JoeLeg

They won't be an early election, because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act means that she needs the Commons to vote for it. The other parties aren't going to let her off the hook, not when they can spend 5 years kicking them at every opportunity. The DUP won't want to give up their kingmaker position either. We're stuck with this for five years.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, so how long before another election ? Five years. None of the other parties will agree to an early election, the prospect of screwing the Tories in that time is too good. May had managed to fuck her own party and hang onto her job. That kind of says it all to me.

Yes, I'm ecstatic at the UKIP collapse. And I agree it's a recognition of where this country is politically; I hope Westminster recognises this and tries to work towards consensus and stops playing sections of society off against each other. At this risk of being trite, there is more that unites us than divides us.

I'm amazed. I really didn't think politics could surprise me like that anymore. I was very wrong, just didn't think the youth vote could mobilise itself like that. Well, there we are. We live in interesting times.

Blanche, Yes, pretty much, where War Graves are concerned. It's the responsibility of the CWGC. No one else. End of. ETA - you don't actually understand how the CWGC works, do you...?

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 38 pages. > > That's an entire rain forest of hypothetical > internet trees you have all destroyed whilst > playing this wretched game of one upmanship over > people long dead you never knew. Everyone needs a hobby...

I'm quite convinced the Republican Party has him firmly under control. I believe they already have a dossier that would sink him; there's no way they would allow him to even slightly undermine their plans. Power rests inside the beltway and Trump has learned that, if he starts to leave the reservation they'll deal with him, one way or another.

When I click that link I get something about the prison population of Australia? Are you trying to tell us something about your opinion of Guardian journalists UG? Quite how you think that could sway votes is beyond me. Care to explain once you've restocked on tin foil?

He made three posts where he focused on the issue of it being illegal, with no other comments. The thread is about very young children on bikes. If he has further opinions on the issue he should probably say, because it looks a little bit like he thinks the legality of the matter is his main concern.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, it is illegal. > > Thanks for the clarification Mr Barber. Children have to learn to cycle somehow, and they have to learn to be around other members of the public somehow. The idea that a child should have to go from only cycling on a park to taking a proficiency and going straight on the road seems devoid of all common sense. Properly supervised (and I do mean properly supervised, not followed 20 metres behind by a parent staring at their phone), they do not pose any more of a danger than most other pavements users. Adolescents and of course adults are a different matter.

You really think a 6 year old should be cycling on the road?! Get real. We don't have a car. I've got two kids, one of whom is 7. She loves riding her bike in the park. Tell me, how do we get the bike to the park? Should we just carry it?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of the pollsters on their blogs are saying > Tory majority 50-70 > > Tory on the ground reports via canvassing/their > own polling are pretty optimistic > > Labour ones (off the record via journalists - so > make of that what you will) much less so > > Corbymania will likely result in some swings in > University Towns > > Social media it's a Labour Landslide > > A lot of millennials likely to be shattered and > disappointed by Friday is my call, but we never > know. I'd agree with pretty much all of that.

If they actually got in (which they won't), they'd never, ever be allowed to even think about that. Just not going to happen, and nor should it.

You know what Borky? That's not the worst plan I've ever heard, let's give it a try! (Sorry to hear about your erectile issues)

So you're feeling in a congenial mood this morning Borky? Good to see.

"3 major attacks in 3 months in the UK." Let's be honest; it's one major attack - Manchester. Westminster and London Bridge were tragic events but they can hardly be placed on the same scale. To me mind they epitomise the desperation these pathetic individuals are sinking to in a vain attempt to be seen as something more than the murderers they are. I don't say that there's some magic number or level of damage which defines the line between minor and major, but I do think that if you're reduced to hiring a van and picking up knives then it says a lot about your ability as a "terrorist".

There wasn't really any pressure on her on the Brillo show though. It was generally a relaxed environment where opposing views weren't seriously challenged, and consensus was seen as a good thing Now that she's having to be more partisan and is being challenged in detail, she's been found out.

1. We have to continue to work on the soft aspect of it and try to cut off the flow of recruits. 2. I agree they don't need guns or explosives. They are far less effective without them, as has been seen. One fit in Manchester killed 22, three guys in London killed 7. Destroying their logistical train is a major factor in limits their effectiveness when they do mange to act. This is important. 3. I totally agree that Saudi money is a problem. If we can persuade the Saudi's to stop funding them then they run out of money. 4. The Americans have a number of approaches, and direct action is just one of them. My point there is that I have no problem with killing people who we are certain are directly responsible for funding, supporting or encouraging terrorism. 5. Again, stopping the recruitment is part of all this. 6. Yes, if you find the people who are going to do this, act. Totally agree. There's nothing to stop your hypothetical scenario, or any other, if we haven't got properly funded and equipped police and security services. They are the guys who will get this done. You ask for ways to win the war - most wars are won by destroying an enemies logistical, financial and support network and using intelligence to find out what they want kept secret, until they are useless. Get inside their IDA loop, get inside their minds, comtinually destroy those at the top of the tree - it's how McCrystal destroyed Al-Qaeda in Iraq; intelligence-led direct action. If we find evidence of a plot in the UK we deal with it. And meanwhile we continued to attack the structure of the organisation, everywhere and in every way. This is not a war of attrition, it is a war of intelligence.

