Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
David Puttnam, a luvvie who lives in Ireland, doesn’t like Brexit. Shocker!
I grant you that isn't a surprise, but wouldn't it be better to convince remainers by post Brexit actions and events that they were wrong. I am a remainer but I want Brexit to work. I want to be wrong because I'm not into self harm and having been wrong before on stuff I'm hoping I am on this.
The problem is that there’s a large group of remainers, active in politics and media, who clearly don’t want Brexit to work, and will loudly cheerlead for the EU side in every debate or negotiation.
Like my ex car share, who wants anyone who voted to leave to suffer.
That’s quite sad, but a symptom of a much wider issue of polarisation in politics, especially in the age of social media.
As we should be learning from the tragic events of a couple of days ago, we need to under that disagreement needs to be polite and respectful, that opponents are misguided rather than ‘scum’, that words are not violence, but actual violence is unacceptable in a democracy.
“Enemies of the people”
Exactly. All sides have been guilty of this.
Yep. And it needs to stop before we end up heading for civil war as America is.
I cannot see how. It is now so ingrained in our politics and political discourse. I came here having been on a couple of Facebook politics groups. The level of venom is horrendous there. On all sides.
What does not help is whatever side sees purity in their views and abuse is acceptable.
It’s really a very gloomy scenario.
Ban Facebook or at least it's algorithms that reinforce people's viewpoints while hiding opposing views.
Twitter is awful. If someone shares a Tweet here then when you click on it, it follows it up underneath loads of Tweets from same-minded echo chamber people.
If you get a Tweet from someone FBPE, then the entirety of Twitter it shows is FBPE. If you get a Tweet from someone MAGA, then the entirety of Twitter it shows is MAGA.
Opposing viewpoints are deliberately hidden, which is weird because that's what makes life (and sites like this) so interesting.
Click the little star icon at the top-right.
"Home shows you top Tweets first See latest Tweets instead"
Click "See latest Tweets instead".
Do this on every device you read the twitters on.
From now on, if you have bad stuff in your feed that makes you dumber instead of smarter, it's your fault and not Jack's.
It is the same as with any moral panic - if you can categorise the threat as the "other", you can deflect away from your own moral failings.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right lunatic, so its ok to be hard right and want to drown migrants and call judges the enemy, thats safe still. David Amess was murdered by a "Somali" man. So its ok to call the Tories scum, thats safe.
Or, we do the hard bit and look into ourselves. People can have different policies and idea without being seen as some kind of enemy. And yes, mea culpa I can point at some immoral (IMHO) Tory policies and call them out. That doesn't mean I think the "smirking cow" Priti Patel is evil and needs to be murdered. I just fundamentally disagree with the people who have been gaslit to support such policies.
David Amess was killed by a Jihadi. That does not mean we do not need to be more civil in our discourse but no matter how bad the spats on social media they do not lead to people murdering each other.
The vast amount of terrorism and political murder in this country is caused by Jihadis following an extremist version of Islam or the Far Right (not the mainstream right). That was what produced the killers of Jo Cox and David Amess and that is what the police and intelligence services need to focus on identifying and countering, not twatter spats between Corbynites, Brexiteers, Scottish Nationalists and FBPE diehard Remainers
With all due respect - which in this case is almost none - for you to turn his murder into a platform to get support for your government wanting to drown future jihadis is beyond shameful.
Race and nation have been weaponised by your party. Instead of the moral disgust that most people felt when that 3 year-old boy washed up on that Greek beach, you have hardened people's souls to see the boy and other boys as the enemy invaders. If they drown due to government directive then somehow its their fault.
A period of silence from you would be welcomed. For your own good as much as ours. Stop. And. Think.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
What I find truly astonishing is how acquiescent Labour were in that elimination
Labour's problem was they had run for years - nay decades - on "not being London Tories" - the SNP simply stole that tune and played it better - and not having a London based party themselves, were immune to "in-hock to London" accusations.
As yea sow, so shall yea reap.
The only thing I can see ending SNP hegemony is splits within the independence movement - and while that may be happening among some activists there is very little suggestion its happening electorally.
The succession to Sturgeon will be a key moment. It could lead to the SNP being more interested in fighting each other than the Tories/London.
She's looking a bit ragged these days and clearly working for an international sinecure after a lengthy period in office.
Her husband's control of the SNP has helped secure her position but frankly looks a bit tin pot and is getting far more attention than it used to. It doesn't help that he is incompetent either. I think we are near the end but she needs something else to do first. She is too young to simply retire.
‘clearly working for an international sinecure’
I remember a lot of that type of chat leading up to the Salmond enquiry, lo and behold as prescient as predictions of the end of SNP honeymoons. I’ve no idea what her hopes and fears are, but I’m not sure why Sturgeon, noted for being a gradualist and cautious long term strategist, would bail out half way through.
From a Unionist pov, I’d judge pinning your hopes on the resignations of rivals rather than your own offer to voters as not necessarily to the Union’s advantage, particularly considering the quality of leadership they’re offering. Ruth, Kezia and Willie are beginning to look like colossi..
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
I was a big fan of the short film he directed for the Millennium Dome in the year 2000. Probably not what he would most like to be remembered for but I thought it was excellent.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
So why mention Starmer at all?
Why not mention the man's MP? This is exactly the point. Some things are just facts, not political attacks. How is anyone or right mind or not going to think "oh, Starmer was his MP? Questions need answering about what he knew..." And yet that is the clear inference from what you just posted.
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
The one good thing about Twitter, as opposed to most of Facebook, is that you can view the content without needing an account or being logged in.
If you feel the need to actually post stuff on Twitter, then use a specific device that’s different from the one you use for general browsing of the site. Don’t use the logged-in device for general scrolling, unless you want the worst the algorithms can do.
Remember that they’re trying to keep you on their app, and what they call ‘engagement’ means ‘making you angry’ in practice.
Facebook is genuinely evil, and there’s now starting to be some recognition of that from lawmakers around the world.
I get that they want to keep us posting, but are you sure that this leads to them trying to make us angry? I see maybe 200 FB posts a day, of which only about 2 are mildly irritating and the rest are either neutral or encouraging. Perhaps the algorithm has worked out that that's the way to get me posting?
It is the same as with any moral panic - if you can categorise the threat as the "other", you can deflect away from your own moral failings.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right lunatic, so its ok to be hard right and want to drown migrants and call judges the enemy, thats safe still. David Amess was murdered by a "Somali" man. So its ok to call the Tories scum, thats safe.
Or, we do the hard bit and look into ourselves. People can have different policies and idea without being seen as some kind of enemy. And yes, mea culpa I can point at some immoral (IMHO) Tory policies and call them out. That doesn't mean I think the "smirking cow" Priti Patel is evil and needs to be murdered. I just fundamentally disagree with the people who have been gaslit to support such policies.
David Amess was killed by a Jihadi. That does not mean we do not need to be more civil in our discourse but no matter how bad the spats on social media they do not lead to people murdering each other.
The vast amount of terrorism and political murder in this country is caused by Jihadis following an extremist version of Islam or the Far Right (not the mainstream right). That was what produced the killers of Jo Cox and David Amess and that is what the police and intelligence services need to focus on identifying and countering, not twatter spats between Corbynites, Brexiteers, Scottish Nationalists and FBPE diehard Remainers
With all due respect - which in this case is almost none - for you to turn his murder into a platform to get support for your government wanting to drown future jihadis is beyond shameful.
Race and nation have been weaponised by your party. Instead of the moral disgust that most people felt when that 3 year-old boy washed up on that Greek beach, you have hardened people's souls to see the boy and other boys as the enemy invaders. If they drown due to government directive then somehow its their fault.
A period of silence from you would be welcomed. For your own good as much as ours. Stop. And. Think.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
The significance of him being a constituent of Starmers is that he shouldn't have been at Amess's constituency surgery. It is normal for such requests to be redirected to the appropriate MP. Admittedly this can be a problem when your own MP is a waste of space, but the first step in security should be that surgery's are by appointment only.
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
I guess my question is: why do LABOUR think they lost Scotland?
(I have my opinions on this based on how Llafur run Wales, and @Alistair has given us his opinion).
But, I am genuinely interested in how a Labour loyalist (albeit one perhaps without first-hand knowledge of Scottish Labour) explains this. What is your understanding of why it happened?
