Jump to content
Rab87

Poisoned Russian spy.

Recommended Posts

Sraman
15 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Ah, more gibberish from the king of gibberish. In fact not just gibberish but patronising gibberish.

 

Nobody is backing Assad, as far as I can tell, we are all just sick and tired of being lied to by our own. If they have genuine reasons for the attack then go through the proper, Internationally agreed, channels and let us know what those reasons are so that we are more able to get behind them. 

 

What our lot have done (with this scenario) may not be as bad as Assad has done in the past but it absolutely reeks. 

 

I don't really care about Syria or Syrians in general as I don't know any. I do, however, care about here, and that is the crux of this whole affair to me. Arsehole politicians trying to be cute with their use of the English/Russian language to make things look worse than they actually are to justify their warmongering. It's ludicrous "that's not the way to kill your own people. Watch this. We'll show you how to kill your people." Batshit mental! Human rights abuses? "Haud oan a minute 'til we ask the Saudi's about that". More batshit mental!

 

The biggest threat to life in these isles, at this moment in time, comes from our own government who have the blood of thousands of British citizens (sounds a bit like old Bashar) on their hands, yet we are not allowed to bomb them. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any special type of nasty weapon to be used against them, the conventional kind will do just fine and that way we'd be keeping everything above board and legal. 

 

As I said, batshit mental. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
17 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

That article would hold some weight if we administered justice that wasn't political.

So what it says if the proof isn't there Assad is a bad man.

In essence.

 

I don't want to live in any Islamic country

I don't want to live under Putin.

I do not condone them.

 

I live in the UK and strive for better .

Because our forefathers fought for a more just society.

 

Not by the way given to us by the EU.

 

You don't half contradict yourself with your political dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
1 hour ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Ah, more gibberish from the king of gibberish. In fact not just gibberish but patronising gibberish.

 

Nobody is backing Assad, as far as I can tell, we are all just sick and tired of being lied to by our own. If they have genuine reasons for the attack then go through the proper, Internationally agreed, channels and let us know what those reasons are so that we are more able to get behind them. 

 

What our lot have done (with this scenario) may not be as bad as Assad has done in the past but it absolutely reeks. 

 

I don't really care about Syria or Syrians in general as I don't know any. I do, however, care about here, and that is the crux of this whole affair to me. Arsehole politicians trying to be cute with their use of the English/Russian language to make things look worse than they actually are to justify their warmongering. It's ludicrous "that's not the way to kill your own people. Watch this. We'll show you how to kill your people." Batshit mental! Human rights abuses? "Haud oan a minute 'til we ask the Saudi's about that". More batshit mental!

 

The biggest threat to life in these isles, at this moment in time, comes from our own government who have the blood of thousands of British citizens (sounds a bit like old Bashar) on their hands, yet we are not allowed to bomb them. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any special type of nasty weapon to be used against them, the conventional kind will do just fine and that way we'd be keeping everything above board and legal. 

 

As I said, batshit mental. 

Well said.

 

I do find it laughable the moral high ground taken on ways to kill people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sraman
2 minutes ago, jake said:

Well said.

 

I do find it laughable the moral high ground taken on ways to kill people.

 

 

His post is also way off topic to this thread.

 

OBFUSCATION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
1 minute ago, Sraman said:

 

His post is also way off topic to this thread.

 

OBFUSCATION!

I can't criticise him for that .

Think the thread has pulled in a few directions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

Lol Sramen I even got a wee dig in about the EU.

 

😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sraman
4 minutes ago, jake said:

Lol Sramen I even got a wee dig in about the EU.

 

😀

 

:D You're just as bad as him!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
felix
20 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. So what? It's been issued on her behalf, as is entirely normal.

 

2. Oh for goodness' sake. Seriously. 

Yes seriously. Think about it .

 

20 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I don't see anyone on here defending Assad and saying he's a decent guy. The article claims "who cares" if he's used chemical weapons, he's  killed hundreds of Syrians.  Maybe so, but is the best way to deal with that, to make up stories and bomb hundreds more Syrians in pursuit of regime change  !?

The author would agree.  Mehdi Hasan's views on Saddam  and Iraq are well documented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
2 hours ago, jake said:

 

 

I live in the UK and strive for better .

Because our forefathers fought for a more just society.

