kowenicki Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 So to summarise today so far, T May has declared after 7 years as Home Sec and PM that enough is enough. Brilliant. Meanwhile noted lefty IDS has admitted on R4 that the Tory Govt's replacement of control orders with TPIMs in 2011 has "watered down" terror effort. You couldnt make make it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) Ok wozzer, let's not be too myopic shall we. Not one of the 7 Home Secretaries (5 labour, 2 Tory) since 9/11 have done anything effective to tackle this issue. Not one. This is not party political, it's the whole political classes frightened of their own shadows sitting on their hands. But just to balance you a bit.... Khan, labour mayor of London. Terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city". 2016 This morning after the London attack.... Weak words and platitudes. He's an irrelevance in this debate because he won't deal with the real issue. Corbyn. Opposes shoot to kill policy of terrorists (shoot to kill worked very well last night imo). Has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation in the last 30 years. Yes. All politicians of all persuasions have been weak on this for years and years for fear of offence (I have no idea why). But at least now the PM has stated this needs to change and that this is Islamist terrorism. Some politicians won't even admit that yet. Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 13 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Ok wozzer, let's not be too myopic shall we. Not one of the 7 Home Secretaries (5 labour, 2 Tory) since 9/11 have done anything effective to tackle this issue. Not one. This is not party political, it's the whole political classes frightened of their own shadows sitting on their hands. But just to balance you a bit.... Khan, labour mayor of London. Terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city". 2016 This morning after the London attack.... Weak words and platitudes. He's an irrelevance in this debate because he won't deal with the real issue. Corbyn. Opposes shoot to kill policy of terrorists (shoot to kill worked very well last night imo). Has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation in the last 30 years. Yes. All politicians of all persuasions have been weak on this for years and years for fear of offence (I have no idea why). But at least now the PM has stated this needs to change and that this is Islamist terrorism. Some politicians won't even admit that yet. Fine. It it would help your argument if you didn't propagate lies about Corbyn's stance on shoot to kill though. A quick search for his leaders report to the NEC after the 2015 Paris attacks clearly states that he supports whatever (key word) appropriate proportionate response is necessary to save lives in circumstances similar to the Paris attacks. Clearly last nights frankly brilliant work by armed police was proportionate. Don't believe everything you're told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, UsedtobeWozzer said: Fine. It it would help your argument if you didn't propagate lies about Corbyn's stance on shoot to kill though. A quick search for his leaders report to the NEC after the 2015 Paris attacks clearly states that he supports whatever (key word) appropriate proportionate response is necessary to save lives in circumstances similar to the Paris attacks. Clearly last nights frankly brilliant work by armed police was proportionate. Don't believe everything you're told. I'll agree with that. His words have been twisted massively. Half interviews shown etc. If he'd come out strong against terrorism today though that election was his. I was swaying towards Labour but as with a lot of people recent events make me think at least Tories aren't soft as shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: I'll agree with that. His words have been twisted massively. Half interviews shown etc. If he'd come out strong against terrorism today though that election was his. I was swaying towards Labour but as with a lot of people recent events make me think at least Tories aren't soft as shit Fair enough but I saw an interview on BBC news site from Nov 2016 where he says he is against it... Also.. he has voted against all legislation but wozzer ignored that part. Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Someone said earlier they had a labour leaflet through. There is a difference between national and local campaigning, national campaigning was suspended, local was not. Most local party members work during the week and volunteer when they can at weekends and evenings to deliver their leaflets or canvass. There simply isn't the time to suspend local campaigning before the election as today would have been the last big push for local parties. I won't pretend I was ever going to vote labour this time, Corbyn's values, ideals and principles are far from my own and I don't believe he had the attributes to be a strong and stable leader. That said, May has egg on her face. She has to deliver on some proper policies, terrorism included, or else the Tories will lynch her well before the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 7 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Fair enough but I saw an interview on BBC news site from Nov 2016 where he says he is against it... Also.. he has voted against all legislation but wozzer ignored that part. Again in the interests of balance he voted the same way as TMay on the 2005 prevention of terrorism act and on the introduction of ID cards. There's an interesting article on their respective voting records on terror legisalation on the BBC website. Whether you agree with him or not he usually bothered to turn up to vote unlike May who couldn't be arsed on numerous occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Again in the interests of balance he voted the same way as TMay on the 2005 prevention of terrorism act and on the introduction of ID cards. There's an interesting article on their respective voting records on terror legisalation on the BBC website. Whether you agree with him or not he usually bothered to turn up to vote unlike May who couldn't be arsed on numerous occasions. I knew this answer was coming . In the interest of balance.... then you make something up. You should know that is not how it works. Opposing MPs 'pair up' to cancel each other's votes out. It's not "not bothering to turn up". Or the vote was massively supported in 1st reading hence turning up for 2nd or 3rd reading is not required. Also he has voted against all of them. She too has voted against a couple. He has voted against all. This is correct, your spin is irrelevant and incorrect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329 Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Clearly states in the article that it's not known whether she was paired on or not. You're just accepting she was. As as you accuse me of ignoring the occasional point in every tirade I note that you have not commented on IDS accepting that Tory TPIMs watered