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
So why mention Starmer at all?
Because he killed an MP, and most people probably assumed he was a local and David Amess was his MP - but he wasn't a local, and from that leads to mentioning where he was from and who his actual MP was.
What a bizarre world where someone would think that was trying to make Sir Keir some kind of accomplice!
Mind you, now you mention it - if a posh Leaver from Uxbridge went on a racist attack in the inner city...
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
Rubbish, Labour did not call its supporters Nazis, the aggression was mainly from the Nationalist side in and after 2014.
45% of Scots will always vote SNP now as they are diehard Nationalists until they get indyref2. What seats SLab does still hold in Scotland mainly came through Unionist tactical votes.
It should forget about regaining votes lost to the SNP. It does not need them anyway to get back in power, the SNP will make Starmer PM in a hung parliament anyway.
If there is an indyref2 a generation after 2014 and No wins then Scottish Nationalism will start to drain away and SLab may be able to regain lost support. If there is an indyref2 and Yes wins then Scotland will become a foreign country and of no concern of rUK Labour who will have to become Blairite again to have any hope of winning power again in England and Wales
New Statesman: What is it (the SNP)? Blood and soil nationalism?
The one good thing about Twitter, as opposed to most of Facebook, is that you can view the content without needing an account or being logged in.
If you feel the need to actually post stuff on Twitter, then use a specific device that’s different from the one you use for general browsing of the site. Don’t use the logged-in device for general scrolling, unless you want the worst the algorithms can do.
Remember that they’re trying to keep you on their app, and what they call ‘engagement’ means ‘making you angry’ in practice.
Facebook is genuinely evil, and there’s now starting to be some recognition of that from lawmakers around the world.
I get that they want to keep us posting, but are you sure that this leads to them trying to make us angry? I see maybe 200 FB posts a day, of which only about 2 are mildly irritating and the rest are either neutral or encouraging. Perhaps the algorithm has worked out that that's the way to get me posting?
It optimizes for whatever makes you click, in your case it may be making you dangerously calm.
I fear it is now too late for Labour north of the border. They are too weak to take on the SNP in their former strongholds and their former supporters have really got out of the habit of voting for them.
Glasgow is the prime example.
The SNP took over the council for the first time in history, and by all accounts it's a disaster.
But people still vote for them.
Glasgow was almost Labour's last bastion in Scotland but it too has gone. They still have a reasonable number of councillors there but the trend is very much against them.
The Conservatives have 7/85. There is no opposition despite the incompetence.
One point for consideration is to what extent 'Labour' or 'Conservative' councils or oppositions are actually Unionist coalitions in all but name. In which case, objectively, Labour are further losing their distinction from the Conservatives, as well as being seen by some to be in bed with them: Better Together all over again.
The jointly run Councils are interesting.
That very much puts the division very down to LD/CON vs LAB/SNP. Junior coalition partner effect? Is the LD anti-Tory rhetoric weaker in Scotland than England, where a significant part of the chatter is *very* anti-Tory? Interesting that there are no joint SNP/GRN councils.
Out of 32 Councils we have, I think (IND ignored, one or two may be 1 out)):
CON / LAB Joint - zero CON / SNP Joint - zero LAB / SNP Joint - 6 LAB / LD Joint - 1 SNP / LD Joint - 0 CON / LD Joint - 6
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
Initial reports? Sure, "facts" change as more facts replace them. But now? The guy was British yet we still have HYUFD trying to demonise the forrin jihadi to justify his government wanting to drown children. Because he thinks such a policy will be popular and win votes.
This is everything that has gone wrong over the last few years. The same newspapers with that photo of the dead Syrian boy now implore people to support killing other boys.
The total vacuity of inter-UK mitigation comparisons is neatly summed up by Wales, whose remaining measures are those that many consider the One Simple Trick to fix England's issues, having had significantly higher prevalence for weeks than England now and seemingly no one caring.....
You know irony is dead when FBPEs of all people have to be reminded that England is not the centre of the universe...
Adding to this, the other devolved nations haven't done much better. Scotland reached nearly 2.5% prevalence in their last wave, yet it's only England that has to put up with the "dangerous and unethical experiment" crap, even though things have been materially better here. Why?
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Because, and once again this is very contrary to the "why aren't SLab more beastly to the SNP" narrative, they hate the SNP and the very concept of independence.
The leadership and majority of the activists of SLab are Unionist to the core. This killed their ability to empathise and engage with their voting base.
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
It is the same as with any moral panic - if you can categorise the threat as the "other", you can deflect away from your own moral failings.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right lunatic, so its ok to be hard right and want to drown migrants and call judges the enemy, thats safe still. David Amess was murdered by a "Somali" man. So its ok to call the Tories scum, thats safe.
Or, we do the hard bit and look into ourselves. People can have different policies and idea without being seen as some kind of enemy. And yes, mea culpa I can point at some immoral (IMHO) Tory policies and call them out. That doesn't mean I think the "smirking cow" Priti Patel is evil and needs to be murdered. I just fundamentally disagree with the people who have been gaslit to support such policies.
David Amess was killed by a Jihadi. That does not mean we do not need to be more civil in our discourse but no matter how bad the spats on social media they do not lead to people murdering each other.
The vast amount of terrorism and political murder in this country is caused by Jihadis following an extremist version of Islam or the Far Right (not the mainstream right). That was what produced the killers of Jo Cox and David Amess and that is what the police and intelligence services need to focus on identifying and countering, not twatter spats between Corbynites, Brexiteers, Scottish Nationalists and FBPE diehard Remainers
With all due respect - which in this case is almost none - for you to turn his murder into a platform to get support for your government wanting to drown future jihadis is beyond shameful.
Race and nation have been weaponised by your party. Instead of the moral disgust that most people felt when that 3 year-old boy washed up on that Greek beach, you have hardened people's souls to see the boy and other boys as the enemy invaders. If they drown due to government directive then somehow its their fault.
A period of silence from you would be welcomed. For your own good as much as ours. Stop. And. Think.
When has anyone mentioned drowning people other than you?
However tighter border controls certainly is a must and checking the reasons people travel to and from countries known to be hotspots of Jihadis certainly. I have no intention of being silent on that at all and if it annoys you all to the good
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
Lord Puttnam announces retirement from House of Lords: FULL SPEECH
"the unprincipled and destructive outbursts of the recently ennobled Lord Frost in Lisbon on Tuesday evening, who seems to exist in a world entirely of his own imagining."
David Puttnam, a luvvie who lives in Ireland, doesn’t like Brexit. Shocker!
I grant you that isn't a surprise, but wouldn't it be better to convince remainers by post Brexit actions and events that they were wrong. I am a remainer but I want Brexit to work. I want to be wrong because I'm not into self harm and having been wrong before on stuff I'm hoping I am on this.
The problem is that there’s a large group of remainers, active in politics and media, who clearly don’t want Brexit to work, and will loudly cheerlead for the EU side in every debate or negotiation.
Like my ex car share, who wants anyone who voted to leave to suffer.
That’s quite sad, but a symptom of a much wider issue of polarisation in politics, especially in the age of social media.
As we should be learning from the tragic events of a couple of days ago, we need to under that disagreement needs to be polite and respectful, that opponents are misguided rather than ‘scum’, that words are not violence, but actual violence is unacceptable in a democracy.
“Enemies of the people”
Exactly. All sides have been guilty of this.
Yep. And it needs to stop before we end up heading for civil war as America is.
I cannot see how. It is now so ingrained in our politics and political discourse. I came here having been on a couple of Facebook politics groups. The level of venom is horrendous there. On all sides.
What does not help is whatever side sees purity in their views and abuse is acceptable.
It’s really a very gloomy scenario.
Ban Facebook or at least it's algorithms that reinforce people's viewpoints while hiding opposing views.
Twitter is awful. If someone shares a Tweet here then when you click on it, it follows it up underneath loads of Tweets from same-minded echo chamber people.
If you get a Tweet from someone FBPE, then the entirety of Twitter it shows is FBPE. If you get a Tweet from someone MAGA, then the entirety of Twitter it shows is MAGA.
Opposing viewpoints are deliberately hidden, which is weird because that's what makes life (and sites like this) so interesting.
The one good thing about Twitter, as opposed to most of Facebook, is that you can view the content without needing an account or being logged in.
