shurlock

Arguably that's one of the less noticed consequences of the Brexit referendum. Just as the public didn't like being hectored by the doomsday hypotheticals of Project Fear (not least as it would claim its scepticism has so far been vindicated), so it's seen straight through some of the more outlandish economic claims made about a possible Corbyn government. Whether this development is a temporary or more enduring remains to be seen; but it's a healthy one as it forces politicians to work harder and campaign on more positive and subtle terms - while consigning Lynton Crosby types to the scrapheap.

What has any of that got to do with today's headlines?

From RAWK - the delusion is strong with this one.

What's striking from reading the rival forums is the firm belief that we sell out of choice, not simply because we're powerless to fend off the big boys. Complete contrast to this place where even the whiff of a link to one of our players is greeted with resignation that nothing can be done. Guess some find that comforting. It's clear that other fans find that attitude exasperating and basically soppy b*****ks.

You still toe the party line?

Bizarre reasoning, Balders. What record is that? Hammond has been in his job less than a year - he's far from a known quantity. Hammond's presence is particularly important to provide reassurance that he, May and the wider cabinet are on the same page economically. The NIC debacle, dissenting voices over the triple lock, Brexit among other things suggest the direction of Tories under May is far from clear and united.

What % of u-11s will make it all the way through the Academy?

Is there any way to invest in it through an ISA or SIPP?

Hello Les

Completely agree.

Good news. Any ideas why it is off. Did the PL grow some teeth or was it on Lander's side?

Given the 'optics', hard to believe this is true, unless Uncle Les has someone already lined up. He's going to want to demonstrate that the club is in the driving seat and has things under control.

You're not giving up, are you.

As I say, just remember to cite someone who supports your point next time A friendly bit of advice, that's all.

They're generally a pretty informed bunch, much more so than RedCafe. Their roundtables tend to be good value.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/872116740020416513

Then take your disagreement up with Tariq Ramadan (who Whelk cited).

I'm not saying Imam Tahwidi isn't a Muslim. He's a Shiite for starters (whereas his opponents are Sunni). Rather I'm saying he's a chancer and oddball -and not a recognised Imam. Only the gullible or those with an agenda cite him. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/04/11/4651763.htm I'm not an expert on Maajid Nawaz, though I do know he has a lot of criticics within the Muslim community. He is also careful to draw a distinction between Islam and Islamism, much like Theresa May did in her speech on Sunday. That distinction tends to be invoked to isolate violent Islamism from any other form of Islam. Islam, by contrast, is a religion just like any other, with its problems just like any other. All his words not mine.

Not sure what your point is, though I guess you stopped at the clickbait tweet rather than listened to the interview. If you had listened to the interview, the point is that Islam is involved insofar as the perpetrators called themselves Muslims and appealed to the Quran. But that's a banal truism that even SOG wouldn't oppose. All religions are essentially what people who call themselves devotees say they are. What the interviewee went on to say, had you bothered to listen, is that the perpetrators rely on distorted interpretations of Islam which are against the principles of the religion. That's not evidence for the claim that Islam is inherently violent or that there's some scriptural smoking gun justifying terrorist atrocities etc. Perhaps you disagree. If so, it might help to quote someone who actually supports your position.

What about the riots, smashed windows and blood on the streets? What's happened to that?

Imam Tahwidi Ali Dia was a better fake than this guy. Embarrassing that people, predominantly conspiracy theorists and right-wing loons, quote him - sadly says more about their prejudices, despite protestations to the contrary. But hey he dresses up in exotic robes, he must be an authority.

Seems the survey is biased towards those who are more politically engaged, despite its best efforts. In 2015, 43% of 18-24s and 54% of 25-34s voted respectively, a figure that is significantly lower than the 62% of respondents who voted. Of course, many respondents likely responded before the Manifestos came out, the dementia tax fiasco and Corbyn's surge in exposure which roughly took place in the final week/ten days of the survey period. Notwithstanding this, you'd still expect numbers to be slightly higher.

So you hate her in the same way you hate Katie Hopkins, then? Identity politics - depending on what you mean by it, it may be profoundly flawed but it's not intentionally divisive. Not sure why Abbott gets you so worked up - she has an odd effect on some parts of the public. I certainly find her pompous and complacent and despite her progressive pretensions, very elitist. But the same can be said about a lot of politicians.

That's a very glowing tribute to Uncle Les - has he promised you Ziyech for Xmas or something?