[Archived] Election called for 8th June

[Mike E]

Chaddy, Jeremy Corbyn has been the Labour MP in Islington North for 34 years! Nobody has come close to challenging him. He is very clearly good at his job. He has a track record of being on the right side of history and is the most human, relatable party leader since I've understood politics.

What you approve of is a LIAR who has spent the last 7 years ruining the security of of our country. Only AFTER all that does she want change, whereas Corbyn wanted change for years and years.

[Baz]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

I posted a link but past no judgement on the article.

I wont be comment on it.

someone mention Corbyn and freedom fighters and I google it and found the story then posted the link. That's is all.

I wont be posting my views on here

Why wont you Comment?  You seem to comment quite freely that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser? 

[JBiz]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

I posted a link but past no judgement on the article.

I wont be comment on it.

someone mention Corbyn and freedom fighters and I google it and found the story then posted the link. That's is all.

I wont be posting my views on here

That's precisely what's wrong with social media, and exactly why fake news and utter bs goes viral aka mainstream. 

 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Baz said:

Why wont you Comment?  You seem to comment quite freely that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser? 

Cos I wont be doing so. wont be commenting on politics until after the election

[Batman.]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

someone mention Corbyn and freedom fighters and I google it and found the story then posted the link.

That will be your epitaph.

[Baz]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Cos I wont be doing so. wont be commenting on politics until after the election

What a strange reaction.

[Baz]

Cameron former PR man blames May

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/david-camerons-former-aide-steve-hilton-calls-theresa-may-resign/

Tory refuses to answer if the government has cut the number of armed police

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/not-pub-quiz-karen-bradley-refuses-answer-piers-morgans-question/

[Baz]

Tory MP is GLAD there are food banks. Then threatens to get police when crowd is unimpressed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-food-banks-pleased-video-sheryll-murray-cornwall-south-east-watch-a7773781.html

[joey_big_nose]

I expect the Tories should extend their majority slightly, but May has been absolutely horrendous as a campaigner. Not sure how long she will last in post.

If Labour had a more palatable front line they could conceivably win.

That said Corbyn in particular has fought a good campaign against the odds. That they are so close in the polls given where they were six weeks ago is testament to a solid campaign.

I'll be voting Labour. Wish they had a more moderate bunch of personalities with less baggage at the top, but in terms of policies they have a decent set.

The Tories on the other hand have few attractive policies, a couple of unbelievably poorly thought through ones, no numbers, disarray in the campaign, and sadly a set of personalities at the top who are utterly despised (Hunt and Gove chief among them).

Roll on bringing in PR so we can vote for people we actually want to vote for.

[Baz]

Safer under the Tories? 

[Speedie Dived]

Just now, joey_big_nose said:

I expect the Tories should extend their majority slightly, but May has been absolutely horrendous as a campaigner. Not sure how long she will last in post.

If Labour had a more palatable front line they could conceivably win.

That said Corbyn in particular has fought a good campaign against the odds. That they are so close in the polls given where they were six weeks ago is testament to a solid campaign.

I'll be voting Labour. Wish they had a more moderate bunch of personalities with less baggage at the top, but in terms of policies they have a decent set.

The Tories on the other hand have few attractive policies, a couple of unbelievably poorly thought through ones, no numbers, disarray in the campaign, and sadly a set of personalities at the top who are utterly despised (Hunt and Gove chief among them).

Roll on bringing in PR so we can vote for people we actually want to vote for.

Agree with this entirely. This could actually be the election to lose with Brexit looming, whoever gets in power will have it tough and it could be an utterly disastrous few years, guaranteeing a change in government in 5 years with little chance of return for a decade or two.

To think that the Tories have actually got themselves in this position is staggering. 

[Hasta]

4 hours ago, Biz said:

 

1, The discussion on Corbyns voting record has been done, why come back to it? As you may remember, their track records are similar 

 

One has voted for terror laws more than against them.

The other has voted against every one.

Exactly how is that similar?

[Speedie Dived]

45 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Chaddy, Jeremy Corbyn has been the Labour MP in Islington North for 34 years! Nobody has come close to challenging him. He is very clearly good at his job. He has a track record of being on the right side of history and is the most human, relatable party leader since I've understood politics.

What you approve of is a LIAR who has spent the last 7 years ruining the security of of our country. Only AFTER all that does she want change, whereas Corbyn wanted change for years and years.

Never understand why people throw the term "career politician" around like an insult. Give me someone who has done it for 34 years over someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and rides off into the sunset to make more money after a few years. 

Se's lied about her views on brexit and lied about the general election.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Hasta said:

One has voted for terror laws more than against them.

The other has voted against every one.

Exactly how is that similar?