If you feel the need to actually post stuff on Twitter, then use a specific device that’s different from the one you use for general browsing of the site. Don’t use the logged-in device for general scrolling, unless you want the worst the algorithms can do.
Remember that they’re trying to keep you on their app, and what they call ‘engagement’ means ‘making you angry’ in practice.
Facebook is genuinely evil, and there’s now starting to be some recognition of that from lawmakers around the world.
Somebody (maybe you?) gave some good advice on here about how to disable cookies just on Twitter. I did that, I don't have an account, and Twitter seems to treat me as a first-time viewer every time I visit.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
The significance of him being a constituent of Starmers is that he shouldn't have been at Amess's constituency surgery. It is normal for such requests to be redirected to the appropriate MP. Admittedly this can be a problem when your own MP is a waste of space, but the first step in security should be that surgery's are by appointment only.
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
Indeed, and I know security has been beefed up. My sis-in-law used to work for a Labour MP when they were in government and they would just book a venue and keep an eye out for the people who shouldn't be allowed in.
Point is that MPs and their staff do not know every person in their constituency. We can't make such things completely secure without utterly changing what they are.
One of the Youtube channels I watch (recently, it's new) is about general world history. Not watched it yet, but the latest, both in terms of subject matter and release date, video is on the rise of Xi Jinping. May be of interest to people here.
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Because, and once again this is very contrary to the "why aren't SLab more beastly to the SNP" narrative, they hate the SNP and the very concept of independence.
The leadership and majority of the activists of SLab are Unionist to the core. This killed their ability to empathise and engage with their voting base.
The SNP voters are not SLab's voting base, they are Nationalists primarily.
Why should a Unionist party want to appease Nationalists? Leave them to the SNP until in a generation an indyref2 maybe resolves the issue. In the meantime SLab should focus on keeping Tory and LD tactical voters which is how it wins most of its seats.
The one good thing about Twitter, as opposed to most of Facebook, is that you can view the content without needing an account or being logged in.
If you feel the need to actually post stuff on Twitter, then use a specific device that’s different from the one you use for general browsing of the site. Don’t use the logged-in device for general scrolling, unless you want the worst the algorithms can do.
Remember that they’re trying to keep you on their app, and what they call ‘engagement’ means ‘making you angry’ in practice.
Facebook is genuinely evil, and there’s now starting to be some recognition of that from lawmakers around the world.
I get that they want to keep us posting, but are you sure that this leads to them trying to make us angry? I see maybe 200 FB posts a day, of which only about 2 are mildly irritating and the rest are either neutral or encouraging. Perhaps the algorithm has worked out that that's the way to get me posting?
I don't do Facebook anymore. I only started as my Med School Reunion was organised that way. It did keep sending me toxic stuff that wasn't of interest. I haven't deleted the account so Facebook probably includes me in its user figures. I am not convinced their algorithms are as good as they think they are.
It is the same as with any moral panic - if you can categorise the threat as the "other", you can deflect away from your own moral failings.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right lunatic, so its ok to be hard right and want to drown migrants and call judges the enemy, thats safe still. David Amess was murdered by a "Somali" man. So its ok to call the Tories scum, thats safe.
Or, we do the hard bit and look into ourselves. People can have different policies and idea without being seen as some kind of enemy. And yes, mea culpa I can point at some immoral (IMHO) Tory policies and call them out. That doesn't mean I think the "smirking cow" Priti Patel is evil and needs to be murdered. I just fundamentally disagree with the people who have been gaslit to support such policies.
David Amess was killed by a Jihadi. That does not mean we do not need to be more civil in our discourse but no matter how bad the spats on social media they do not lead to people murdering each other.
The vast amount of terrorism and political murder in this country is caused by Jihadis following an extremist version of Islam or the Far Right (not the mainstream right). That was what produced the killers of Jo Cox and David Amess and that is what the police and intelligence services need to focus on identifying and countering, not twatter spats between Corbynites, Brexiteers, Scottish Nationalists and FBPE diehard Remainers
I agree completely. Same goes for the IRA/INLA murders before this. It would not have made any difference. They were at the extreme. However as you say it would be nicer if we were more polite to one another.
It is something I advocated here several years ago and got rather taken to task over it.
I had discussed with @Sandpit sometime ago regarding how much we (that is him and me and not the royal we) had in common compared to how little we disagreed upon even though we were politically different and I think that is true for most of us, so I am sad we have an adversarial system of Government and it is one of my pet issues.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Because, and once again this is very contrary to the "why aren't SLab more beastly to the SNP" narrative, they hate the SNP and the very concept of independence.
The leadership and majority of the activists of SLab are Unionist to the core. This killed their ability to empathise and engage with their voting base.
As I just noted, LAB and the SNP are in 'coalition' in 14% (6 from 32) of the Councils in Scotland.
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
Marching into battle?
Should everyone put #metaphor & #humour tags on stuff for the hard of thinking and terminally thin skinned?
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
The significance of him being a constituent of Starmers is that he shouldn't have been at Amess's constituency surgery. It is normal for such requests to be redirected to the appropriate MP. Admittedly this can be a problem when your own MP is a waste of space, but the first step in security should be that surgery's are by appointment only.
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
Indeed, and I know security has been beefed up. My sis-in-law used to work for a Labour MP when they were in government and they would just book a venue and keep an eye out for the people who shouldn't be allowed in.
Point is that MPs and their staff do not know every person in their constituency. We can't make such things completely secure without utterly changing what they are.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to check names against the electoral register and against the Prevent list of referrals. This would not mean refusing to see but could mean seeing in a safer situation.
It is the same as with any moral panic - if you can categorise the threat as the "other", you can deflect away from your own moral failings.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right lunatic, so its ok to be hard right and want to drown migrants and call judges the enemy, thats safe still. David Amess was murdered by a "Somali" man. So its ok to call the Tories scum, thats safe.
Or, we do the hard bit and look into ourselves. People can have different policies and idea without being seen as some kind of enemy. And yes, mea culpa I can point at some immoral (IMHO) Tory policies and call them out. That doesn't mean I think the "smirking cow" Priti Patel is evil and needs to be murdered. I just fundamentally disagree with the people who have been gaslit to support such policies.
David Amess was killed by a Jihadi. That does not mean we do not need to be more civil in our discourse but no matter how bad the spats on social media they do not lead to people murdering each other.
The vast amount of terrorism and political murder in this country is caused by Jihadis following an extremist version of Islam or the Far Right (not the mainstream right). That was what produced the killers of Jo Cox and David Amess and that is what the police and intelligence services need to focus on identifying and countering, not twatter spats between Corbynites, Brexiteers, Scottish Nationalists and FBPE diehard Remainers
With all due respect - which in this case is almost none - for you to turn his murder into a platform to get support for your government wanting to drown future jihadis is beyond shameful.
Race and nation have been weaponised by your party. Instead of the moral disgust that most people felt when that 3 year-old boy washed up on that Greek beach, you have hardened people's souls to see the boy and other boys as the enemy invaders. If they drown due to government directive then somehow its their fault.
A period of silence from you would be welcomed. For your own good as much as ours. Stop. And. Think.
When has anyone mentioned drowning people other than you?
However tighter border controls certainly is a must and checking the reasons people travel to and from countries known to be hotspots of Jihadis certainly. I have no intention of being silent on that at all and if it annoys you all to the good
You have - you support a policy which explicitly writes in immunity for Border Force when they accidentally drown people.
You seriously need to shut up on this one. You are demonising foreigners (who aren't foreigners! He is British like you and me!) because you know it reinforces your government's failed attempt to control its borders.
You personally are literally creating the environment that is creating this open season of hate which then enables psychopaths to murder MPs. You. "If it annoys you all to the good" is what is getting MPs murdered you absolute stupid spanner.
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
Marching into battle?
Should everyone put #metaphor & #humour tags on stuff for the hard of thinking and terminally thin skinned?
Maybe people could try using less violent metaphors.
Actually those figures for HMG and Boris are not unreasonable in view of the energy and supply issues
A bumper poll, that - something for every taste. Mostly unsurprising, but interesting to note that people are more worried by inflation than almost anything else.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Presumably it's fine if they just say they are visiting relatives?
