no equivalent to the New Testament to offset it. That doesn't get you to extremism on your own, but it makes for very easy ground to get you there. Jews in the UK are typically irreligious or reform, so we don't really have a problem there (but see the settler movement in Israel...). That isn't true for Muslims, many of which come from conservative parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan or Somalia, or inherit their base religious beliefs from parents that have.
I am broadly very pro-immigration, skilled and unskilled. But where I do have pause is on religious reactionaries.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
The Tesla model 3 was the third biggest selling model in Europe in December. Tesla built a new factory in China in under twelve months last year, and it will be in full scale production later this year.
It is possible for the changeover to happen very fast indeed, and moves like this will help.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
The 'real problem' is decades of mass immigration of people with a conflicting religious, social and political outlook to the host country, and that is probably unsolvable now
This particular individual was not an immigrant. And his mother is not an extremist, as far as we know. So attributing his move to extremism in the last few years to what happened decades ago may or may not be correct. Quite why some of those born, brought up here and educated here turn to extremism needs more Intelligent attention than it is getting.
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
That's the point though. It doesn;t deserve more intelligent attention. It deserves less attention. Just don;t do it. We don;t want to understand or spend time annd money on you because what you have turned to is totally abhorrent.
The anticlimax has completely screwed the campaigns of Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar. It will be Biden or Sanders now as everyone else was working on an Iowa bounce.
Sanders too was counting on Iowa to kick Biden out. Only Biden and Trump have won from this mess.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
Re banning petrol / diesel cars, many European countries have already said their sale will be banned either 2030 or 2040. So it isn't as if major manufacturers are going to be put out by just the UK saying 2035.
Worse. He thinks the people who vote for him believe this crap. He’s applying the “fool some of the people” principle of politics. It’s worked for him so far.
He was the bl%$£*y Foreign Secretary for some of that time! Is he trying to suggest he was just the EU Commission's puppet at that time?
He is telling his supporters what they want to hear. Just like all good megalomaniacs...
There was a rumour that Boris's team bought up a lot of unsold copies of his sister's book about Oxford, where Boris had written about politics and stooges.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
There are some pretty odd Christian sects about too. We haven't had the same degree of wackiness as some Americans seem to have, but that might only be time.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
The picture is a lot more complex than you claim I think. Some people are attracted to radicalism, sure but many others prbably drift away from Islam. Our society influences them and their attitudes and their children's attitudes.
Recently a muslim uber driver was complaining to me about his kids having to learn about LGBT people at the age of 5.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
You want some sort of "official control" for Muslims?
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
Except electric tech doesn't even nearly begin to work for some users. I put my usage patterns into an EV calculator recently, and it told me that there was nothing on the market that was suitable. If they were insisting on hybrid tech, that might be sensible, but pure EVs are so far off being able to match some ICE useage patterns it's madness.
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
Except electric tech doesn't even nearly begin to work for some users. I put my usage patterns into an EV calculator recently, and it told me that there was nothing on the market that was suitable. If they were insisting on hybrid tech, that might be sensible, but pure EVs are so far off being able to match some ICE useage patterns it's madness.
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
There will still be a market for 2nd hand cars come 2035. They are only banning sale of new cars. And that is another 15 years of technological development away. To put in perspective the iPhone has only been about 10 years and v1 was utter crap.
Furthermore, it is expected there will be another 10+ years of petrol cars being on the road.
Personally, I am not a big fan of outright bans, rather providing incentives.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
You want some sort of "official control" for Muslims?
Not how we do it in the UK, pal.
Please don't patronise me with "pal" like that, can't see why you'd want to annoy me.
Back to your point, I don't understand why you are placing those words in my mouth, they dont resemble anything I said nor think
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
Except electric tech doesn't even nearly begin to work for some users. I put my usage patterns into an EV calculator recently, and it told me that there was nothing on the market that was suitable. If they were insisting on hybrid tech, that might be sensible, but pure EVs are so far off being able to match some ICE useage patterns it's madness.
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
There will still be a market for 2nd hand cars come 2035. It is expected there will be another 10+ years of petrol cars being on the road.
We could have a situation like Cuba where decrepit 1950s American cars are still being driven around because new models are not available. How great would that be?
