buctootim

.,..

This is from 18 months ago. You do the maths. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-allow-shoot-to-kill-exceptional-circumstances

Bob Paisley quotes. They dont get a mention. http://www.bobpaisley.com/article/2532

He objected to a general shoot to kill policy and instead backed proportionate force, including deadly force if necessary. No-one in their right minds would want security services given a blanket right to shoot to kill. Otherwise you end up like the UIS where you can get shot for running away from a traffic officer. Their are plenty of real views to debate. Theres no need to make views up.

Abbot is distinctly unpromising, but at least she hasnt been a repeat proven failure at the Home Office.

"Enough is enough"? How vacuous can you get? What does she mean - Manchester was okay but this is going too far? Its not hard ffs - sympathise with the dead and wounded, praise the police, invoke the public's courage and promise to look into what more can be done.

Course they have Johnny, course they have. Back in the good old days people would stay in the open and get killed, not take wimpy cover. About this ****wit thing, real or pretend?

What is most interesting imo is how the class loyalty to a particular party has broken down. Both Tories and Labour now have almost exactly the same proportions of ABC1 and CDE voters as each other. The big indicator of political support is now age - the young for Labour and old for the Tories. Its always been there, but not to this extent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/general-election-2017-polls-odds-tracker-latest/

That report confirms what I said.

Erm, no it doesnt. Are you Wes' Mini Me? The poll is a representative sample of the population and reflects who they would vote for if they could be arsed. The weighting is to adjust for likelihood to actually vote, based on age and social group. The people who vote are not representative of the population as a whole, they are disproportionately the elderly retired.

MORI today have Labour with a lead of 43-40 over the Tories but losing 40-45 once likelihood of voting is taken in to consideration. Id say the 'fail to vote' gap will be wider.

No idea if that is true or not - but if it is its almost as if her campaign managers are trying to sabotage her. Either that or she is having a breakdown and cant hack the pressure

Why the **** didnt Wigan go for Jackett instead of Cook?

May's Brexit negotiating technique is "If you don't give me what I want I'll walk out in front of a bus". Trouble with that is the only two responses are 'no you wont' or 'good'.

Not sure it was a U turn, more of a devious trap. Pesky politicians

Does Kuenssberg have videos of yours? You launch a Pavlovian defence every time there is even mild criticism of her. She really isnt as good as she thinks. Fire away.

Puel has done as well as can be expected given Rodrigues not performing and Austin being injured - I'd happily keep him on. That said Tuchel would be an upgrade.

Corbyn has announced he will take part in the live debate tonight whilst May has ruled it out. Could be a clever move by him, isolating her as the only one refusing.

There was a good article in the Times (I think) yesterday explaining the apparent wide discrepancy in the headline figures of the polls. Basically it said the raw data of all the polling companies was very close, showing there isnt a 'polling problem' per se. The difference comes depending on how the company adjusts the raw data. The polls showing a small Tory lead, like YouGov, are mostly unadjusted - the same method as in the last election. The big Tory lead polls include various analyses of how likely different age groups are to vote, but also crucially a further adjustment based on who people think would make the best Prime Minister. The 'Best Prime Minister' stat produced a better match with the actual party results than anything else in 2015. So unless Labour gain another 5 or 6 points or the young really turn out to vote, its probably not going to be close.

Not necessarily

tbf to him he couldnt answer. If he had the headlines would have been either "Corbyn to resign" or "Corbyn doesn't believe he will win"

Did you read the product reviews? "Flimsy", "Not very strong and stable" and my favourite "just like the real thing"

So you didn't know about Hitler's use of Christianity to pursue his own ends, you made yourself look stupid and so you want to lash out. Fair enough. Once the tantrum is over, maybe you can think about how leaders through history have used twisted versions of religion to justify their own mad ambitions.

No more weird than every brown bomber is a muslim. Hitler promoted his own perverted version of Christianity - Positive Christianity - to provide a theological / moral base for Nazism. The idea was to reassure anyone who had doubts about the killing and mad actions that it was okay because God was on their side. Its a highly effective technique with many examples of it throughout history and has direct parallels with IS. Hitler's version was repudiated by the established German Church. The IS version of Islam is rejected by leaders of Islam. Its so clear Im not sure why its takes 102 pages of bile and finger pointing to get there.

Could have a happy ending