 

Well they bloody well lost if that's the case! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo
2 minutes ago, Boris said:

Well they bloody well lost if that's the case! 

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
10 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

And would have been worse today if our forefathers had not fought 70 years ago? Things are hugely better now. Poverty is relative and even the poor today are in general vastly better off than the poor were 70 years ago. In fact most of today's poor are  better off than most people were 70 years ago.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals. A pyhric victory, perhaps? Given that there was a sense of unity which has been replaced by an alienated, indivualistic "society" that cares about themselves rather than the greater good. Otherwise why on earth would we have a tory government? As I've said earlier, the political narrative has facilitated this and its now almost at a point of no return. 

Except, of course, the more it goes on the more people will realise, Grenfell, Brexit, Windrush, what next? But do people have the courage to really change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobsharp

I can remember 70 years ago with a reasonable degree of humour. Even the poorest people could afford on the NHS false teeth and glasses. There was the traditional Edinburgh bunnet, with the raincoat, and now a population with the exact same toothy smile and exact same glasses.  As kids we thought it was hilarious. There were still even some with those new prosthetics and still wearing their exact same as every other former serviceman demob suit. It was a new era when you didn't pay for a doctor, or dental or optical work. For people like my parents who lived in a you can have it if you can pay for it society, and if you cannot just do without, it was like paradise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
11 minutes ago, Boris said:

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals.

 

Exactly. The 'golden age' was the postwar, Keynesian era of the welfare state, cheap housing, health and education for all. The "we're still just about OK age, more or less" ended in 2008. And since then? Neoliberalism and Greed Is Good have doubled down; division and nativism is rising across the West as a direct result. 

 

And we also, by and large, have a bubble. Of middle and upper class people brought up in comfortable families with many connections, whose university education and house was paid for by Mummy and Daddy, who went on into politics or the media and do not understand the impact of government policies on so many. This bubble re-enforces itself. That's why it comprehensively failed to predict any of the 2015 election result, Corbyn winning the Labour leadership, the referendum result, Trump, or Labour's resurgence last year. It's 0 for 5... and we still let it dictate our views and shape the agenda?

 

Good lord, the only reason the public are even aware of how extreme inter-generational inequality has become, how shamefully young people have been treated, is because of last year's election result. It'd been going on for many years, and most of the media and none of the Tories, Lib Dems or half of Labour had even mentioned it!

 

We'll shortly see if what Labour have to offer inspires enough people to vote for genuine social democracy. And in the longer term, the impact of mass automation is going to change politics and society, dramatically.

Edited by shaun.lawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
8 minutes ago, Boris said:

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals. A pyhric victory, perhaps? Given that there was a sense of unity which has been replaced by an alienated, indivualistic "society" that cares about themselves rather than the greater good. Otherwise why on earth would we have a tory government? As I've said earlier, the political narrative has facilitated this and its now almost at a point of no return. 

Except, of course, the more it goes on the more people will realise, Grenfell, Brexit, Windrush, what next? But do people have the courage to really change? 

Perhaps the Blair governments have something to do with why we have a tory government. And Corbyn has something to do with why that isn't going to change any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Perhaps the Blair governments have something to do with why we have a tory government. And Corbyn has something to do with why that isn't going to change any time soon.

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and increasingly further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right and increasingly further right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

Edited by shaun.lawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Exactly. The 'golden age' was the postwar, Keynesian era of the welfare state, cheap housing, health and education for all. The "we're still just about OK age, more or less" ended in 2008. And since then? Neoliberalism and Greed Is Good have doubled down; division and nativism is rising across the West as a direct result. 

 

And we also, by and large, have a bubble. Of middle and upper class people brought up in comfortable families with many connections, whose university education and house was paid for by Mummy and Daddy, who went on into politics or the media and do not understand the impact of government policies on so many. This bubble re-enforces itself. That's why it comprehensively failed to predict any of the 2015 election result, Corbyn winning the Labour leadership, the referendum result, Trump, or Labour's resurgence last year. It's 0 for 5... and we still let it dictate our views and shape the agenda?

 

Good lord, the only reason the public are even aware of how extreme inter-generational inequality has become, how shamefully young people have been treated, is because of last year's election result. It'd been going on for many years, and most of the media and none of the Tories, Lib Dems or half of Labour had even mentioned it!

