moonraker

The problem I have is that if the evidence clearly demonstrates that a crime has been committed are you entitled to the same privacy protection? Your clumsy attempt to bring the EU into this is risible and very sad. Or are you advocating that if we leave we should not have privacy laws.

It’s not your money, it’s your share of the national wealth that you have exchanged for your labour, knowledge and skills, we call that currency and for it to have value it requires trust and honesty. You are only in a position to live and work in an advanced modern society because taxes are paid to pay for all those things you need to function. The policies and details of specific spending may be open to question the principle of tax is not. As to everyone is corruptible you miss the irony of complaining about benefit claimants (not a crime) while essentially condoning corruption (a crime) careful you may be domed to end up in prison with the scumbags, a surprisingly high number of them are fraudsters/corruptor scumbags. It would be interesting to know what market sector you work in, I have spent 42 years working and have certainly witnessed a few 'corrupt' practices thankfully the perpetrators were nearly always caught and duly dealt with .

So we will for the first time ever introduce birder controls on the Irish border. We did not even do that during the so called troubles.

And how much is that?

Oh it's that easy, good so nothing will really change then. I note you avoided the Irish border question.

What I would like to know is how do the Brexiters hpow will they change and improve border controls if we leave . Is it planned to reintroduce a visa system for all EU nationals? how much would this cost? How would the Irish border work? What are there contigency aarangemnts for the Scottish border should they at some time in future leave the Union and join the EU? Questions that need answering

Agree totally. My piece was to reflect that there is no specific mitigation based on the fact that the current biggest threat has sprung from Islam. It was to consider that the history of terrorist organisations tells us that they are all susceptible to the same influences and counter influences and that, as some on here try to do, arguing that dealing with Islam will deal with the threat is not the answer when actually what we need to deal with the problem as united society whatever our religious, ideological or cultural values.

Uh, where do I apologise, quite the opposite.

Terrorism is an issue for all religions, ideologies and cultures. The criminal gangs and factions we chose to label terrorist know no religious, ideological or cultural boundaries. Every religion, ideology and culture has in the past 100 years spawned terroism, the labelling of one group or another based on the religion, ideology and culture from which it sprang is at best disenchanting. The use of religion, ideology and culture is a simple device to claim some form of legitimacy that is never real or endowed. Terrorists rely on a wide range of societal conditions to have any effect the key ones being; accessibility, the oxygen of publicity, the fear in their own communities, and the lack of a united public opposition. They also revel in the badge of terrorism, we should deprive them of this and rebrand them simply as criminals, for that is all they are. The first is mitigated by protecting key entry points, covert surveillance and public awareness and despite the awful acts that terrorist have perpetrated over the years it is in the largely effective. Accessibility is all to often confused with freedom of movement and migration, when these are in and of themselves an enduring and essential feature of human society. The second is mitigated through international co-operation and national enforcement. In this area the mitigation is less effective. The world is awash with arms, and the means to produce arms, 99% of which have been legally produced. It is the secondary and subsequent markets where control is difficult if not impossible. The money that can be made by those of criminal intent and no morals is motivation enough. In the UK our strict firearms laws are excellently enforced and are a key pillar in the overall strategy, however we are in a small minority of states. Other weapons of choice of the terrorist are all outlawed or severely controlled in one way or another. The third is a very difficult area, we all want to live in a free and open society. A key component of this is a free press. While there are mechanisms in nearly all countries to apply some control on news stories it is not possible in the modern interconnected world to conceal public criminal acts. What could help is more rigorous research and responsible reporting especially of the conditions, attitudes and behaviours of legitimate groups in society who are seen by some as the defenders of one criminal faction or another. Alienating these groups is counter productive and simply dishonest, unfortunately to often it is cheap journalism dressed up as serious investigation. To appreciate the fourth one would have to live within a community that is terrified of these criminals. Indeed it is not only terrorists that lever control over communities based on fear, home-grown criminal networks use exactly the same tactics. The only answer is ever more effective policing and justice and effective protection of the communities from which these groups sprout. Three and four above are the key to cracking the fifth problem. Much of the disunity across society stems from a lack of knowledge and understanding, and a failure or genuine inability to fully support the forces of law and order. Whilst the press continue to publish inaccurate, poorly researched and deliberately emotive articles there will always be factions in our society who choose to believe and champion their claims, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and somewhat ironically occasionally with violence. The world will never rid itself of individuals and groups of individuals who wish to live outside the law. What we can do is to live, work and play together in such a way that those bent on evil intent are starved of the very things they need to grow and thrive and by this example ensure that the fewest possible people are drawn into their brutal and depraved webs.

And not vote Labour, so your analysis falls down on two points, correct though it may be.