Are you going to apply the same rules to British citizens going to Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, etc? If so we need to expand our secret police significantly.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
Are they pure-bred Anglo-Saxons? No? There's your answer - they could all be jihadis...
So, when the First Minister, in the same week that the memory of William was being mourned by so many, reacted with such disproportionate fury when the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, ruled that the Scottish Parliament had breached its legal powers by attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, by saying that this left her unable to fully protect children’s rights, would it not have been wiser to have reflected on how Scottish children are currently left unprotected by the powers she already has?
The fact is, the Scottish Government knew it was attempting to legislate in breach of the Scotland Act; knew it, but did it anyway. And it is difficult to see how this was anything other than a cynical exercise in creating a grievance for advancing both an argument about the Tories being anti-children, and the case for more powers. And for independence.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Better still lets just strip them of their citizenship, they're not proper Brits anyway are they?
Can you be any more openly racist than you are right now?
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
Quite an odd poll. Looks like movement straight from the Tories to the LDs.
Tory Remainers finally incensed by Brexit ‘shortages’? Suggests it won’t last IF the shortages ease
Shortages are just one thing; increased taxes and prices will also potentially begin to impact.
Disaffected Tory voters flocking to the LibDems is nothing new.
But this is just one poll - see how things look by the end of the year.
It looks as if pensioners are going to receive a near 4% rise in April and I assume other benefits will rise by the same amount
Also expect a substantial rise in the minimum wage in the budget, together with other measures to help the low paid
I would be very surprised if Rishi does not do the above
Where's the money coming from Big_G?
Exactly
And that is the unanswered question for both parties as they face the same demands
At least on the 27th we may have some idea
Easy - from future generations
I assume you mean IHT which I have argued incessantly with @HYUFD about as I believe I million exemption is too high
If not maybe you could expand your view
The only options are borrow more or create a wealth tax - IHT won’t generate much
As a matter of interest how do you see a wealth tax working
My suggestion: 1% pa on all individual assets over £1m. Legal obligation to self-declare and complete an annual return.
So, assets of £1m = £0 Wealth Tax (WT) pa Assets of £1.5m = £5k WT pac(£500k over threshold x 1%) Assets of £2m = £10k WT pa (£1m over threshold x 1%) Assets of £10m = £90k WT pa Assets of £101m = £1m WT pa etc.
Seems fair enough
I would probably go for 0.5%, but agree with the principle.
Will kill off farming. All the land will have to be sold to housing developers.
Sorry Tim, I appreciate you are a long way away but this comment is dumb on several levels:
First, pulling 1% per annum out of large estates will never bankrupt those who own them.
Secondly, do you realise how tight the planning rules are in the UK, how difficult it is to convert farmland to housing?
Wealth is not liquidity. You don't have to go with the stereotype of a little old widow living on the state pension in a mansion to see that lots of high net asset people would struggle to produce 1pc cash every year. That's why racing on death when everything gets liquidated anyway is so handy. You would have to have a roll over till death option for the asset rich, cash poor, so why not go to enhanced death duties anyway?
I agree completely not least because that describes me (not a a widow living on just a state pension in a mansion).
I am retired. I have no income other than my state pension, but I have assets that I live off of. Some cash for the next few years, DC pension that I am not taking yet, shares that I can sell but would only fund me for a few years and 2 houses (home and holiday) that I will sell when I need the money. Most of the value it tied up in the house I live in so I could only afford the tax if I sold my home.
I am not poor, but I could not pay 1% of my asset value in tax, but happy to owe the tax and pay when I can.
Also how would the tax be applied re the following 3 scenarios: DB pension value, DC pension value, savings for retirement?
If DB pensions are excluded how is that fair on the majority of people whose retirement assets are not these and had no opportunity to get a DB pension. If not how does someone on a DB pension get the funds to pay the tax?
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
"Are you a communist" and "Are you planning to murder the President of the United States" always worked as screening questions. Though far better was the Trump response of build a wall to seal off latinos and ban people from "bad" muslim countries from entry at all.
The simple solution for HYUFD is to stop anyone coming in who might be a jihadi and to remove to somewhere abroad who might be a jihadi. As Islam is a colour-blind religion and we have had white-skinned Jihadis, unfortunately that will mean removing almost everyone who didn't pass the true citizenship test of always voting Conservative and being a congregant of the Church of England.
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
Marching into battle?
Should everyone put #metaphor & #humour tags on stuff for the hard of thinking and terminally thin skinned?
Maybe people could try using less violent metaphors.
I for one welcome our new language-policing overlords.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Better still lets just strip them of their citizenship, they're not proper Brits anyway are they?
Can you be any more openly racist than you are right now?
He saddens me so much
In all my years (60) of being involved on and off with the conservative party I can honestly say I have never come across anyone with his views, thankfully
Its not too difficult to understand the dominance of the SNP: it is the institutionalisation of grievance politics; the curse of the last decade. Devolution has led to a particular set of circumstances which has allowed it to become the establishment; the SNP can take credit for their successes and always blame someone (or something) else for their failings; channeling anger and frustration in to a historic cause for which total obedience and discipline is demanded. The warning signs about the problems this causes were on full display with the Salmond fiasco and its aftermath, but nothing really changes. I see no reason why this cannot go on for another 20 years; and it only really gets resolved when they get to do Scoxit (or whatever it is called); which looking back they should have done in 2014. I'm just really sad about it, as Scotland is such a beautiful place.
It is the fault of Westminster, ergo England , treating Scotland so badly. No way back now it will only end in independence. You only have to look at the way this current bunch of cretins deal with Scotland, treating it like a colony and now trying to bypass the elected government , stating Scotland is not a country. Pathetic cretins who seem desperate for independence yet want to keep Scotland under the heel of their boot in other ways, it cannot last.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
It was interesting that our authorities seemed capable of distinguishing between people going to Syria to join IS (like Jack Letts) and others who just went to fight against the Assad regime.
Of course, the radicalisation in this case could easily have happened online.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
The significance of him being a constituent of Starmers is that he shouldn't have been at Amess's constituency surgery. It is normal for such requests to be redirected to the appropriate MP. Admittedly this can be a problem when your own MP is a waste of space, but the first step in security should be that surgery's are by appointment only.
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
Indeed, and I know security has been beefed up. My sis-in-law used to work for a Labour MP when they were in government and they would just book a venue and keep an eye out for the people who shouldn't be allowed in.
Point is that MPs and their staff do not know every person in their constituency. We can't make such things completely secure without utterly changing what they are.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to check names against the electoral register and against the Prevent list of referrals. This would not mean refusing to see but could mean seeing in a safer situation.
Sadly I think we will have to. The problem is that MPs also go to public places where they are not able to have this protection. Jo Cox was murdered in the street. As was David Amess.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Quite an odd poll. Looks like movement straight from the Tories to the LDs.
Tory Remainers finally incensed by Brexit ‘shortages’? Suggests it won’t last IF the shortages ease
Shortages are just one thing; increased taxes and prices will also potentially begin to impact.
Disaffected Tory voters flocking to the LibDems is nothing new.
But this is just one poll - see how things look by the end of the year.
It looks as if pensioners are going to receive a near 4% rise in April and I assume other benefits will rise by the same amount
Also expect a substantial rise in the minimum wage in the budget, together with other measures to help the low paid
I would be very surprised if Rishi does not do the above
Where's the money coming from Big_G?
Exactly
And that is the unanswered question for both parties as they face the same demands
At least on the 27th we may have some idea
Easy - from future generations
I assume you mean IHT which I have argued incessantly with @HYUFD about as I believe I million exemption is too high
If not maybe you could expand your view
The only options are borrow more or create a wealth tax - IHT won’t generate much
As a matter of interest how do you see a wealth tax working
My suggestion: 1% pa on all individual assets over £1m. Legal obligation to self-declare and complete an annual return.
So, assets of £1m = £0 Wealth Tax (WT) pa Assets of £1.5m = £5k WT pac(£500k over threshold x 1%) Assets of £2m = £10k WT pa (£1m over threshold x 1%) Assets of £10m = £90k WT pa Assets of £101m = £1m WT pa etc.
Seems fair enough
I would probably go for 0.5%, but agree with the principle.
Will kill off farming. All the land will have to be sold to housing developers.