 

We'll shortly see if what Labour have to offer inspires enough people to vote for genuine social democracy. And in the longer term, the impact of mass automation is going to change politics and society, dramatically.

"Extreme intergenerational inequality"? One of the great myths of our age. All those young people who can't spend hundreds of pounds a year on updating their phones. Or in fact who can and do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and increasingly further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right and increasingly further right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

Corbyn's "authenticity"? You have to be joking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

 

On point 4.    Precisely right re Corbyn but people (many in the Labour Party) can't see past the image of him that they've been spoon fed.    Only a continuation of his work will maintain Labour's progress.    Corbyn has all the authenticity but is unlikely to break through the wall of ignorance of what authentic politics can bring.

 

The pioneers get the arrows.    The settlers get the gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Perhaps the Blair governments have something to do with why we have a tory government. And Corbyn has something to do with why that isn't going to change any time soon.

The Blair government was a tory government! Yes, it had more of a social conscience, but essentially kept the same economic system going. 

 

Corbyn offers a change. Yet the narrative insists he, and therfore Labour, are cranks, at best, evil commies at worst. 

 

Best not rock the boat, eh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

On point 4.    Precisely right re Corbyn but people (many in the Labour Party) can't see past the image of him that they've been spoon fed.    Only a continuation of his work will maintain Labour's progress.    Corbyn has all the authenticity but is unlikely to break through the wall of ignorance of what authentic politics can bring.

 

The pioneers get the arrows.    The settlers get the gold.

What exactly is this authenticity? Someone who has been disloyal to and  opposed every Labour government in his entire parliamentary career. Someone who demonstrates total lack of leadership.qualities  in relation to the didgusting anti semitic factions among his most virulent supporters.

As a lifelong labour supporter I totally disown Corbyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Corbyn's "authenticity"? You have to be joking?

 

Not remotely. Unless you think an entire lifetime of campaigning on the same issues, retaining the same views and always being a huge outsider as a result is worth nothing? Unless you think him being the absolute opposite of a slick, dissembling, careerist only out for themselves and only interested in tomorrow's Daily Mail front page is worth nothing too?

 

Back in 2014, the Immigration Bill - which led directly to the national disgrace exposed this week - passed through Parliament with barely a murmur. Among the desperately few MPs to oppose it, speak against it and warn what it would lead to were John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn. Who sat in their usual spot in the Commons: isolated by everyone else, few of whom gave the remotest damn.

 

Yet what do so many people do? Abbott is the recipient of vile racist abuse and death threats every single day, far more than any other MP. McDonnell is ridiculed as though he's going to create Venezuela in the UK, rather than the moderate social democracy Labour want. And Corbyn is sneered at, including by you. And we wonder why we have the politicians we have?

 

Corbyn was right about this, he was right about austerity, and he was right about Iraq - the watershed issue of this century - too. He gets support because people feel he actually understand them; he understands their concerns because he's been fighting for them for his whole life. Which is why, while Theresa May stayed away from Grenfell for days, Corbyn was straight down there and showing the humanity and compassion which has always been his best asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Just now, Boris said:

The Blair government was a tory government! Yes, it had more of a social conscience, but essentially kept the same economic system going. 

 

Corbyn offers a change. Yet the narrative insists he, and therfore Labour, are cranks, at best, evil commies at worst. 

 

Best not rock the boat, eh? 

The Blair government wss not a Tory government. That is just politically motivated nonsense.

That Corbyn offers a chsnge is not a sufficient reason for supporting him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, Francis Albert said:

What exactly is this authenticity? Someone who has been disloyal to and  opposed every Labour government in his entire parliamentary career. Someone who demonstrates total lack of leadership.qualities  in relation to the didgusting anti semitic factions among his most virulent supporters.

As a lifelong labour supporter I totally disown Corbyn.

 

You think being loyal to a government when one's own principles are at odds with it and towing a party line is... authentic?    

 

Authentic.    Honest.   Genuine.    Principled.      Not fake.      Not outcome driven.

 

Do you even know what authentic means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
18 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

"Extreme intergenerational inequality"? One of the great myths of our age. All those young people who can't spend hundreds of pounds a year on updating their phones. Or in fact who can and do.