Green Goose Wrote > I agree - robust action is needed urgently. We > have been so very naive and tolerant. Love and > Christian prayers for peace just do not cut any > ice with Islamic terrorists. They are bullies. > > These Jihadis are deranged terrorists and they > work on fear and our inertia. They recognise > only two things Allah and force. Therefor we have > to use FORCEFULL measures against them. > > Such action include:--- > > 1. Declare a state of emergency, now. > No. Sorry, but I disagree. These people are not that effective, and to do this would give them a legitimacy that have neither earned not deserve. The battle should not be bought onto our streets in such a manner. > 2. Have an armed soldier accompany each policeman > on patrol. Hence police numbers are effectively > doubled. > The British Army simply doesn't have enough soldiers to do this, by a long chalk. It's been cut to the bone, can't recruit enough combat infantrymen, and is about to be cut further to something 65,000. We already have the option of Op Temperer, as was recently enacted after Manchester, as well as specific SF units on permanent alert. Deploying soldiers on the street in such numbers would only serve to disperse those soldiers, when they are better used in patrols or concentrated as specific points, as the French have found useful. I don't object to the use of the Army per se, but they are a limited resource and must be used carefully. > 3. Derogate the Human Rights legislation which the > terrorists have exploited for the last 20years and > which has made HR lawyers rich. A very complicated point. I agree it needs to be looked at, but knee-jerk reactions tend to have lasting results. > > 4. Stop all young muslim males of UK origin from > returning to the UK after being away in a muslim > country. > So you're going to tell a guy of Bagladeshi descent, born and raised in this country, that has visited Bangladesh for the first time in order to go to a cousins wedding that he can't come home? I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but you can't tell UK citizens they aren't allowed back in just because they visited Grandad. Even Trump didn't go that far. > 5. Stop all young muslim males from going overseas > - unless they emigrate permanently. If you can't see how this will destroy any cooperation we currently get from the Muslim community then I'm amazed. > > 6. Deport any who are on the watch list if they > are of foreign origin This one I agree with. > > 7. Set up a detainment camp on Lundy Island for > the others on the watch list. If they want to > leave Lundy then let them go to a muslim country > of their choice, after they agree to have a small > crescent tatoo on each of their forearms.m Now I'm wondering if you're just trolling. Tattoos on arms? Forceable deportation? Heard that before somewhere. That guy shot himself while the Soviets raped their way across his people. > > I know it will incense the Libs and it will take > ploitical fortitude. it is the only course of > action which will avoid a disaster and it has to > be done quickly otherwise we will have an > ever-growing problem on our hands. It's not. As I said above the intelligence services need to be leading the fight on this. They work, if you'll pardon the hyperbole, in the shadows, and they do the nasty stuff so we all get to wake up the next day. No war has ever been won without intelligence, and when you fight someone who blends into the background it's your best weapon.

Winder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Winder Wrote: > I was just observing how the current laws > restrict options and how "watching" them is > totally useless as a preventative measure. It's > like wearing a condom against a machine gun. We live in a liberal democracy, and I think we all like that. Part of the price we pay for living here and not a police state is that bad people (from shoplifters to murdering jihadists) have more options and room for manoeuvre right up to the point where they go over the line. We practice innocent until proven guilty, and unless we want to start down a very dark path, we need to stick to it. A lot goes on behind the scenes. This war (and it is a war) will be won through intelligence gathering and the dismantling of the support networks combined - hopefully - with soft power changing the minds of potential recruits here and abroad. It will not be won by internment or restriction of movement based on flimsy evidence; knee-jerk reactions never work. It is MI5, MI6 and the police who need to be given the resources to fight them. We must not enact populist laws which will ultimately have little effect. We must properly fund those who know what they're doing, and then trust them to of the job they are there to do. > > It just takes one to go out with a knife. Then > multiply that by "X" Jihadis on any one night over > a city. Big problem. Theoreticallt true, but I don't think they're that organised. I suspect the Manchester bomber operated alone, or with very little support. As soon as they try to work in that large a group they're gonna get caught. > > You say "there are many way to solve the problem". > OK, what are your best ideas. Give us just five > and I am sure this will tell us all we need to > know. > > Don't hold back, let it flow, be creative. Intelligence. Local knowledge. Winning the support of the Muslim community. Changing the minds of potential suicide bombers. Cutting of their access to explosives and guns, cutting off their money. Persuading the powers in the Middle East they we have common cause in this respect (yes, this means working with the Saudi's). There are no magic buttons or secret methods. There is only well-worn paths of infiltrating these groups, finding out who is controlling them, destroying their ability to command and control. There's no point swatting small fry who might be up to something, when you can track who they take their orders from five thousand miles away and put a missle through their window. Let's be realistic here, a lot of them we can talk down. But not all of them. The trick, the real magic, is working out who's who. Fund the intelligence services and the police properly, and let them do their job.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We regret not fielding an election candidate ? we > have made many mistakes but here we are. You certainly have... > Penguin68 every point you?ve made in your post is > wrong: > No he's not. You are. Have you actually SPOKEN to anybody at CWGC? Southwark, for all their faults, IS NOT REQUIRED to do the job of the CWGC. How on earth you believe otherwise is astounding. > How is the CWGC supposed to know Southwark was > about to bury over war graves? It is CWGC's remit. Like it or not other bodies are not required to report to them. Second, they are > not ?wholly unanticipated burials? they are all on > the war memorial and can easily be found on the > CWGC database, as has been pointed out. > So what? Irrelevant. > Third, if Southwark has no intention of providing > a burial service for most of its 30,000 Muslim > residents it should say so. Southwark Council > discriminates against most Muslims and Jews in its > burial service ? shame on Southwark. > You've been flogging this horse a long time, circling back round to it ever since the CWGC did not come down on your side. Your group has been scathing about religion in the past, but feels perfectly happy trying to ride that horse. Shame on you more like, not that you have any. > We are informing archaeologists of the ongoing > destruction of this Victorian site. > http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/why-no-archaeolog > ical-survey/4593895889 > Good luck, you'll need it. Are those straws cutting your hand yet? > As Ian Wingfield knows, we are going to raise > every issue that is wrong with these projects ? > and there is so much wrong with them. > A lot of people disagree with you, but you insult or ignore them. You have no respect for those who want something else.