Sorry Tim, I appreciate you are a long way away but this comment is dumb on several levels:
First, pulling 1% per annum out of large estates will never bankrupt those who own them.
Secondly, do you realise how tight the planning rules are in the UK, how difficult it is to convert farmland to housing?
Wealth is not liquidity. You don't have to go with the stereotype of a little old widow living on the state pension in a mansion to see that lots of high net asset people would struggle to produce 1pc cash every year. That's why racing on death when everything gets liquidated anyway is so handy. You would have to have a roll over till death option for the asset rich, cash poor, so why not go to enhanced death duties anyway?
I agree completely not least because that describes me (not a a widow living on just a state pension in a mansion).
I am retired. I have no income other than my state pension, but I have assets that I live off of. Some cash for the next few years, DC pension that I am not taking yet, shares that I can sell but would only fund me for a few years and 2 houses (home and holiday) that I will sell when I need the money. Most of the value it tied up in the house I live in so I could only afford the tax if I sold my home.
I am not poor, but I could not pay 1% of my asset value in tax, but happy to owe the tax and pay when I can.
Also how would the tax be applied re the following 3 scenarios: DB pension value, DC pension value, savings for retirement?
If DB pensions are excluded how is that fair on the majority of people whose retirement assets are not these and had no opportunity to get a DB pension. If not how does someone on a DB pension get the funds to pay the tax?
As with all taxes and especially wealth taxes they are not as straightforward as many would like
I know Leigh on Sea a bit as it is where we go for a day out on the coast sometimes, or for a drink in the evenings. I wanted to move there but was over ruled. It is a lovely little place, the more arty farty part of Southend. Like Brighton without the lefties. Old East London on Sea
But it is overwhelmingly a white, Christian place, as evidenced by these demographic stats - 1% black, 1% Muslim, so very few people indeed who were both black and muslim. It would have been quite odd for Sir David to see Ali Harbi Ali turn up at his surgery
The reason Labour have been smashed by the SNP is not that they have attacked them insufficiently. Anyone who has seen the invective spouted by SLab members and activists at the SNP would find that ridiculous.
The reason is much simpler. A very large percentage of former Labour voters were in favour of independence.
If your party is implacably opposed to a policy that a large amount of your voters are in favour of you have only two options.
1) bring your voters round to your point of view with well constructed arguments. 2) call them Nazi's and watch as they abandon you and vote for party that favours their position instead.
Labour went with option 2.
It's that simple.
The question is WHY they went with option 2.
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, perhaps because they believe in it? There are despite popular opinion to the contrary loads of politicians who can't bear campaigning on a basis that they dislike, even if the result is that they lose. I wouldn't dream of campaigning for a reduction in inheritance tax, even if it made me certain to win.
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
Marching into battle shoulder to shoulder with the Tories was a massive error of judgment though, given that there was an alternative.
Marching into battle?
Should everyone put #metaphor & #humour tags on stuff for the hard of thinking and terminally thin skinned?
Maybe people could try using less violent metaphors.
I for one welcome our new language-policing overlords.
Oops, perhaps overlords is a bit violent..
It just makes you look keen to stir up hatred and anger.
Do what you like; it's just really not a good look.
It bloody well does look like Adam Peaty moved in to kiss Katya after their dance.
Rose is now favourite (rightly so) and looked very settled too.
Dancing is sex standing up, after all!
It was very funny when one of the spouses turned up to a training session and got into hold with the professional and just did a double take saying wow that *is* close.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Better still lets just strip them of their citizenship, they're not proper Brits anyway are they?
Can you be any more openly racist than you are right now?
Would I have any problem stripping jihadis who kill Brits of their citizenship if they weren't born here? Certainly not. In the case of David Amess' killer he was born here but he was radicalised via Somalia so clearly we also should have much tighter border controls on travel to countries with large numbers of jihadis.
Most of the UK population would agree with that. The fact you as a leftwinger think that means you have to call me racist confirms why the left is further away from power than ever in the UK.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Lol you want a police state where British Citizens are detained for the crime of having the wrong colour skin or religion. "Are you travelling to become a Jihadi" FFS - you are a walking parody of a politician. Anything to deflect from the hate that you personally are whipping up and the tragic consequences.
An MP - a well respected Conservative MP - has just been murdered. Have a bit of dignity man.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
The significance of him being a constituent of Starmers is that he shouldn't have been at Amess's constituency surgery. It is normal for such requests to be redirected to the appropriate MP. Admittedly this can be a problem when your own MP is a waste of space, but the first step in security should be that surgery's are by appointment only.
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
Indeed, and I know security has been beefed up. My sis-in-law used to work for a Labour MP when they were in government and they would just book a venue and keep an eye out for the people who shouldn't be allowed in.
Point is that MPs and their staff do not know every person in their constituency. We can't make such things completely secure without utterly changing what they are.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to check names against the electoral register and against the Prevent list of referrals. This would not mean refusing to see but could mean seeing in a safer situation.
Sadly I think we will have to. The problem is that MPs also go to public places where they are not able to have this protection. Jo Cox was murdered in the street. As was David Amess.
David Amess was murdered in a Church serving his constituents who loved him
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
Are they pure-bred Anglo-Saxons? No? There's your answer - they could all be jihadis...
Pure-bred Anglo-Saxons? Contradiction in terms, surely.
Nicola's real skill has been to move the SNP from a broadly neutral/centrist position under Salmond to being a party of the centre left. This is what has allowed the SNP to take over from Scottish Labour and basically eliminate them as a major political force in Scotland. As @Carnyx points out when Labour was the centre left party of Scottish politics they dominated for over 50 years.
What I find truly astonishing is how acquiescent Labour were in that elimination.
That is the really astonishing thing.
A party that has the kind of overwhelming control that Labour had in Scotland prior to 2007 (& still has in Wales today) possesses enormous amounts of power and patronage at its disposal. It really should not be easy to dislodge.
So, the SNP did a remarkable thing -- but it is also extraordinary that Labour did not see what was happening and react.
Anyhow, Scotland is in much better shape than Wales -- where we have the most corrupt political party in Western Europe, Llafur, in control of almost everything.
Hubris and being anti independence did for Labour. As now they ignored the members and thought they were omnipotent and knew what people really wanted. Unless and until they start supporting independence they are in the dustbin of history.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
Several years ago at the height of ISIS I recall Police/Border Force officers asking everyone boarding an Emirates flight to Dubai the purpose of their trip.
I guess my question is: why do LABOUR think they lost Scotland?
(I have my opinions on this based on how Llafur run Wales, and @Alistair has given us his opinion).
But, I am genuinely interested in how a Labour loyalist (albeit one perhaps without first-hand knowledge of Scottish Labour) explains this. What is your understanding of why it happened?
As you say, I don't know enough about it to give a qualified opinion. But my unqualified opinion is that the SNP have successfully portrayed themselves as mildly centre-left and distinctively and solely interested in Scotland. That leaves Labour mainly the share of voters who want more left-wing policies and reject the idea that focusing on Scotland is crucial.
In most of Britain, focusing on the local interest is not that crucial. Nobody ever said to me as a Notts MP, "But what does Labour want for Nottinghamshire in particular?", because people saw politics as primarily a national issue, albeit seasoned with local issues like the Tesco debate that I mentioned, and almost nobody primarily identified themselves with the county. Moreover, left-wingers just don't think like that - they see politics as about equality or public services, and "what matters is focusing on Scotland" would seem odd.
So I hypothesise that the way forward for Scottish Labour may be to become formally independent on the national party and focus relentlesly on Scottish issues, without arguing that this necessarily means independence. The fact that voters are pro-SNP but not usually pro-Indy suggests a possible space in the market for a leftish party that is distinctively Scottish but not preoccupied with independence. That, as I understand it, is roughly where Welsh Labour have pitched their tent - I get that you don't like them, but they seem quite durably popular?
I know Leigh on Sea a bit as it is where we go for a day out on the coast sometimes, or for a drink in the evenings. I wanted to move there but was over ruled. It is a lovely little place, the more arty farty part of Southend. Like Brighton without the lefties. Old East London on Sea
But it is overwhelmingly a white, Christian place, as evidenced by these demographic stats - 1% black, 1% Muslim, so very few people indeed who were both black and muslim. It would have been quite odd for Sir David to see Ali Harbi Ali turn up at his surgery
I’ve read that the perpetrator had booked an appointment, which I think would have required him to provide an address in the constituency. I have no idea how much cross-checking is done on that, but there is a suggestion that the perpetrator may have lived there at some point.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Good to see your great sense of humour is holding up on this sunny Sunday morning.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
Border controls on British citizens? 🤔
No.