If we had a half-decent opposition, they would be asking why the PM is so scared of asking questions, why he is frit, what does he have to hide etc etc.
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
Except electric tech doesn't even nearly begin to work for some users. I put my usage patterns into an EV calculator recently, and it told me that there was nothing on the market that was suitable. If they were insisting on hybrid tech, that might be sensible, but pure EVs are so far off being able to match some ICE useage patterns it's madness.
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
There will still be a market for 2nd hand cars come 2035. It is expected there will be another 10+ years of petrol cars being on the road.
We could have a situation like Cuba where decrepit 1950s American cars are still being driven around because new models are not available. How great would that be?
Like the rise of vinyl, will it all be hipsters driving them?
I wonder how the many thousands in the car industry in marginal seats are thinking today after Boris Johnson brought forward a ban on the products that pay their salaries.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
I didn't realize Boris was going to ban electric cars...
Electric cars are still a tiny fraction of the car market. Tiny.
They won't be in 15 years. Nissan for instance is already busy moving over e.g. this years version one of their core models the Qashqai, made in Sunderland, will no longer be made with a diesel engine, they will offer hybrid. Give it 5-10 years and it will be electric only.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
Except electric tech doesn't even nearly begin to work for some users. I put my usage patterns into an EV calculator recently, and it told me that there was nothing on the market that was suitable. If they were insisting on hybrid tech, that might be sensible, but pure EVs are so far off being able to match some ICE useage patterns it's madness.
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
There will still be a market for 2nd hand cars come 2035. They are only banning sale of new cars. And that is another 15 years of technological development away. To put in perspective the iPhone has only been about 10 years and v1 was utter crap.
Furthermore, it is expected there will be another 10+ years of petrol cars being on the road.
Personally, I am not a big fan of outright bans, rather providing incentives.
I think the announced ban is the incentive for automobile manufacturers. It's just about 2 car generations which will give them enough time to invest in what they need to do.
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
You want some sort of "official control" for Muslims?
Not how we do it in the UK, pal.
Please don't patronise me with "pal" like that, can't see why you'd want to annoy me.
Baclk to your point, I don't understand why you are placing those words in my mouth, they dont resemble anything I said nor think
You said this:
"A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair."
I think the announced ban is the incentive for automobile manufacturers. It's just about 2 car generations which will give them enough time to invest in what they need to do.
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
Fair point. As I say, personally I favour nudge approaches to behavioural change, but giving car companies 15 more years to develop on a technology that already exists doesn't seem the most unreasonable approach.
Along with many other European countries stating bans will come in either in 2030 or 2040, the companies no there will be no real market for petrol / diesel powered cars in 15 years away.
I think the announced ban is the incentive for automobile manufacturers. It's just about 2 car generations which will give them enough time to invest in what they need to do.
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
Fair point. As I say, personally I favour nudge approaches to behavioural change, but giving car companies 15 more years to develop on a technology that already exists doesn't seem the most unreasonable approach.
Presumably there will still be massive markets for petrol driven cars too. Are the Americans or Chinese banning them?
I think the announced ban is the incentive for automobile manufacturers. It's just about 2 car generations which will give them enough time to invest in what they need to do.
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
Fair point. As I say, personally I favour nudge approaches to behavioural change, but giving car companies 15 more years to develop on a technology that already exists doesn't seem the most unreasonable approach.
Presumably there will still be massive markets for petrol driven cars too. Are the Americans or Chinese banning them?
Chinese have said they will ban them, but haven't put a hard date. But they are already big into electric. In the big cities, increasingly all buses are.
I think the announced ban is the incentive for automobile manufacturers. It's just about 2 car generations which will give them enough time to invest in what they need to do.
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
Fair point. As I say, personally I favour nudge approaches to behavioural change, but giving car companies 15 more years to develop on a technology that already exists doesn't seem the most unreasonable approach.
Presumably there will still be massive markets for petrol driven cars too. Are the Americans or Chinese banning them?
Be great to be one of their citizens.......having a choice...
This will make you laugh, this is what gets you suspended from Citi.
A high-flying Citigroup bond trader has been suspended from the US investment bank following claims he stole food from the office canteen.