 

An absolutely disgraceful, myopic beyond belief post. One third of millennials will be renting their entire lives. At a time when the rental market is out of control, they have no security of tenancy so are forced to move constantly, can't complain to their landlords of damage because many are instantly evicted, and there aren't even laws ensuring all homes are fit for human habitation (because the Tories, most of them landlords, voted against it).

 

Do tell me what those millennials are going to do when they reach retirement age with no assets? Oh yes, I've got it: there won't be a retirement age any longer, because their elders have pissed the entire pot away on themselves.

 

Today's thirty-somethings are part of the first generation in modern history to be poorer than their parents - and that trend is accelerating. But y'know, iphones Starbucks lattes avocado toast hur hur hur. I really expect better from you, tbh.

 

612.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The Blair government wss not a Tory government. That is just politically motivated nonsense.

That Corbyn offers a chsnge is not a sufficient reason for supporting him.

Whatever. That's your opinion. I've stated mine. 

We move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You think being loyal to a government when one's own principles are at odds with it and towing a party line is... authentic?    

 

Authentic.    Honest.   Genuine.    Principled.      Not fake.      Not outcome driven.

 

Do you even know what authentic means?

 

:clap::clap::clap: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Not remotely. Unless you think an entire lifetime of campaigning on the same issues, retaining the same views and always being a huge outsider as a result is worth nothing? Unless you think him being the absolute opposite of a slick, dissembling, careerist only out for themselves and only interested in tomorrow's Daily Mail front page is worth nothing too?

 

Back in 2014, the Immigration Bill - which led directly to the national disgrace exposed this week - passed through Parliament with barely a murmur. Among the desperately few MPs to oppose it, speak against it and warn what it would lead to were John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn. Who sat in their usual spot in the Commons: isolated by everyone else, few of whom gave the remotest damn.

 

Yet what do so many people do? Abbott is the recipient of vile racist abuse and death threats every single day, far more than any other MP. McDonnell is ridiculed as though he's going to create Venezuela in the UK, rather than the moderate social democracy Labour want. And Corbyn is sneered at, including by you. And we wonder why we have the politicians we have?

 

Corbyn was right about this, he was right about austerity, and he was right about Iraq - the watershed issue of this century - too. He gets support because people feel he actually understand them; he understands their concerns because he's been fighting for them for his whole life. Which is why, while Theresa May stayed away from Grenfell for days, Corbyn was straight down there and showing the humanity and compassion which has always been his best asset.

What do you think.about  his approach to anti-semitism within his supporters within the labour party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Inauthentic politics.     Calculating what is popular and what is likely to achieve political success and tailoring policies and suggestions to suit.

 

Authentic politics.     Taking one's own political views and philosophy and formulating policies and suggestions from that point and sticking to them and asking voters to vote for them. 

 

Wuts this authenticity my arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You think being loyal to a government when one's own principles are at odds with it and towing a party line is... authentic?    

 

Authentic.    Honest.   Genuine.    Principled.      Not fake.      Not outcome driven.

 

Do you even know what authentic means?

 I think being loyal at least occasionaly to.your own party is a virtue. Jeremy? Rarely at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, Francis Albert said:

 I think being loyal at least occasionaly to.your own party is a virtue. Jeremy? Rarely at best.

 

Why?    If he does not agree with policy then the AUTHENTIC thing to do is to take an opposing position on his own view.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What do you think.about  his approach to anti-semitism within his supporters within the labour party?

 

1. I think it's a significant issue which needs to be dealt with, but not remotely the issue which is claimed at all. I have no doubt - and I've seen studies which confirm it - that antisemitism is much more of a problem on the right than the left. And racism and xenophobia are infinitely more of one too.

 

2. We live in a time in which we know (though I'm sure you'll question it anyway) that Russia has interfered in elections all over the West; that Russia has murdered people with impunity on British soil; that Russia has precipitated the greatest political scandal and inquiry in the US since I don't know when; that Russia conducts cyberwarfare against us on a daily basis; and that Russia has whole armies of online trolls and bots whose mission is to cause division and chaos everywhere.