If they are going to countries known to have a high level of jihadi extremists certainly.
You may take your usual ultra libertarian line, I am with the silent majority of Britons on this
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Better still lets just strip them of their citizenship, they're not proper Brits anyway are they?
Can you be any more openly racist than you are right now?
Would I have any problem stripping jihadis who kill Brits of their citizenship if they weren't born here? Certainly not. In the case of David Amess' killer he was born here but he was radicalised via Somalia so clearly we also should have much tighter border controls on travel to countries with large numbers of jihadis.
Most of the UK population would agree with that. The fact you as a leftwinger think that means you have to call me racist confirms why the left is further away from power than ever in the UK.
I think that your open racism is why I can call you a racist. Because you are saying things which are overtly racist.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Yes we have a sophisticated intelligence service and we should have that sophisticated intelligence service do its job, as it's already doing.
Instead of having armchair generals talk shit about "border controls".
Quite an odd poll. Looks like movement straight from the Tories to the LDs.
Tory Remainers finally incensed by Brexit ‘shortages’? Suggests it won’t last IF the shortages ease
Shortages are just one thing; increased taxes and prices will also potentially begin to impact.
Disaffected Tory voters flocking to the LibDems is nothing new.
But this is just one poll - see how things look by the end of the year.
It looks as if pensioners are going to receive a near 4% rise in April and I assume other benefits will rise by the same amount
Also expect a substantial rise in the minimum wage in the budget, together with other measures to help the low paid
I would be very surprised if Rishi does not do the above
Where's the money coming from Big_G?
Exactly
And that is the unanswered question for both parties as they face the same demands
At least on the 27th we may have some idea
Easy - from future generations
I assume you mean IHT which I have argued incessantly with @HYUFD about as I believe I million exemption is too high
If not maybe you could expand your view
The only options are borrow more or create a wealth tax - IHT won’t generate much
As a matter of interest how do you see a wealth tax working
My suggestion: 1% pa on all individual assets over £1m. Legal obligation to self-declare and complete an annual return.
So, assets of £1m = £0 Wealth Tax (WT) pa Assets of £1.5m = £5k WT pac(£500k over threshold x 1%) Assets of £2m = £10k WT pa (£1m over threshold x 1%) Assets of £10m = £90k WT pa Assets of £101m = £1m WT pa etc.
Seems fair enough
I would probably go for 0.5%, but agree with the principle.
Will kill off farming. All the land will have to be sold to housing developers.
Sorry Tim, I appreciate you are a long way away but this comment is dumb on several levels:
First, pulling 1% per annum out of large estates will never bankrupt those who own them.
Secondly, do you realise how tight the planning rules are in the UK, how difficult it is to convert farmland to housing?
Wealth is not liquidity. You don't have to go with the stereotype of a little old widow living on the state pension in a mansion to see that lots of high net asset people would struggle to produce 1pc cash every year. That's why racing on death when everything gets liquidated anyway is so handy. You would have to have a roll over till death option for the asset rich, cash poor, so why not go to enhanced death duties anyway?
I agree completely not least because that describes me (not a a widow living on just a state pension in a mansion).
I am retired. I have no income other than my state pension, but I have assets that I live off of. Some cash for the next few years, DC pension that I am not taking yet, shares that I can sell but would only fund me for a few years and 2 houses (home and holiday) that I will sell when I need the money. Most of the value it tied up in the house I live in so I could only afford the tax if I sold my home.
I am not poor, but I could not pay 1% of my asset value in tax, but happy to owe the tax and pay when I can.
Also how would the tax be applied re the following 3 scenarios: DB pension value, DC pension value, savings for retirement?
If DB pensions are excluded how is that fair on the majority of people whose retirement assets are not these and had no opportunity to get a DB pension. If not how does someone on a DB pension get the funds to pay the tax?
If you have over £1m in assets as suggested in the proposal above, you could very easily get a loan against the property to cover 1% asset tax.
Personally I would set a wealth tax to start at £10m as many people will think similarly to yourself, and also see £1m as attainable even if they are far from it currently.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
Several years ago at the height of ISIS I recall Police/Border Force officers asking everyone boarding an Emirates flight to Dubai the purpose of their trip.
Back in 2016, there were Border Force at the gate in Dubai, checking everyone getting on a BA flight to London. 20 questions about purpose of visit, where we were staying, people we would be meeting. Fast but comprehensive, I got the feeling they were looking for someone specific (who wasn’t me, thankfully!)
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Lol you want a police state where British Citizens are detained for the crime of having the wrong colour skin or religion. "Are you travelling to become a Jihadi" FFS - you are a walking parody of a politician. Anything to deflect from the hate that you personally are whipping up and the tragic consequences.
An MP - a well respected Conservative MP - has just been murdered. Have a bit of dignity man.
No, where have I said I would ban Islam? Free expression of Islam is fine in the UK, travelling to a country full of Jihadi extremists is not unless with a clear valid reason for doing so checked and confirmed by the intelligence services.
That would also have helped avoid the tragic murder we saw last week.
If it annoys wet left liberals like you prepared to scream 'racist' at anyone who disagrees with you, all to the good!
What I find truly astonishing is how acquiescent Labour were in that elimination
Labour's problem was they had run for years - nay decades - on "not being London Tories" - the SNP simply stole that tune and played it better - and not having a London based party themselves, were immune to "in-hock to London" accusations.
As yea sow, so shall yea reap.
The only thing I can see ending SNP hegemony is splits within the independence movement - and while that may be happening among some activists there is very little suggestion its happening electorally.
The succession to Sturgeon will be a key moment. It could lead to the SNP being more interested in fighting each other than the Tories/London.
She's looking a bit ragged these days and clearly working for an international sinecure after a lengthy period in office.
Her husband's control of the SNP has helped secure her position but frankly looks a bit tin pot and is getting far more attention than it used to. It doesn't help that he is incompetent either. I think we are near the end but she needs something else to do first. She is too young to simply retire.
She is hoping to get out before there is enough disclosure to finish her off. She needs to get out soon and get her international job or she is finished. Hence her magpie husband has been missing for months , lying low in one of their many properties no doubt. We wonder where Wally is hiding.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
Are they pure-bred Anglo-Saxons? No? There's your answer - they could all be jihadis...
Pure-bred Anglo-Saxons? Contradiction in terms, surely.
Yep - but try telling a racist that (I have tried). There seems to be a hardcore section of the Eng-er-land mentality who don't get that their antipathy towards foreigners is doubly funny because their country is named after Germans, the "native" Anglo-Saxons are two tribes of invading Germans and not native, St George has nothing to do with the country etc etc.
Patriotism isn't inherently bad. But it can be especially when the "patriot" is at best ill-informed as to the thing they claim to be the true representative of.
The Toon is already buzzing for later. Can’t wait to get pumped by Spurs and not care one bit 🏳️🏴
It was reported that are to spend 50 million in the January window so hardly a bonanza
I think the most important issue is for them is to avoid relegation if they want to attract stars for next season
We’re not after a bonanza. The stadium has been jet washed and the dead pigeons removed this week from the roof netting so already far exceeding my expectations
The Toon is already buzzing for later. Can’t wait to get pumped by Spurs and not care one bit 🏳️🏴
In the context of this morning's debate, I do hope Newcastle have strict measures to control who gets into the ground given the takeover by the Saudis, a regime known for exporting terrorists.
I know Leigh on Sea a bit as it is where we go for a day out on the coast sometimes, or for a drink in the evenings. I wanted to move there but was over ruled. It is a lovely little place, the more arty farty part of Southend. Like Brighton without the lefties. Old East London on Sea
But it is overwhelmingly a white, Christian place, as evidenced by these demographic stats - 1% black, 1% Muslim, so very few people indeed who were both black and muslim. It would have been quite odd for Sir David to see Ali Harbi Ali turn up at his surgery
I lived not far from there for many years, including attending a school not very far away. The North Leigh/Belfairs area can by no means be described as the 'arty-farty' part of Southend; that's Old Leigh, down by the river. Which actually underlies Isam's point, but I also noted that a couple of the early interviewees, on Friday evening 'looked' Asian. The area is also close to the more mixed area along the A127. The Eastern part of Southend W is also much more mixed.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
Several years ago at the height of ISIS I recall Police/Border Force officers asking everyone boarding an Emirates flight to Dubai the purpose of their trip.
