JoeLeg

Most of Momentum are frankly one step removed from the psychos in the youth wing of the ANC. They make me ashamed to be a Labour supporter.

All of which is true, and none of which actually means he's wrong. I'm interested to see if the govt are concerned enough to rebut his points, or if anyone else speaks up in agreement; if they have achieved an 'increase' by combing out other parts of the force and increasing shift length then that's not good. If that's what they've actually done, of course. Corbyn has simply demonstrated again why he'd make a terrible PM...

I honestly don't understand why the President of the United States gives any kind of a fuck about the Mayor of London, or Paris, or Tokyo or Vladivostock or anywhere else? I lot of Trumps tweets can be seen as part of a larger political game, but this just seems retarded.

UG - "true" and "from your personal experience" are not the same thing. You have a track record of being insulting about immigrants - I've struggled to find any post by you where you had something positive to say about them. So hardly surprising if people view you that way.

Wow. Pot, kettle, black etc...

But do most decent philanthropists (of which America, for example, has a few) give to political parties? My understanding is that they tend to endow universities, dig wells in Africa, pay for hospital wings and the arts etc. It's almost as if they don't trust politicians to use the money properly...

while there is no social or ethical barrier to being successful in the USA, and hard work is generally rewarded, it comes at quite the price over there. One can have a personal opinion over whether certain aspects of Americam society are worth it, but I would still argue with the idea that it's a classless society. They may not have 'class' in the same way the UK used to (and still does to a certain extent, though much diminished in influence since a hundred years ago), but there are definite strata in their world which hold inherent advantages due to nothing more than being born who they are. This holds true in both directions, as the slums of Baltimore and Detroit, for example, would testify. I would suggest that America is nation still trying to work out who they are - it's an incredibly diverse and vibrant society which for all its beauty still has terrible racial issues, for example. I have family there, I love visiting, I hope my children like the place as much as I do, but it is also fractured, and has developed its own classes. Australia is similar in outlook, I would say, and though I'm only familiar with Melbourne and its surroundings I find Oz to be the same in some ways. They certainly do regard us as moaners. I would say that compared to them, they're right. Maybe if more people in this country displayed the same attitude towards work, we wouldn't be asking ourselves who will do the jobs if we cut immigration. I'm not just trying to score a cheap point; it's a belief I genuinely hold - I wish we could get more people being positive about the benefits of being on work, seeing not just what the job is, but what it can lead to later in life. The culture of instant gratification has done terrible things to us.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We need immigrants, as they do jobs the native > > workers do not want to do, like pick fruit and > veg > > in the fields, drive buses and trains, sweep > the > > streets, empty the bins, nurse the sick in > > hospitals etc. Without these people doing the > jobs > > they do, parts of this country would quickly > grind > > to a halt. > > Who did these jobs before the willing foreign > workers arrived? These jobs have been done by immigrants for many years, and unfortunately now young British workers do not want to do them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - for Brexit to succeed there needs to be s cultural shift in the mentality of under-25's; they need of stop thinking that at ?30K entry level position will magically materialise in their preferred field. Menial jobs will always need doing. If people don't want immigrants to do them then they need to be willing to do them themselves. If this pushes up wages too them fantastic. But the jobs still need doing. (And the idea that the USA is a classless society? Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?)

As I understand it they can be pretty firm with the rules, but if you're able to get through to the Durham passport office they may be able to work some magic. A few years ago we had to get passports for our young kids, and although we thought we'd left plenty of time the one for the youngest somehow got lost in the system and delayed. We were advised, as I recall, to get ourselves on some kind of emergency list, which meant a couple of days before travel they would pull out application out, phone us up to check it, and issue the passport by overnight courier, which all duly happened. The point of this is that Durham can, if it wants to, do it overnight. They just have to be persuaded to. I would advise getting on the phone first thing in the morning and begging. Good luck!

No comment on nxjen's post then Blanche? Thought not...

"Raised the alarm"? Oh Blanche, you do think a lot of yourself. Mind you, someone has to... I'll repeat what I said before. When I first questioned Lewis over the SSW proposals and disagreed with some of them, he was agressive and rude, setting a pattern that has continued since. Had you adopted a more cooperative tone and been willing to listen to local residents (of which I am one, I live closer to the cemetery than you or Lewis), then you might not be seen now as the appalling people you act like. Your acquisition of the war graves issue (in which you are very wrong), has not helped. You screwed up your chances to be taken seriously, and now you have no hope. You could have been so much more.