Paras Shah is accused of helping himself to food without paying at the company's European headquarters in London's Canary Wharf.
The 31-year-old reportedly left his post as Citi's head of high-yield bond trading for Europe, the Middle East and Africa over the alleged theft last month, according to the Financial Times.
He joined Citi just over two years ago from HSBC and his job involved trading junk bonds - risky company debt.
According to employee review website Glassdoor, the average salary for a credit trader is £183,740 - but Mr Shah is likely to have earned more given his senior role at Citi.
For real though, if Biden swept the rural caucuses that the media didn't have people at and wins overall (which I highly doubt) then the conspiracy theories will never end!
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Nope. British people are radicalised and attracted to foreign ideologies all the time. Yes, some immigration meant that some people were closer at hand. But a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar.
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
"a third generation Brit could sit in his bedroom, become radicalised against the wishes of his immediate family, and then go out, grab a knife and start shouting Allahu Akbar."
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
You want some sort of "official control" for Muslims?
Not how we do it in the UK, pal.
Please don't patronise me with "pal" like that, can't see why you'd want to annoy me.
Baclk to your point, I don't understand why you are placing those words in my mouth, they dont resemble anything I said nor think
You said this:
"A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair."
If your own words annoy you that is not my fault
No, your word "pal" annoyed me.
By official control, I meant the Muslims being in control not being controlled, apologies if that wasn't clear, although though I think it should have been; "they have some sort of official control" meant them having the control
Comments
Otherwise, correct.
We are totally decimating one of your major industries, but don;t worry a hugely expensive railway is coming in fifteen years time.
Perhaps you can opine if the costs of damage caused would be less than the deradicalisation spend?
A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.
If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.
Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/UKPGE-Part-2a-Standing-as-an-independent-candidate.pdf
Excitingly for Leavers they are also going to pull out of PESCO; the nascent "EU Army" the horror of which haunts their every waking hour.
They also plan to allow collective bargaining for military pay and conditions (like Denmark and the Netherlands). A progressive move which will increase the effectiveness of their armed forces and one the UK should definitely follow but never will because the Daily Mail gripped by palsied fingers and read by rheumy eyes would not stand for it.
Britain is one of the freest, wealthiest societies in the world. Opportunities abound for all and protections against discrimination are enshrined in law. All communities grasp this, and many in the muslim community do to.
So get with the programme. Or face an extremely severe punishment. End of argument.
Your posts make it worth coming to this place
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VpPjgfoH-n7Ie8OmIa2eHoP88IvIkBR9wwkUL7bO1Y4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0
With what looks like around 10% in the result is:
First Vote
Sanders 27%
Warren 24%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 13%
Biden 11%
Second Vote
Sanders 30%
Warren 26%
Buttigieg 22%
Klobuchar 14%
Biden 6%
By joining with David Attenborough in announcing the ban on new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035 he will have almost certainly caused panic in Germany and added some substance to Nissan closing their european factories and concentrating electric car production in the UK, almost certainly capturing a large market share. I notice Ireland have announced 2030 for the same ban
It must be remembered that Boris is surrounded by green supporters including Cummings, Carrie and Gove and expect to hear a lot more on saving the planet as we move to Cop 26
Those were the days. What a babe.
You do know that their prisons are stuffed solid, they incarcerate more of their population than just about any other 1st world country and that the prisons are a wonderful recruiting ground for gangs and dealers?
And they still have way more violence than we do.You are safer in Sudan or Bangladesh than the US
Others, like people addicted to drugs etc. (and even some involved in the substance supply industry) probably need less jail time and a new approach, but that's a different story.
Terrorism? nope. Zero tolerance. Zero.
Only Biden and Trump have won from this mess.
IF it was me I'd advocate widespread legalisation of drugs, but as I say that's a separate issue for me.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
15 years is plenty of time to transition away from tradition engines, given that most producers have investing in doing so for years now.
'On the prime minister personally, she said: “My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises – whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees or indeed, to family members – is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money is in the bank.”'
https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/status/1224632780258271233?s=20
Because they don't exist at the moment.