Lots of the votes are similar, like both against 14/90'day detention, ID cards but surely the discussion should be why do you believe we should have the "investigatory powers act 2016" or giving the cps special powers to banish all public, press or even family from certain trials? Also another one that split them, a vote to give powers to hold "suspect terrorists indefinitely"..?

 

 

[Hasta]

Just now, Biz said:

Lots of the votes are similar, like both against 14/90'day detention, ID cards but surely the discussion should be why do you believe we should have the "investigatory powers act 2016" or giving the cps special powers to banish all public, press or even family from certain trials? Also another one that split them, a vote to give powers to hold "suspect terrorists indefinitely"..?

 

 

 

I've no issue with I.d cards. Don't know the full details behind the other two acts you mention but will read up.

On the other side of the coin, why vote against allowing detention of terror suspect for 7 days for questioning.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Hasta said:

 

I've no issue with I.d cards. Don't know the full details behind the other two acts you mention but will read up.

On the other side of the coin, why vote against allowing detention of terror suspect for 7 days for questioning.

 

I don't know his reasons, but I know May also voted against 14 days and then accepted 28 days with the amendment of the 2006 terrorism act- which is May's style evidently, U-turns  

My view is probably more in line with Corbyns, but I wouldn't have said that in 2006. We need to make sure that we have the intelligence to arrest people once and once only, without need for release imv

CCTV capital of the world, some of the most advanced technology and expertise yet we are quite clearly not stopping the development of terrorism.

I don't want to publish unreputable or sourced links, but it doesn't take much research to see what Guantanamo bay may have had a large hand in creating. "Tipton three" I think is a good place to start.

[Hasta]

Just now, Biz said:

 

My view is probably more in line with Corbyns, but I wouldn't have said that in 2006. We need to make sure that we have the intelligence to arrest people once and once only, without need for release imv

CCTV capital of the world, some of the most advanced technology and expertise yet we are quite clearly not stopping the development of terrorism.

 

 

I doubt it's that easy. If you think someone is going to burgle a house you can wait for evidence. If you suspect someone potentially may be involved somehow in a deadly terror attack, it's a bit of a risk waiting for sufficient evidence. 

People are complaining that both the Manchester and London Bridge attackers were reported to the police. However if the evidence is not there then what can they do?  I don't know enough about snooping laws to know how much they can snoop suspects but I'd be quite happy if all communications were monitored and, if they were suspected of an imminent attack with no concrete evidence, for them to be pulled in and questioned for however long. 

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Hasta said:

 

I doubt it's that easy. If you think someone is going to burgle a house you can wait for evidence. If you suspect someone potentially may be involved somehow in a deadly terror attack, it's a bit of a risk waiting for sufficient evidence. 

People are complaining that both the Manchester and London Bridge attackers were reported to the police. However if the evidence is not there then what can they do?  I don't know enough about snooping laws to know how much they can snoop suspects but I'd be quite happy if all communications were monitored and, if they were suspected of an imminent attack with no concrete evidence, for them to be pulled in and questioned for however long. 

 

"Suspected" is the problem word really, it's the level of supect- that's why unity between cultures and investment in security, such as police, internet encryption and discussions with foreign allies are more important than radical amendments to powers or rights to me. If you know that something is being planned I admit it is easier, but more intergrated towns with bobbies who understand those communities, you'll get a bigger picture.

Also - is brexit going to have implications on security from an intelligence point of view? Surely a "hard" brexit might make it more difficult to speak to some agencies directly? I don't know, it's a genuine question.

 

[Hasta]

Just now, Biz said:

"Suspected" is the problem word really, it's the level of supect- that's why unity between cultures and investment in security, such as police, internet encryption and discussions with foreign allies are more important than radical amendments to powers or rights to me. If you know that something is being planned I admit it is easier, but more intergrated towns with bobbies who understand those communities, you'll get a bigger picture.

Also - is brexit going to have implications on security from an intelligence point of view? Surely a "hard" brexit might make it more difficult to speak to some agencies directly? I don't know, it's a genuine question.

 

As you say, Suspect is the key word. The laws should allow someone who is suspected to be involved in an imminent attack to be taken 'off the streets' whilst it is investigated fully. If that is 14 days or 28 days so be it. The ramifications of waiting too long until evidence is there are obviously tragic. If that's in breach of some people's liberties then fine. If it involves intruding in people's privacy then fine by me.

The problem, as ever, comes if those powers are abused for other reasons.

Im not sure if Brexit will have an effect on intelligence. Rightly or wrongly, it is being used as a bargaining chip. 

Regardless, I don't think any 'tighter extreme laws' or 'community hugging' is going to solve the problem. 

 

[den]

2 hours ago, Hasta said:

One has voted for terror laws more than against them.

The other has voted against every one.

Exactly how is that similar?

