Sheaf Saint

I've had a look through and I don't feel like I want to complete it because the questions are badly worded and vague IMO.

He didn't. He was manager at Alaves last season when they pulled of a surprise win there.

I don't really see how appealing to protesters to remain peaceful can be described as 'egging it all on'.

I don't know how many times I have to spell it out for you. In pure statistical terms, no I do not agree with him. But this is a very complex issue that cannot be reduced down to just numbers, unless you're some kind of simpleton. If you want to argue purely on these terms, then statistically speaking you are far more likely to be killed by a dog than by a terrorist attack. Do you believe that dogs are a bigger problem than Wahabi extremists?

I know. I didn't. There was a case of a Southampton man a couple of years ago who was arrested and convicted of preparing for terrorist acts. The case got only a very small mention in the national news... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11612542/Ginger-haired-extremist-Mark-Colborne-idolised-IRA-because-of-their-red-hair-court-hears.html If he had brown skin and was called Muhammed, it would probably have been all over the front pages of every tabloid. That's the point I'm making in that respect.

Yes, it's incredibly frustrating when people don't fully read what you post and jump to false conclusions about what you mean, isn't it This isn't about taking sides with you or John B. I agreed with you that his pronouncement was statistically incorrect, but I was just relaying that I believe he still raised an important point. Why can't you get your head around that? It's really very simple.

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