We are not "all at it", this is the cry of those who are at it or would like to be at it! For me TAX avoidance or evasion is just as if not more reprehesable than benefit fraud. I have never knowingly evaded or avoided any persoanl tax liabilty in my 43 years of full time employment and I have never paid someone I have contracted in cash. The old saying you have to earn it to pay it fits, this is criminal and stems from pure greed. The MP's expenses row is nothing compared to this.

It would be difficult to provide an example of what does not exist. Show us a single post wher any poster has said they support terrorism, the islamification of Britain, or any of the other imagined things you state.

Stop being a total d***head.

Agree, nothing new here, terrorist group to use technology to further its evil aims, well who would have expected that.

Your credibility was already very low with this stupendously stupid statement you now have none whatsoever. There is not a single poster on here who's views from their posts could be accused of any of this.

As one who is so keen to ensure literal precision are you now proposing that Muslims may not comply with the ‘religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion’ the original and proper meaning of Jihad. I know the word has been hijacked and reinterpreted by some to mean violent struggle, but you of all people would surely refute that based on your well documented exactitude in matters of word definition. Should we therefore take a similar view of all Christians as the bible says ‘GOD Almighty Commanded His followers to fight for His Holy Cause’. It is men (predominantly) that have interpreted and bent these holy scriptures to their own non-religious malevolent ends.

Yes, but one is eminently achievable, practicable and enlightened, take away or tightly control guns, the other is, well not even hypothetically possible, and why stop with Islam, I personally am not very keen on a number of religions; Satanism, Scientology, Jedism to name a few. So which of the 4200 documented religions would you eradicate? so rather than Apples and Ornages more akin to comparing apples and cocunuts, one is soft and easy to deal with, the other is tough and very hard to get into.

Thank you, once again you provide the informed and mature understanding of these very complex issues. Sadly the myopic will still want to simplify everything and want to know when the backlash is coming, why Muslims run the labour party and what is going to be done about this or that and they will continue sight cherry picked examples of practises and behaviours that are in one or more ways, distasteful, unacceptable or illegal, and dogmatically failing to accept that it is universally acknowledged their are real issues, as there are in all cultures, but that does not excuse the blanket condemnation of a whole religion.

The best post on this thread by far, no insults, no silly links, no pedantry, just brilliant.

I listened to an interview with her on Radio 4 recently, she was remarkable person who fought against every obstacle athat was put in her way and produced some stunning structures. A great loss to architecture and our bult environment.

van many thanks for your non partisan perspective. Whilst I have argued to remain in your points are well made and sadly only to true. I suppose what I really want to happen is a complete realignment of the EU power structures and a recognition, as you allude to, of the regional variations that present such huge challenges that the eurocrats seem incapable of even voicing let alone addressing. To me the risk of leaving and failing to gain at least an equitable deal for the UK still seems to great, and the fragmented and fundamentally ill considered leave campaign does not provide a level of mitigation I can buy into.

Apologies you are correct, I was fooled by the use of the same photograph at the top of each article. Strange to use a phot of one meeting in an article about a completely different meetings. Still now we have 2 meetings, that really is conclusive evidence of the hold Muslims have on the Labour Party. What worries me even more now I think about it, the Tories have a Muslim in the current cabinet, their second in 5 years surely that is the end of British culture, I must check whether they are moderate or extremist although I am not sure it makes any difference so hope fully they are reasonable Muslims (is there actually such a thing). They certainly are persistent these folk, to think its only 150 years since the first Muslim sat in the house of Lords and now here they are in cabinet, the onward march of Muslim Culture is irresistible.

The spread of a culture and the rate of immigration are not one and the same thing. The spread of Western European culture around then world was not effected by mass migration but in the main by force of arms and/or superior technology.

You cant even work out that the two links you provide are two articles about the same meeting, that is a singular event and hence a meeting not meetings. I am now getting headache trying to comprehend what sort of logic it takes to continue to; not anwer questions, continually reference and repeat the same inconclusive evidence, attempt to alter that which others write and represent it as the original, fail to acknowledge anything anyone else says that does not support 'its not a backlash, were all doomed due to the Islamic march across Europe, to many muslims are extremist, extremist supporters or symapathysers and on and on'.

So now you have transmogrified my statement that ‘I wasn’t happy with the spread of any particular culture’ to ‘I am not happy to see further Muslim immigration’. Your pure gold Sour, your ability to interpret others views and statement into something fundamentally different (grotesque even) is straight out of the Donald Trump Debating for Dummies manual. Abraham Lincoln is oft quoted as saying ‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time’, but you couldn’t fool any of the people any of the time, apart from perhaps yourself.