That's a lot of really well avoided questions there Blanche. Fantastic political skills there - have you considered running for Southwark Council? You're really no better than them!

And yet millions upon millions of Islamic followers choose not to rise up and slaughter the infidels. Look, everything you say is correct, but the interesting thing about religion - all religion - is that it gets altered over time by its followers. As time passes they start to pick and choose what parts of their faith they want or follow, and theologians and lay folk can argue until the sun comes up what that actually means for them in the long run, but for a religion which does, at its core, have the conquering of its neighbours as a key tenet of its founding, it's doing a pretty good job, well, not doing that. I agree that there are many who interpret it that way, but there are many Muslims who look at that and view it through a modern prism, choosing to discard it. The ones who want to destroy us are those who want to wind the clock back hundreds of years and ignore all the progress made by society. These aren't reasonable people and I have no problem hitting them with drone strikes or snipers, or anything else. But unless you are actively trying to attack me, and assuming you are willing to intergration into my society (a different conversation), then I have no business making a window into your soul, and vice versa. A lot of 'moderate' Muslims may well privately disagree with certain Westerm values, but they're happy to make accommodations that allow them to live here. I don't notice a great rush of people back to Islamic nations. I don't bug arguments that they're waiting to out-breed us either. They're doing what most people do; compromising their values because they like where they live, and rationalising it.

'Sheltered life'? Me?! Hahahaha! Oh you do crack me up... Any illusions I had about the world got swept away the day I joined the Army... Strangely enough I've discovered some common ground with you, in that we share a view of what faith can do to otherwise quite decent human beings. I am in no way blind to the dangers posed by the tiny minority of Islamic followers who do indeed want to watch the West burn. But I find it difficult to single out Islam as a religion in the way you described it when I see the same terrible traits not only in all religions, but in life in general. Yes, the thread is about the Manchester bombings. In that vein I would assert that my issue with your post is that it presumes the idea that a young, vulnerable individual is more likely to be made into a suicide bomber because they are Islamic. I would assert that any twisted cause can find a martyr if it tries hard enough and lies hard enough. If we are to fight against such an insubstantial yet forceful enemy we need to squash those who have already taken up arms while using soft power to destroy there ability to justify themselves. It just looks from your post like you think only Muslims are prone to being brainwashed etc; if you ascribe the same view to other religions etc then fair enough. I've said many times that there are intergration issues in this country, but these are separate to the incredibly complex question of how we use the direct force neccesary to combat direct threats like Manchester, while at the same time using diplomacy and persuasion to make people halfway round the world understand that we aren't the enemy.

I still find it hard to believe you're a teacher. If you were one of my kids teachers we'd be having a very frank chat about your views, because I don't see how you can be responsible for educating young minds while being so repulsive. I can think of many fundamentalist Christians who behave in a very similar way. Homophobia is by no means limited to any one group, and the Islamic faith is hardly one homogenous group. Anyone indoctrinated from birth by an intense religious experience is vulnerable, Islam is not a special case in this respect. There are arguments to be made about issues of intergration in the UK, but these are not them.

He's a very unsuccessful comic (hardly an endangered species I suppose). I reckon his failings in his work are part of why he's the way he is. Quote me all you like Lewis, I stand by every word!

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is still time to make it to the cemeteries > today and see what we are fighting for. > > Blanche Cameron > Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark > Woods campaign > 07731 304 966 / [email protected] / > www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk Ah, classic Blanche. Totally ignore things that disprove your argument.

