Sheaf Saint

If you bother to read what I posted, you'll see that's not what I said. Do you believe that far right extremism is not a problem and can be ignored?

On purely statistical terms, he is obviously wrong, but he still makes a valid point. As a society we can't afford to put all our focus on combating wahabi extremism at the expense of ignoring the far right / white supremacist variety. Racial / cultural hatred leading to violent extremism should not be tolerated whichever 'side' is engaging in it.

It wasn't me that made the claim that it is just as serious. Obviously it's not, in terms of death tolls. I was just making the point that they are both still very serious problems that need to be tackled, and that, for whatever reason, any acts carried out by those claiming to be Muslim are much more widely reported and over-sensationalised than those carried out by white men.

They are both two sides of the same coin. It's just that one side gets a lot more media attention than the other.

I'm well aware of the political leanings of their editorial team, and I'm quite capable of reading their content with objectivity thanks. At least the article I shared was presenting evidence to show that what was printed in the Mail and the Sun on election day was factually incorrect. Whereas the link Nolan provided was just the turgid, speculative ramblings of a man with an apparent history of controversy and a staunch pro-Israel, anti-Palestine stance. It's little wonder he has an axe to grind with Corbyn, being that he wants to seek a peaceful settlement in their situation. https://athousandflowers.net/2015/10/25/weekly-w*nker-058-stephen-daisley/ Edit: Dammit, Saintsweb won't allow you to follow this link because it has a swear word in the URL. You'll have to google 'Stephen Daisley weekly w*nker' yourselves

A nice balanced and not-at-all-biased opinion piece from a Daily Mail columnist there.

My bold. It has been well established that he had dialogue with senior Sinn Fein members during the 1980s. But to my knowledge, nobody has yet been able to provide evidence that he actively supported the use of terrorism as a means to achieve their aims. I'm pretty certain that if such evidence existed, it would have been splashed all over the tabloid front pages well before now. Perhaps you could provide a source to support your claim?

In a way I'm glad that Labour didn't win this. The Brexit negotiations begin in just over a week and regardless of who is in government, the whole thing is going to be a total f*cking disaster. So when the full extent of the Brexit train wreck becomes clear, May and the Tories will have to own it and face the consequences.

Although he didn't win as such, he performed much better than expected even despite the opposition he faced from within his own party and the relentless smear campaign run by the media barons against him. So it's a moral victory for him because he has proved that there is a broad support base for his policies which can be built upon in the run up to the next general election. Edit: this was supposed to be in response to Batman's earlier post but I neglected to do reply with quote.

Well all those predictions of a massive landslide by our resident sneering Tories seem a bit funny now. Despite the Tories trying to rig the election by changing the constituency boundaries in their favour, and the savage (and frankly disgraceful) smear campaign against Corbyn, May's gamble has spectacularly backfired. Of course, we do face a period of uncertainty now, but I am delighted that the electorate have prevented May from driving us off the hard Brexit cliff.

Whatever the final result, it's pleasing to see UKIP's support vanishing.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'destroy those at the top'? And as for the politics of envy label, it's just dismissive nonsense that serves your argument no favours. Wanting a fairer distribution of the nation's wealth has nothing to do with envy. If anything, envy is more closely associated with greed, and that is clearly more of a Conservative characteristic than Labour.

The national wealth, the public purse. Whatever you want to call it. Prime example is the selloff of the Royal Mail. Everybody knew that it was drastically undervalued. Then within days of the sale, the share value shot up and those that were given the privilege of buying them initially - Tory party donors, of course - made hundreds of millions in profit.

My feelings exactly. They spout empty platitudes about making a fair society that works for everyone, but their actions betray their real intentions. Every policy they enact is geared towards helping out their corporate donors and transferring as much public wealth as possible upwards to the already super wealthy elite, while shafting the rest of us. Since they came to power, the UK is the only country in the EU bar Greece that has seen a real-terms drop in wages, while the richest handful of families have doubled their wealth. The extreme austerity they have imposed on us isn't born out of necessity, it is purely ideologically driven. I genuinely cannot fathom how anybody who isn't already part of their super rich elite could bring themselves to vote for them. It really is like turkeys voting in favour of Christmas.