The potential terrorists seem - so far - to have been neutralised - so far - insofar as their access to seriously killing equipment is concerned. The Manchester murders stand out because the guy actually managed to make a bomb, and I wonder if it will emerge that he succeeded because he worked alone and didn't attract attention. Most of the rest can't get hold of guns or bombs - so far. We know this because they haven't used them (you aren't going to employ a van and knives of you can get a shotgun). This suggests, to me, that the security services have the upper hand overall. I hope we will not see a car bomb, and to be honest I think that if they could've done that they would've by now. That doesn't mean they won't in the future. Of course at some point one of them is going to get lucky. That's the problem, and I don't mean to diminish the recent tragedies, but if all they can do is survive 8 minutes and kill less than ten people, resulting in a further hardening of opinion against them, then I don't think they're generally very effective. So what's my point as I ramble on? Simply that we can't watch them all, and we aren't going to stop them all. But they've gone from 9/11, Madrid, 7/7 and all the other attempts that have been shut down to hitting people with a van and trying to stab as many as possible before being shot. They're pathetic, they're losing. I hope that neither myself nor my family are ever victims, indeed I hope none of you lot are. I hope no one else is in the future. But I'm also realistic enough to know that they don't stop trying, and we don't stop resisting them. Perhaps we share some of the blame for their rise, that's an argument academic and pub bores alike will never stop having, and not one I want to have now. As I said on another thread, we need intelligence, we need information, and we need to try and change the minds of those who haven't gone the whole way down the rabbit hole. As for the rest? Well, they made their choice. I don't want to see internment, or other extreme measures, because ultimately I think it's counter-productive; but I also am not about to second guess security services who think that killing someone is the only way to stop them.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > for an intelligent man, you seem to have a very > poor grasp of the reality of the mindset of the > political class vermin (No offence blates) Are you talking to me? Cos I'd say I understand the political mindset fairly well, doesn't mean that I can't still be exasperated by the constant idiocy of some (most) of them. Dianne Abbott is pretty much top of my list of 'why the fuck does anyone think she's any good?!'

I think oddlycurious was more pointing out the fact that Lewis likes to make jokes about terrorist attacks and use the occasions pretty inappropriately to make political hay for your little cause. Nasty of him, and nasty of you to support him in it.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and some of them are right up top of your party = > policy, advisors, McDonnells secret army Yeah, I know...I know. V Honestly? I generally try to be a moderate. I hold strident views on certain things but for the most part I believe in the value of compromise and cooperation, there are times when I recognise my view is not the majority view and I accept that. I live in a democracy and while I'm free to argue my case and complain about the outcome, losing sometimes is part of that. I also don't subscribe to the narrative that the Tory party is evil personified. I disagree with a large parts of what they do, but I also like having free and fair elections and so again, losing is sometimes part of the price I pay for living where I do. But a strong Labour Party - or any party - has a role to play as effective opposition, without which any government can run amoke. But I'm very nervous about what will emerge the other side of the GE. I simply don't understand some of what Corbyn is doing. I keep thinking that somehow Labour will suddenly coalesce into this coherent and unified party with a sense of purpose and an understanding of the electorate. And then Dianne Abbott gets on TV again and I'm reminded that however principled and honourable Jeremy Corbym might believe himself to be, he's surrounded by some complete tools.