She could also have been hit by a horse or fallen off a ladder. While it's possible she was on the continent, I find it highly unlikely. Save for medical personnel not many women were deployed near the front line. She died shortly before the Armistice, so if it was as a result of battlefield injuries them she certainly was invalided home. Either way, she is memorialised on the Screen Wall, like so many other poor souls. Not forgotten. Never forgotten.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a record of a servicewoman buried on the > development area. She was buried with 7 others in > 101/25607 on consecrated ground near Underhill > Road. > You plainly think that by using a woman's grave you will somehow conjure up sympathy. That's pathetic. > 131. Member WILLIAMS, EDITH OLIVE DoD: 28/10/1918 > Women's RAF, 1st Stores Depot. Daughter Alice M. > Greenfield, 10A, Staveley Rd., Asylum Rd., > Peckham, London). (see screenshot attached.) > Do you actually know how she died? Was she a victim of enemy action? Do you actually know ANYTHING about how the military works? You're quite the Walter Mitty fantasist, dreaming that you understand the services. A WRAF stores worker is, shall we say, pretty unlikely to have been anywhere near German troops. > Southwark waited until they had already brought in > the heavy machinery before they contacted the > Commonwealth War Graves Commission. > Better late than never, and it seems CWGC and Southwark are cooperating fine. So what's your point? > The war graves is just another reason why this > project has to be stopped. > What you mean by this is that you and Lewis have discovered how useless you are at this, and are grasping at anything you can. And it still isn't working. > Visit the cemeteries today. There is still beauty > there. > And there still will be. You don't get to tell other people what they're allowed to find beautiful. You're arrogance would be breathtaking if you weren't so much fun to laugh and point at. Do you realise the scale of media and public support the CWGC can generate with just a little bit of effort? If they wanted to shut this down they could've slammed the brakes on Southwark weeks ago. The fact that they haven't demonstrates your position is false. Much like yourself.

No, come on. You posted an allegation of something really serious. This isn't a subject for gossip; you have nothing to back up what you 'heard'. For all admin knows you're making it up. You think it's 'gossip'? You aren't living in an episode of Eastenders! Also, stuff like that can potentially prejudice future criminal trials. You get that, right?

Well given what was posted, if that was 'gossip' then yes, admin was right to delete it!

How's all your other arguments going Blanche? You know, all those really strong ones that have had no effect so far? Is that why you're pretending to give a fuck about fallen servicemen? Because you didn't before...

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Surely you don't support burying over or building > over our nation's war dead? > > http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/missing-131-w > w1-soldiers-names/4593878330 > > Blanche Cameron > Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark > Woods campaign > 07731 304 966 / [email protected] / > www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk Speaking as a former British Army serviceman, and having recently spoken to some people I know who frankly are better informed than you, Blanche, I've confirmed in my mind (I know there's no changing yours) what I suspected; that you now very little about the CWGC and its workings/remit, and you are only using this argument because your others have failed. I personally think it's disgusting that you will use those who fell to achieve your aims, given that you wouldn't be referencing them if your other arguments (of which you claim there are many but strangely seem to be failing) were succeeding. It is vile opportunistic posturing on your part. The honouring of the dead is not limited to those who fell in battle. That's what we have memorials and Remembrance Sunday for, plus other occasions; specific times and places when we give thanks for those who died so that others might live. Put bluntly, if the CWGC is ok with it, then pretty much all members of the Armed Forces will be too. You seem not to understand that. Your pathetic attempts - and they are pathetic - to play on the sentiments of some local Walter Mitty types and garner support by pretending you care about fallen soldiers are as transparent as they are repulsive. Penguin68 has far more coherently rebutted your arguments regarding these graves (including the fact that the grave of someone who had once been a soldier is not the same thing as the grave of a soldier who died in battle). All I can add to that is to repeat the point that we have proper memorials and occasions partly because it is - sadly - impossible to track down everyone, particularly from the First World War. That doesn't mean their memory is defaced. At the going down of the sun, we still remember them. But life goes on.

Blanche, that is a tragically bad attempt at a strawman argument. 2/10, must try harder...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It doesn't come across at all well when he says > he's pro-choice, but refuses to say "no, it's not > wrong". > > It's a strange sort of dichotomy... as a liberal > he believes in individual liberty, but at the same > time has private views grounded in religion which > he's unwilling to share. > I disagree, personally. I think it's good that on a subject like abortion, which let's face it he plainly opposes, he understands that his personal religious views have no place in government legislation. L > I'll probably be voting LD, but I think he's the > wrong man to lead the party, and a poor choice as > a figurehead for British liberalism. A missed > opportunity in the current political landscape. I go back and forth between Labour and LD, but I think Farron is as good as anyone for them right now. I can't think of anyone who cold do better, certainly. They're in a lot of trouble, and will take years to rebuild, if they can.