Back in 2016, there were Border Force at the gate in Dubai, checking everyone getting on a BA flight to London. 20 questions about purpose of visit, where we were staying, people we would be meeting. Fast but comprehensive, I got the feeling they were looking for someone specific (who wasn’t me, thankfully!)
I did a road trip in Canada/USA in October 2014. I was with a friend who’s a fair bit older than me, and I think a good job too. We returned on a BA flight from Boston that was full of SAGA types who had been looking at pretty coloured leaves. I went to see Tom Brady
Anyway, security man at the gate asked me (27 year-old guy) if I was travelling alone. Thankfully I wasn’t and was let through. I wonder just what sort of questioning I might have received had I been alone.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
How should we stop British citizens coming in?
All British citizens travelling to and from Somalia should be fully screened before and after travel as to their reasons for doing so and monitored when there by the security services ideally. If they are there to become a jihadi they should be refused entry back into the UK or be charged and put in jail
Would it be that easy?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia? To become a jihadi. Sorry, you can't go.
What a stupid point, we have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, they are quite capable of doing detailed background checks on those travelling to and from Somalia and their reasons for doing so
Lol you want a police state where British Citizens are detained for the crime of having the wrong colour skin or religion. "Are you travelling to become a Jihadi" FFS - you are a walking parody of a politician. Anything to deflect from the hate that you personally are whipping up and the tragic consequences.
An MP - a well respected Conservative MP - has just been murdered. Have a bit of dignity man.
No, where have I said I would ban Islam? Free expression of Islam is fine in the UK, travelling to a country full of Jihadi extremists is not unless with a clear valid reason for doing so checked and confirmed by the intelligence services.
That would also have helped avoid the tragic murder we saw last week.
If it annoys wet left liberals like you prepared to scream 'racist' at anyone who disagrees with you, all to the good!
You don't want to ban Islam. But you do want to intern British citizens for their crime of having the wrong religion and background.
Your latter sentence is why David Amess has been murdered. You are propagating the hate that drives lunatics to kill.
The Toon is already buzzing for later. Can’t wait to get pumped by Spurs and not care one bit 🏳️🏴
It was reported that are to spend 50 million in the January window so hardly a bonanza
I think the most important issue is for them is to avoid relegation if they want to attract stars for next season
Avoid relegation? Going off the comedic way they sacked and then unsacked Bruce, they could be 10 matches in to the new regime, Steve Bruce still in place albeit now downgraded to "interim manager" as coach after coach after coach turns them down until their only options are Phil Brown and Paul Gascoine.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
We don't know whether the arrested individual has ever set foot in Somalia.
The Toon is already buzzing for later. Can’t wait to get pumped by Spurs and not care one bit 🏳️🏴
Are you not concerned that your current players (Saint-Maximin excepted), might give even less of shit between now and January when they know they’ll get replaced?
Could be quite fun if Newcastle are firmly in the bottom three with half a season for the mercenaries new signings to turn it around.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
We don't know whether the arrested individual has ever set foot in Somalia.
I am not sure at all as to what you are trying to say here.
Are you implicating Starmer and the Labour Party and/or are you demanding that the suspect should be referred to as an immigrant despite the country of birth?
Whatever your point(s) they appear both irrelevant and tasteless.
Boilerplate lefty knee jerk
How would I be implicating Sir Keir or Labour by mentioning he happened to be a constituent of his?! What planet do you live on?
And I’m saying it’s a bit unnecessary to call the murderer Somalian when he was born in England, so the opposite of what you want me to be saying so you can have a dig
You really weren’t sure, but alas went on one
0/2 try harder
You and I don't agree on a lot. But you are correct here. This man was not a Somali jihadi as a certain other poster insists. He was British. And if he was a constituent of SKS then that doesn't make his MP in any way complicit.
Initial reports I saw said he was Somali. However he’s English, born and bred. I would guess initial reports knew who,he was, who,his father was and put two and two together and got 5.
His father was a Somali immigrant, his son was a 25 year old who obviously was radicalised by going back to Somalia as even his own father warned was a major problem in some parts of the Somali community that had settled in Britain.
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
We don't know whether the arrested individual has ever set foot in Somalia.
As posted earlier, the words of the father of the suspect show quite clearly this is a big problem in the Somali community with their young people.
'CUFFE: The Intelligence Service, of course, won’t reveal the source of their information about young British Somalis recruited to al-Shabaab. But rumours about youngsters being brainwashed and radicalised are causing growing concern among British Somalis – particularly the older generation, who fled chaos in Somalia and just want to see the return of stability and peace. Harbi Kullane tries to liaise between the community here and Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, which has international backing, but is seen by many Somalis as a puppet of the west. He is critical of British Somalis for their reluctance to speak openly about al-Shabaab.
KULLANE: If you’re walking in the street of Camden, if you walk in the streets of Southall or if you go to Leicester or even Birmingham you hear that young children who were here studying the religion have disappeared and gone back to Somalia. CUFFE: So have you met parents here in Britain who say that their young people have disappeared? KULLANE: At the moment the difficulty that we’re having with our society and diaspora is no parents are willing to come forward and say they are missing my child. CUFFE: If parents are keeping so quiet about that, aren’t they contributing to the problem? KULLANE: Directly or indirectly, they’re contributing it, but if they come forward and they say, “Our son has been there,” they fear some sort of a repercussion from the law, often from the country that they are being hosted.'
Comments
There are a whole range of options between your option 1 and option 2. And most politicians know how to muddy the waters, and say one thing while meaning another.
So as option 2 is clearly idiotic -- why on earth did they choose it?
"Home shows you top Tweets first
See latest Tweets instead"
Click "See latest Tweets instead".
Do this on every device you read the twitters on.
From now on, if you have bad stuff in your feed that makes you dumber instead of smarter, it's your fault and not Jack's.
Race and nation have been weaponised by your party. Instead of the moral disgust that most people felt when that 3 year-old boy washed up on that Greek beach, you have hardened people's souls to see the boy and other boys as the enemy invaders. If they drown due to government directive then somehow its their fault.
A period of silence from you would be welcomed. For your own good as much as ours. Stop. And. Think.
I remember a lot of that type of chat leading up to the Salmond enquiry, lo and behold as prescient as predictions of the end of SNP honeymoons. I’ve no idea what her hopes and fears are, but I’m not sure why Sturgeon, noted for being a gradualist and cautious long term strategist, would bail out half way through.
From a Unionist pov, I’d judge pinning your hopes on the resignations of rivals rather than your own offer to voters as not necessarily to the Union’s advantage, particularly considering the quality of leadership they’re offering. Ruth, Kezia and Willie are beginning to look like colossi..
Any sensible politician will raise issues that constituents care about where they have no strong feelings. I remember leading a huge campaign against planning permission for a Tesco - the rally that I had on the subject attracted over 200 people - even though I personally had no strong view one way or the other, beyond a mild concern for small shops nearby. Lots of constituents did, and I didn't mind representing them. But if I'd been convinced that the arrival of Tesco would be wonderful, I wouldn't have touched it. Independence is such a seminal issue that it's hard to fudge in good conscience.
We all need to Calm Down.
Count 'em
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/shocking-image-of-drowned-syrian-boy-shows-tragic-plight-of-refugees
This can help with security. It is normal for appointments in my line to be labelled "not to be seen alone" or "not for female staff" because of past inappropriate behaviour, for example.
(I have my opinions on this based on how Llafur run Wales, and @Alistair has given us his opinion).
But, I am genuinely interested in how a Labour loyalist (albeit one perhaps without first-hand knowledge of Scottish Labour) explains this. What is your understanding of why it happened?
What a bizarre world where someone would think that was trying to make Sir Keir some kind of accomplice!
Mind you, now you mention it - if a posh Leaver from Uxbridge went on a racist attack in the inner city...
Darling: At heart..