Are you suggesting that the Mail and the Sun are some kind of shining beacons of truth and integrity?

OK, so it is true that Corbyn spoke at the rally, and in the crowd was a very small number of Al-Muhajiroun troublemakers with whom the rest of the protesters refused to associate. The Sun and Mail have copied the article you posted word-for-word saying there were 200-300 of them, but the police report states only 30 at most. The issue here is that the Mail and the Sun are trying to insinuate that Corbyn was addressing a pro-Al-Muhajiroun demo and was actively trying to win favour with them directly. But all the evidence shows this to be a total misrepresentation of the truth.

Oh look, Seems like the Sun and the Mail have been caught out making sh*t up again... https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/exclusive-police-reports-prove-sun-may-broken-law-last-ditch-attack-jeremy-corbyn/

Oh FFS Delldays - you've swallowed all the propaganda hook, line and sinker haven't you. You've read the smearing headlines, decided that they all must be true, and ignored every bit of explanation of them while ignoring the very same faults within the Tory party. The 'friends of Hamas' has been thoroughly debunked as the words of somebody using inclusive language trying to reach out to all parties in order to reach a peace settlement in a very volatile situation. How many times over the same period have British politicians described Israel as our 'friends' - because the Israeli government is just as guilty of indiscriminate murder of civilians as Hamas. Why are they the only ones we are allowed to call 'friends'? As for his involvement with the IRA - again he was trying to work towards a peace agreement that suited all parties. And guess what - sitting down and talking to Adams, McGuiness et al. was precisely how the situation was resolved in the end, so he was proven correct in his approach. Sorry if you don't like that. Have you heard of Maria Gatland? She's a Tory Councillor in Croydon, and a former active member of the IRA who is quoted as saying "I agree with the shooting of British soldiers and believe the more who are killed the better". Let's hear your defence for that shall we?

Perhaps not directly, but they have had some involvement... https://www.thelocal.se/20120903/42972 Wrong... https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/03/germ-d03.html

I saw a brilliant tweet from somebody yesterday (can't find it again to share it unfortunately). He had a very clear, simple, 4-step plan to reduce the threat of terrorism in the UK... 1. Stop selling £bns worth of arms to states who propagate and sponsor salafist extremism 2. Stop bombing their kids 3. Stop reducing the numbers of police on the streets 4. Stop cutting vital mental health and youth worker services Can't really argue with any of it, but none of it will never happen with the Tories in power.

No, he didn't... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html "BBC Trust rules Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn on shoot-to-kill"

I find the constant pressing on the point of nuclear war a bit tiresome tbh. You're saying that he doesn't have the balls to defend the country, but launching a nuclear attack on somebody because they have launched one on us isn't defending our nation, it's committing mass genocide on an innocent civilian population in retaliation for the actions of an unhinged, despotic lunatic. It solves nothing. The whole point of having a nuclear deterrent is that you never need to use it, therefore the whole 'would you/wouldn't you' argument is academic. The threat is supposed to be enough to stop somebody launching one against us - the clue is in the word 'deterrent'. I don't believe for one second that even Kimg Jong Un is so deranged that he would instigate something that will inevitably result in the total destruction of his entire country. As Carl Sagan put it: "The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five".

Apparently this is currently at number 4 in the charts...

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-breaks-multiple-records-2016-global-impacts

The thing that amazed me was how Amber Rudd had the audacity to stand there, with a straight face, and tell the nation that the only person with the strength and the leadership qualities to lead Britain forward is the woman who couldn't even summon the courage to publicly debate her fellow leaders in an election that she herself called. Did anybody see the Sky news clip of her yesterday being asked repeatedly why she was not appearing? She was so visibly rattled, like she always is when she faces a question at PMQs that she can't answer. The maniacal nervous laugh, reaching for her water every few seconds, falling back on repeating the same old line about 'getting the best deal for Britain' and launching a scathing attack on Corbyn while completely evading the question. She's lost the plot if you ask me. A total lame duck PM. She called this election because she thought she would win a landslide and increase her party's majority, but now that the polls are showing Labour a whole lot closer than expected, she's cracking under the pressure, as is her sidekick Boris the clown. If they are the right people to lead the Brexit negotiations, then I'm the b*stard son of Ghengis Khan and Joan of Arc.