This particular individual was not an immigrant. And his mother is not an extremist, as far as we know. So attributing his move to extremism in the last few years to what happened decades ago may or may not be correct. Quite why some of those born, brought up here and educated here turn to extremism needs more Intelligent attention than it is getting.
Not saying that your wider point doesn’t have merit but it is a wider issue than this one.
I didn't say the culprit here was an immigrant, but he is here because of the policy I referenced, which I would say is responsible for every Islamic terrorist attack in 21st Century Britain
In response to @isam (as I appear to have messed up the block quotes again):-
Understood. By the same token you could say that allowing migration / free movement from Ireland was responsible for every single Irish terrorist attack in Britain in the last century. You can try and reverse this or stop further migration. But you still have to deal with why those born here turn to extremism, try and stop that and take steps to reverse this when it happens.
Simply saying that the problem arises from decisions taken years ago, - even if true - and that there is nothing therefore to be done is a counsel of despair and may not even be true.
I am broadly very pro-immigration, skilled and unskilled. But where I do have pause is on religious reactionaries.
"The Democrats can't run a Caucus and they want to run the Country ?"
Tesla built a new factory in China in under twelve months last year, and it will be in full scale production later this year.
It is possible for the changeover to happen very fast indeed, and moves like this will help.
(Which is probably just as well.)
Plus what is the alternative to the policy if you are right? No immigration? Some kind of education programme which radicals will just play along with?
Sadly there is no alternative to where we are now.
England are rubbish in one dayers.
Plus no Buttler and Stokes in this team.
Yes, almost exactly the problem. That is why it was a disastrous policy to allow Islamic immigration to the extent we did.
A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair.
The only thing that will stop Islamic extremism is Islamic representation, and then we will see more right wing extremism, so its all bad
That sead, I would be using the time to working on a good conseshtion speech if I was working in the Biden campaign.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1224667113614344192?s=20
Recently a muslim uber driver was complaining to me about his kids having to learn about LGBT people at the age of 5.
Not how we do it in the UK, pal.
https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/1224669508188672000/photo/1
That's before looking at the requirements for my employer's business for a light pickup truck, 1.5T capacity, would need 1000 mile range - and we are the people who literally keep you supplied with life's essentials (in our case, mostly water).
They are also really going to screw the poor. When I was fairly impoverished I invested £300 in a 17 year old diesel Skoda. Apart from being old and scruffy it was basically as good as a new car to use - it started, drove me were I wanted, managed to get the right side of 50mpg. Buying a old Nissan Leaf will probably mean a range that doesn't get you 20 miles. Which in turn will make the residuals really poor, which will do over new buyers too.
Furthermore, it is expected there will be another 10+ years of petrol cars being on the road.
Personally, I am not a big fan of outright bans, rather providing incentives.
Back to your point, I don't understand why you are placing those words in my mouth, they dont resemble anything I said nor think
And yep I suspect it will be 25+ years before we stop seeing petrol and diesel cars on the road.
"A lot less immigration 40 odd years ago was the solution. I don't think there is one now really, the number of muslims will increase and, until they have some sort of official control, so will the radicals, so as @Cyclefree it is a counsel of despair."
If your own words annoy you that is not my fault
Along with many other European countries stating bans will come in either in 2030 or 2040, the companies no there will be no real market for petrol / diesel powered cars in 15 years away.
This will make you laugh, this is what gets you suspended from Citi.
A high-flying Citigroup bond trader has been suspended from the US investment bank following claims he stole food from the office canteen.
Paras Shah is accused of helping himself to food without paying at the company's European headquarters in London's Canary Wharf.
The 31-year-old reportedly left his post as Citi's head of high-yield bond trading for Europe, the Middle East and Africa over the alleged theft last month, according to the Financial Times.
He joined Citi just over two years ago from HSBC and his job involved trading junk bonds - risky company debt.
According to employee review website Glassdoor, the average salary for a credit trader is £183,740 - but Mr Shah is likely to have earned more given his senior role at Citi.
https://news.sky.com/story/citigroup-trader-suspended-for-stealing-food-from-staff-canteen-11925915
By official control, I meant the Muslims being in control not being controlled, apologies if that wasn't clear, although though I think it should have been; "they have some sort of official control" meant them having the control