In 2011 as Home Secretary she decreed that control orders, which at their peak were used against 16 people at one time, be watered down and renamed Tpims. She told Parliament it would "restore our civil liberties while still allowing the police and security services to protect us".

I thought it was Lefties who put civil liberties before control of extremists?

 

YES BUT JEREMY CORBYN (Photo: PA)

She also voted against ID cards, 90-day detentions and 14-day detentions, and absented herself from votes on the 2000 Terrorism Act, 2001 Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act, and the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act.

Theresa voted against Labour anti-terror laws and voted for the Tory ones that weren't as tough, and now says it's Jeremy Corbyn who's politicising tragedy.

Since 2010 the number of armed police officers has been cut by 1,300.Efforts to recruit again have hit a brick wall of coppers unwilling to kill or be killed. And there are so few specialised counter-terrorism firearms officers, spread so thinly, that an attack on London can be stopped in 8 minutes but an attack elsewhere may have to wait half an hour or more. 

When the Police Federation warned Theresa in 2015 that her cuts would cause problems she told them: "This kind of scaremongering does nobody any good - it doesn't serve you, it doesn't serve the officers you represent, and it doesn't serve the public... this crying wolf has to stop."

Now the wolf is at the door. And when was the last time you saw a community bobby on foot in your town, talking to people, showing a friendly face, keeping an eye on the ne'er-do-wells?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-may-enough-terror-resign-10563787

[joey_big_nose]

4 hours ago, Hasta said:

As you say, Suspect is the key word. The laws should allow someone who is suspected to be involved in an imminent attack to be taken 'off the streets' whilst it is investigated fully. If that is 14 days or 28 days so be it. The ramifications of waiting too long until evidence is there are obviously tragic. If that's in breach of some people's liberties then fine. If it involves intruding in people's privacy then fine by me.

 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood but these powers already exist under the Terrorism Act which allows detention for 14 days without charge.

[dave birch]

8 hours ago, Baz said:

Of all the tasteless posts on the message board in the past few days, this is the one you choose to pick up on? It's almost like you are trying to derail the discussion.

Baz, perhaps this might explain why:

Every time I pass the local school, there's a rather large sign that basically says the violence against women and girls is not on.

That, and the fact that a mate of mine is an advocate to eliminate violence against women and girls.

Additionally, my wife, through her profession, was was threatened by a well known sporting identity for assisting his (then) wife to leave him (because of domestic violence). It was only through the intervention of the court that he stopped.

You, and others might think it's "only a joke", but it's real life to others.

[Hasta]

4 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Forgive me if I have misunderstood but these powers already exist under the Terrorism Act which allows detention for 14 days without charge.

They do.

Powers which were opposed by Corbyn and, as Den and Biz point out, May.

[Paul]

3 hours ago, dave birch said:

Baz, perhaps this might explain why:

Every time I pass the local school, there's a rather large sign that basically says the violence against women and girls is not on.

That, and the fact that a mate of mine is an advocate to eliminate violence against women and girls.

Additionally, my wife, through her profession, was was threatened by a well known sporting identity for assisting his (then) wife to leave him (because of domestic violence). It was only through the intervention of the court that he stopped.

You, and others might think it's "only a joke", but it's real life to others.

I was going to quote three or four posts you made in reply to my one liner but for the sake of brevity this will suffice. You made a point earlier that it only takes one person to take an off the cuff remark out of context for the remark to begin to be acceptable or become the "truth." I would agree and in that context my comment was at best ill advised. I take your point on board and agree.

Like me you have been a board member for a very long time, probably 20 years or more. You will have read my views on many occasions and should understand I would not advocate physical or mental violence against anyone be they male or female. You also know I comment on politicians and offer opinions rather than simply slag them off. A group of posters who no longer post here must have made, between them, thousands of derogatory comments towards women, politicians, other BRFCS members, muslims, gays and ethnic minorities. Many of those one liners could be said to advance Islamophobia, racism and other views many people find unacceptable. If we limit the discussion to leading female politicians Nicola Sturgeon was regularly referred to by those posters as the "Scottish bitch." In the other areas I mention there are hundreds, thousands of examples of one liners which could be said to help propagate different and, to many, unacceptable views.

I cannot think of an occasion when you chose to speak out against such comments. My question would be why has it taken you so very long to understand violence, in any form, against women is wrong? Surely this is something you should have been aware of all your adult life? Or is there another motivation behind picking up my comment and the above is simply a convenient justification to support your earlier remarks?

[dave birch]

Paul, thank you for taking the time to reply, like you I take your points seriously, and have enjoyed many of your posts over the years.

I'm busy at the moment with end of year stuff (financial year here finishes 30/6).

Rather than bore everyone I'll pm you in the next day or so with a more detailed reply.