down the power available against terror compared to Labour control orders, a measure May supported and Corbyn voted against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 18 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Clearly states in the article that it's not known whether she was paired on or not. You're just accepting she was. As as you accuse me of ignoring the occasional point in every tirade I note that you have not commented on IDS accepting that Tory TPIMs watered down the power available against terror compared to Labour control orders, a measure May supported and Corbyn voted against. One last time... corbyn voted against every anti terror measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 That's a no then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 It's shit of May to say enough is enough when she's been either Home Secretary or PM for the best part of a decade, but I am glad she didn't bring in the stuff she wanted to. Talk of internment? What about the rule of law? It didn't do a lot to prevent trouble in Ireland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said: I'll agree with that. His words have been twisted massively. Half interviews shown etc. If he'd come out strong against terrorism today though that election was his. I was swaying towards Labour but as with a lot of people recent events make me think at least Tories aren't soft as shit Can I point you in the direction of the contents of Corbyn's speech in Carlisle tonight. They were embargoed until 7pm but are now widely available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 22 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Can I point you in the direction of the contents of Corbyn's speech in Carlisle tonight. They were embargoed until 7pm but are now widely available. He's supported what were termed national liberation movements his entire life. I can agree with him on some but not others, but that's who he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 43 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Can I point you in the direction of the contents of Corbyn's speech in Carlisle tonight. They were embargoed until 7pm but are now widely available. Haven't seen it to be fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piglinbland Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Theresa May has made a (good) speech with which I agree mainly, but not wholly. In any case, it has probably won her the election - if that has not already been won. To broaden the geopolitical spectrum somewhat, it is surprising that France escaped this wave of terrorism during her Presidentials, given that roughly 10 times more French have died over the last twelve months at the hands of barbaric so-called 'Islamic martyrs' than have Brits - including the horrors perpetrated in Manchester. If the current modus operandi of Jihadists is anything other than disparate (and I've no idea whether this is the case or not), then one could imagine that a concerted effort by them, on the UK, post Brexit, is not inconceivable, in the way a wolf-pack would separate sheep from the flock. I would assume that the big cheeses at ISIS are as far removed from everyday life as Paul Dacre is at the Daily Mail, so any attempt to destroy the English way of life would seem a reasonably goal given the symbolism of Anglo-saxon culture in the post-modern world. The question is, do we sacrifice all by blindly lashing out (as was the case when we (erroneously) invaded Iraq in 2003, thus largely fueling the current resentment against the 'west'), or do we strive to preserve our democratic ideals at all cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Yeah, Brexit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 18 hours ago, kowenicki said: Ok wozzer, let's not be too myopic shall we. Not one of the 7 Home Secretaries (5 labour, 2 Tory) since 9/11 have done anything effective to tackle this issue. Not one. This is not party political, it's the whole political classes frightened of their own shadows sitting on their hands. But just to balance you a bit.... Khan, labour mayor of London. Terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city". 2016 This morning after the London attack.... Weak words and platitudes. He's an irrelevance in this debate because he won't deal with the real issue. Corbyn. Opposes shoot to kill policy of terrorists (shoot to kill worked very well last night imo). Has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation in the last 30 years. Yes. All politicians of all persuasions have been weak on this for years and years for fear of offence (I have no idea why). But at least now the PM has stated this needs to change and that this is Islamist terrorism. Some politicians won't even admit that yet. The point Khan made with the quote that is so often taken out of context is that it is important for big cities to prepare themselves for terrorist attacks. It's difficult to disagree with that. Corbyn has been supportive of the measures taken on Saturday and in past cases of terrorist being killed in order to preserve life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 On 6/4/2017 at 9:21 AM, kowenicki said: That is spectacularly naive of you. Okay. Are you saying that the corporations will leave if there's a hike in corporation tax? Are you saying that their pre-tax revenue will deteriorate if there's a hike, just like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 hours ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said: Okay. Are you saying that the corporations will leave if there's a hike in corporation tax? Are you saying that their pre-tax revenue will deteriorate if there's a hike, just like that? I'm saying that there are many options open to firms if there is an increase in corp tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 37 minutes ago, kowenicki said: I'm saying that there are many options open to firms if there is an increase in corp tax. Do these options include obeying the fucking law of the fucking land and fucking paying those fucking taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 On 04/06/2017 at 7:56 AM, rummytheowl said: I was referring to an argument in the terms of a reason or set of reasons given in support of a viewpoint. I just indicated that It was a really poor comparison which had little meaning. I'm not sure what your point is now - we could pore over Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz all day. Never heard of them. We could pore over Stephen Hawking, Warren Buffett or John Maynard Keynes. I know a bit about them. Or how many of my generation are being taken to the cleaners with interest rates on their savings through banks and governments incompetence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said: Do these options include obeying the fucking law of the fucking land and fucking paying those fucking taxes? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 53 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Yes. Hallelujah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.