 

From this, it's increasingly obvious to me that a huge amount of the antisemitic tweets and Facebook posts which seemed to come out of nowhere when Corbyn was elected aren't from Labour members or Labour supporters at all. Theresa May's argument seems to be: "Russia did this, Russia did that and Russia is doing this... Russia is at war with us... but not Brexit and certainly not Labour - that's all Corbyn's fault". Bullshit. It's part of the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. I think it's a significant issue which needs to be dealt with, but not remotely the issue which is claimed at all. I have no doubt - and I've seen studies which confirm it - that antisemitism is much more of a problem on the right than the left. And racism and xenophobia are infinitely more of one too.

 

2. We live in a time in which we know (though I'm sure you'll question it anyway) that Russia has interfered in elections all over the West; that Russia has murdered people with impunity on British soil; that Russia has precipitated the greatest political scandal and inquiry in the US since I don't know when; that Russia conducts cyberwarfare against us on a daily basis; and that Russia has whole armies of online trolls and bots whose mission is to cause division and chaos everywhere.

 

From this, it's increasingly obvious to me that a huge amount of the antisemitic tweets and Facebook posts which seemed to come out of nowhere when Corbyn was elected aren't from Labour members or Labour supporters at all. Theresa May's argument seems to be: "Russia did this, Russia did that and Russia is doing this... Russia is at war with us... but not Brexit and certainly not Labour - that's all Corbyn's fault". Bullshit. It's part of the exact same thing.

Sorry but what is your view of the anti-semitism of some of  Corbyn supporters and of Corbyn's reaction to that?

 Why is it not remotely the issue it is claimed to be? Even if it is not remotely the issue it is claimed to be, whatever that means, why should it not be addressed for the issue it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Sorry but what is your view of the anti-semitism of some of  Corbyn supporters and of Corbyn's reaction to that?

 Why is it not remotely the issue it is claimed to be? Even if it is not remotely the issue it is claimed to be, whatever that means, why should it not be addressed for the issue it is?

 

Because it's impossible to control what a few small elements of someone's supporter base does. Is it possible for the police to stop all crime? Is it possible for governments to stop all terrorism? Is it possible for all racism to be stopped? Is it possible for every single Hearts fan to not hold daft views and behave themselves impeccably at all times? And above all, is it possible for the leader of a UK political party not even in government to stop huge great armies of online bots pretending to be supporters of theirs? No.

 

The issue has been reported in such a way to make the public believe that the Labour Party is teeming with antisemitism, teeming with Jew hate. It isn't in any way. But it's been reported like that for a reason (and that reason has virtually nothing to do with stopping antisemitism).

 

And while the media obsesses over that, at today's press conference given by Theresa May, which lasted 15 minutes, not a single journalist - not one - asked anything related to Windrush. Astounding. And that is what "we're all in it together" really means. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
11 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because it's impossible to control what a few small elements of someone's supporter base does. Is it possible for the police to stop all crime? Is it possible for governments to stop all terrorism? Is it possible for all racism to be stopped? Is it possible for every single Hearts fan to not hold daft views and behave themselves impeccably at all times? And above all, is it possible for the leader of a UK political party not even in government to stop huge great armies of online bots pretending to be supporters of theirs? No.

 

The issue has been reported in such a way to make the public believe that the Labour Party is teeming with antisemitism, teeming with Jew hate. It isn't in any way. But it's been reported like that for a reason (and that reason has virtually nothing to do with stopping antisemitism).

 

And while the media obsesses over that, at today's press conference given by Theresa May, which lasted 15 minutes, not a single journalist - not one - asked anything related to Windrush. Astounding. And that is what "we're all in it together" really means. 

 

 

Basically the anti-semitism issue was whipped up by corbyn's enemies

 By the same token the Windrush story was presumably whipped up by the Daily Mail to discredit the Tory government.

Anyway back on topic the police and security forces have identified persons of interest as potential suspects in Salisbury attack.. They are all believed to have returned to Russia so there is zero prospect of speaking to them let alone ever prosecuting them. The huge and expensive operation will however continue.

In any event i do not envy the failed assassins their reception back home. In Beria's day they would already have been killed or at best be in the Gulag.

 

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
17 hours ago, jake said:

Well said.

 

I do find it laughable the moral high ground taken on ways to kill people.