Sunak 24%
Javid 7%
Gove 6%
Patel 5%
Truss 4%
Johnson still leads Starmer as best PM 42% to 33%
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10099469/Id-holiday-Boris-Johnson-Keir-Starmer-say-voters.html
That very much puts the division very down to LD/CON vs LAB/SNP. Junior coalition partner effect?
Is the LD anti-Tory rhetoric weaker in Scotland than England, where a significant part of the chatter is *very* anti-Tory? Interesting that there are no joint SNP/GRN councils.
Out of 32 Councils we have, I think (IND ignored, one or two may be 1 out)):
CON / LAB Joint - zero
CON / SNP Joint - zero
LAB / SNP Joint - 6
LAB / LD Joint - 1
SNP / LD Joint - 0
CON / LD Joint - 6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_make-up_of_local_councils_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scotland
We therefore still need tighter border controls to check who is coming in and out of the country and their reasons for doing so
This is everything that has gone wrong over the last few years. The same newspapers with that photo of the dead Syrian boy now implore people to support killing other boys.
You know irony is dead when FBPEs of all people have to be reminded that England is not the centre of the universe...
Adding to this, the other devolved nations haven't done much better. Scotland reached nearly 2.5% prevalence in their last wave, yet it's only England that has to put up with the "dangerous and unethical experiment" crap, even though things have been materially better here. Why?
https://twitter.com/RufusSG
The leadership and majority of the activists of SLab are Unionist to the core. This killed their ability to empathise and engage with their voting base.
However tighter border controls certainly is a must and checking the reasons people travel to and from countries known to be hotspots of Jihadis certainly. I have no intention of being silent on that at all and if it annoys you all to the good
Point is that MPs and their staff do not know every person in their constituency. We can't make such things completely secure without utterly changing what they are.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClakdY321DmXjjieiA8Bqag/videos
Why should a Unionist party want to appease Nationalists? Leave them to the SNP until in a generation an indyref2 maybe resolves the issue. In the meantime SLab should focus on keeping Tory and LD tactical voters which is how it wins most of its seats.
The SNP will prop up a Labour government anyway
It is something I advocated here several years ago and got rather taken to task over it.
I had discussed with @Sandpit sometime ago regarding how much we (that is him and me and not the royal we) had in common compared to how little we disagreed upon even though we were politically different and I think that is true for most of us, so I am sad we have an adversarial system of Government and it is one of my pet issues.
You seriously need to shut up on this one. You are demonising foreigners (who aren't foreigners! He is British like you and me!) because you know it reinforces your government's failed attempt to control its borders.
You personally are literally creating the environment that is creating this open season of hate which then enables psychopaths to murder MPs. You. "If it annoys you all to the good" is what is getting MPs murdered you absolute stupid spanner.
Are you going to apply the same rules to British citizens going to Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, etc? If so we need to expand our secret police significantly.
The fact is, the Scottish Government knew it was attempting to legislate in breach of the Scotland Act; knew it, but did it anyway. And it is difficult to see how this was anything other than a cynical exercise in creating a grievance for advancing both an argument about the Tories being anti-children, and the case for more powers. And for independence.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,editors-column-for-the-childs-sake
Can you be any more openly racist than you are right now?
What's your reason for travelling to Somalia?
To become a jihadi.
Sorry, you can't go.
I am retired. I have no income other than my state pension, but I have assets that I live off of. Some cash for the next few years, DC pension that I am not taking yet, shares that I can sell but would only fund me for a few years and 2 houses (home and holiday) that I will sell when I need the money. Most of the value it tied up in the house I live in so I could only afford the tax if I sold my home.
I am not poor, but I could not pay 1% of my asset value in tax, but happy to owe the tax and pay when I can.
Also how would the tax be applied re the following 3 scenarios: DB pension value, DC pension value, savings for retirement?
If DB pensions are excluded how is that fair on the majority of people whose retirement assets are not these and had no opportunity to get a DB pension. If not how does someone on a DB pension get the funds to pay the tax?
Dancing is sex standing up, after all!
The simple solution for HYUFD is to stop anyone coming in who might be a jihadi and to remove to somewhere abroad who might be a jihadi. As Islam is a colour-blind religion and we have had white-skinned Jihadis, unfortunately that will mean removing almost everyone who didn't pass the true citizenship test of always voting Conservative and being a congregant of the Church of England.
Oops, perhaps overlords is a bit violent..
In all my years (60) of being involved on and off with the conservative party I can honestly say I have never come across anyone with his views, thankfully
No.
Of course, the radicalisation in this case could easily have happened online.
But it is overwhelmingly a white, Christian place, as evidenced by these demographic stats - 1% black, 1% Muslim, so very few people indeed who were both black and muslim. It would have been quite odd for Sir David to see Ali Harbi Ali turn up at his surgery
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastofengland/admin/southend_on_sea/E04001128__leigh_on_sea/
Do what you like; it's just really not a good look.
We don't normally see this level of swivel eyed lunacy until after the watershed.
Just to be constructive to the debate, perhaps we could prevent all Muslims from using the Internet too?
Most of the UK population would agree with that. The fact you as a leftwinger think that means you have to call me racist confirms why the left is further away from power than ever in the UK.
An MP - a well respected Conservative MP - has just been murdered. Have a bit of dignity man.
Unless and until they start supporting independence they are in the dustbin of history.
In most of Britain, focusing on the local interest is not that crucial. Nobody ever said to me as a Notts MP, "But what does Labour want for Nottinghamshire in particular?", because people saw politics as primarily a national issue, albeit seasoned with local issues like the Tesco debate that I mentioned, and almost nobody primarily identified themselves with the county. Moreover, left-wingers just don't think like that - they see politics as about equality or public services, and "what matters is focusing on Scotland" would seem odd.
So I hypothesise that the way forward for Scottish Labour may be to become formally independent on the national party and focus relentlesly on Scottish issues, without arguing that this necessarily means independence. The fact that voters are pro-SNP but not usually pro-Indy suggests a possible space in the market for a leftish party that is distinctively Scottish but not preoccupied with independence. That, as I understand it, is roughly where Welsh Labour have pitched their tent - I get that you don't like them, but they seem quite durably popular?
Comments welcome.
You may take your usual ultra libertarian line, I am with the silent majority of Britons on this
Instead of having armchair generals talk shit about "border controls".
Personally I would set a wealth tax to start at £10m as many people will think similarly to yourself, and also see £1m as attainable even if they are far from it currently.
That would also have helped avoid the tragic murder we saw last week.
If it annoys wet left liberals like you prepared to scream 'racist' at anyone who disagrees with you, all to the good!
I think the most important issue is for them is to avoid relegation if they want to attract stars for next season
Patriotism isn't inherently bad. But it can be especially when the "patriot" is at best ill-informed as to the thing they claim to be the true representative of.
Anyway, security man at the gate asked me (27 year-old guy) if I was travelling alone. Thankfully I wasn’t and was let through. I wonder just what sort of questioning I might have received had I been alone.
Your latter sentence is why David Amess has been murdered. You are propagating the hate that drives lunatics to kill.
Quite an emotional moment
Could be quite fun if Newcastle are firmly in the bottom three with half a season for the mercenaries new signings to turn it around.
'CUFFE: The Intelligence Service, of course, won’t reveal the source of their information about young British Somalis recruited to al-Shabaab. But rumours about youngsters being brainwashed and radicalised are causing growing concern among British Somalis – particularly the older generation, who fled chaos in Somalia and just want to see the return of stability and peace. Harbi Kullane tries to liaise between the community here and Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, which has international backing, but is seen by many Somalis as a puppet of the west. He is critical of British Somalis for their reluctance to speak openly about al-Shabaab.
KULLANE: If you’re walking in the street of Camden, if you walk in the streets of Southall or if you go to Leicester or even Birmingham you hear that young children who were here studying the religion have disappeared and gone back to Somalia.
CUFFE: So have you met parents here in Britain who say that their young people have disappeared?
KULLANE: At the moment the difficulty that we’re having with our society and diaspora is no parents are willing to come forward and say they are missing my child.
CUFFE: If parents are keeping so quiet about that, aren’t they contributing to the problem?
KULLANE: Directly or indirectly, they’re contributing it, but if they come forward and they say, “Our son has been there,” they fear some sort of a repercussion from the law, often from the country that they are being hosted.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_10_fo4_somali.pdf