 

That's what I just don't get aboutchemical weapons. Why is getting gassed worse than getting blown to pieces. Why is having stinging eyes worse than losing a leg from a bullet??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
37 minutes ago, XB52 said:

That's what I just don't get aboutchemical weapons. Why is getting gassed worse than getting blown to pieces. Why is having stinging eyes worse than losing a leg from a bullet??

Anti personnel landmines are indiscriminate.

Wonder who the main suppliers of those are?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck
12 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

An absolutely disgraceful, myopic beyond belief post. One third of millennials will be renting their entire lives. At a time when the rental market is out of control, they have no security of tenancy so are forced to move constantly, can't complain to their landlords of damage because many are instantly evicted, and there aren't even laws ensuring all homes are fit for human habitation (because the Tories, most of them landlords, voted against it).

 

Do tell me what those millennials are going to do when they reach retirement age with no assets? Oh yes, I've got it: there won't be a retirement age any longer, because their elders have pissed the entire pot away on themselves.

 

Today's thirty-somethings are part of the first generation in modern history to be poorer than their parents - and that trend is accelerating. But y'know, iphones Starbucks lattes avocado toast hur hur hur. I really expect better from you, tbh.

 

612.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fi

 

You and your charts, what are you like. No source, no context, no definition of data and no explanation of methodology. 

 

If the chart displays what you suggest, every cohort under the age of 65 is poorer than the previous.

 

I am by no means a “millennial” but, according to the chart, I am likely to be poorer than my parents - by about 20%, it the chart is an indication. Maybe more if the percentages are compounded - it is impossible to tell. 

 

Is CPI-H the best measure of inflation over that time-span?  A simple chart tells us nothing of the adjustments made. 

 

Your point on millennials may be valid but a chart without context is meaningless and is just a fancy graphic. Surely you wouldn’t want to be accused of statisticulation and undermine your position. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

On authenticity im with Corbyn.

 

And anyone who says they won’t vote for a party like LibDem “because they won’t get in” is part of the reason Tories and Labour benefit.

 

i day choose the issues that are most important to you at the time  and choose which party to vote for or against based on that.

 

But Just supporting any party like a football team is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
On 20/04/2018 at 22:54, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

 

And while the media obsesses over that, at today's press conference given by Theresa May, which lasted 15 minutes, not a single journalist - not one - asked anything related to Windrush. Astounding. And that is what "we're all in it together" really means. 

 

 

 

Ironic post .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

In 2002 39.6% of French folk rented their homes.

47.5% of Germans rented.

42.8% of Austrians rented.

36.7 of Danes rented.

35.2% of British folk rented

 

Seems to suggest the rental total is going down if the figures are at 33% projection for the wee millennials! 

Edited by Seymour M Hersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
38 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

In 2002 39.6% of French folk rented their homes.

47.5% of Germans rented.

42.8% of Austrians rented.

36.7 of Danes rented.

35.2% of British folk rented

 

Seems to suggest the rental total is going down if the figures are at 33% projection for the wee millennials! 

 

:vrface::vrface::vrface:

 

The figures I quoted are for people renting for their entire lives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

:vrface::vrface::vrface:

 

The figures I quoted are for people renting for their entire lives

 

Snoreson = :rofl:or:notsure: or :rofl::rofl:

 

Or just best ignored!! :bolt:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson

To be fair Seymour, I wouldn't expect a "Liverpool fan" who's a Tory and loved Thatcher to understand.

 

Love the club, hate the city and its people I assume? Because that's the only possible explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

It's the lack of scepticism in the media that's so alarming.

The pictures and videos of the recent chemical attack coming from a group known as the sword of Islam.

 

The lack of in depth reporting about the nature of sectarian politic in the region regarding Saudi Iran and Syria.

 

Even though I've doubted the narrative new things come to light which even though posters on here can shed doubt on with lots of press .

I still find nuggets which throw a spanner.

 

Both Russia and US want investigation but US  want joint ones .

 

I'd post a video of such discussions but they tend to be ignored.

 

Wars that are international start with propaganda.

It's a joke that we either do not learn or are unwilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

I know I don't come across well but the Syria conflict stinks .

From the start.

And I bet most people agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

Saudi visits to the UK

France and the US .

Coincide with recent events.

 

Tinfoil hat .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

What's funny about this whole Russian false flag .

It's that Russia is in decline.

If anything those that want a stable world should be supportive of Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×