felixthelogchopper

And less seats were won by the Conservatives than they lost, a step back from the majority they had before May was arrogant enough to call a snap election, making a lie of her former promise, and the landslide predicted by her friends in the right wing press. Now she is reduced to courting a group with views that range from the laughable to the abhorrent as the only way of creating a majority that is slimmer than a gnat's cock.

But how do you get them on the watch list in the first place?

So we just roll over and accept the attacks as part and parcel of everyday life? I seem to remember Sadiq Khan being pilloried when he was quoted out of context as taking the same stance. Nobody is saying that the perpetrator isn't responsible for the act, but who is responsible for the opportunity to commit the act unimpeded? [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGb3mcuiH-Y[/ame]

Seems he's not the only one. Is this blatant politicking also? Theresa May must resign over 'security failures' that led to recent terror attacks, says David Cameron's former policy guru | The Independent

I think everybody agrees that the police and other emergency services did a fantastic job in reacting to the mindless atrocity committed on Saturday. The argument is that unless the police can be proactive then they will be restricted to showing up and shooting the killers after they have murdered many people. The cuts have prevented intelligence gathering which is the only way to stop these events before the damage is done. You can't protect against a specific threat unless you know about it. As the law stands, you can't be locked up for your individual beliefs unless you act upon them. When an extremist is identified, all that can be done is monitoring them until them actually commit an offence and that takes personnel, as does working with the community who are most likely the first people to notice radicalisation.

Well, cutting the front line units to the bone certainly isn't working. May was warned when she was Home Secretary that intelligence gathering was suffering due to the cuts but chose to ignore it because she knew better. Definitely agree with you on that one, Ti.

I think we agree on the ultimate aim if not the means of getting there.

How about not cutting police numbers back so far, and against informed advice, that extremists who are so well advertised that they have been on a Channel 4 documentary are left unwatched? Reaction is all well and good but it doesn't bring back any of the victims of these arseholes. As for Diane Abbott, when the Conservatives don't make similar slip ups it might be a valid point.

I think it's probably safe to say that so does the Dalai Lama. Ti, I understand that you have a strong Christian faith and I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with anybody else peacefully following any other religion. Religion, while not my thing, no doubt provides comfort and guidance to many people in their lives. I have always seen it as an historical way of controlling the masses, now superceded by the media, but that is just my view and I wouldn't expect everybody to agree. The problem lies where it is perverted by people with their own sick purposes and that has happened in religions other than Islam. It is up to the religious communities to bring any extremism to the releveant authorities and hope they act on it. Provoking division can only be counterproductive.

Then we agree on that. I also think that he has that right when you read it in its entirity. Don't make any assumptions that I am pro-Muslim or pro-uncontrolled immigration, nor that I want a border lock-down. I am pro- decent, caring people and anti-murderous, oppressive bastards. Both types come in all shapes, colours and religions.

I didn't realise that you were either. My point is that different views exist and some people might listen to the leader of a world religion on the subject rather than a treework forum.

Looks like the Dalai Lama disagrees with you. Must be uninformed, I suppose.

So while the employer has all the benefits of the big guns behind them, you think the little man should have nobody in his corner? Bit unfair, don't you think?

Both, you mean?

Was that because of censorship or because people are very quick to jump down other people's throats?

:post:ArbPolice are on the way. Flee while you still can, you rogue:post:

That's not Arb, that's gardening. Anyway, hedgetrimmers; Stihl or Husqvarna?

Just to clarify what I meant, they do send emails but only about stuff like video tutorials on record keeping etc, not about rebates. Sorry if I was unclear.

HMRC only do refunds by letter. Bin the text.

Do I think everything will be perfect under either party? No. I genuinely see a happier ending for the majority under Corbyn rather than what would favour the wealthier under May, although given the 'fluid nature' of her promises who knows? Trouble is, I cannot trust the Conservatives with the NHS and, after her recent performance, I don't think she can be trusted with Brexit either. Her tactic of deliberately trying to wind up the EU was ill-thought out, IMO, and she has shown herself as unwilling to enter the bear pit of debate. I thought from early in the campaign that she thought it was in the bag already and she was untouchable. The 'Dementia tax' fiasco of 'no there isn't a cap, oh, yes there is but we won't tell you what it is' has pulled her up a bit in her tracks but she still lacks the respect for the electorate to partake in any meaningful debate with the other leaders. There have been more u-turns from her than any election campaign can bear, including one on social housing, which really doesn't make me think 'strong and stable'. Thanks for a sensible approach to the matter.

Well, I don't see any other parties fielding candidates who have been charged with election fraud so I'm going to say Conservative is the most. The costings are in Labour's manifesto whereas the Conservative effort is just uncosted and frequently back-tracked upon. I can't see how people can actually know what they are voting for with the Conservatives.

I think May's already got that one, Kevin.

That seems to be the way it is going, especially when not everybody puts out a clear manifesto. I think it's more worrying when the media think it's up to them to decide for the rest of us and manipulate the information to do so.

I do choose to believe him so we're never going to agree on that one, sadly. It's unfortunate but while Corbyn is being pilloried for talking with Sinn Fein etc, rather less was made of the fact that the Conservatives have had in their party 2 former members of the PIRA or that they are encouraging trade deals with the Saudis. If by the anti-semitism you mean Livingstone then he did explain that last night in the Leaders 'debate'. He is the Party Leader, not dictator, and so the investigation is ongoing by other members of the party while Livingstone remains on suspension. With regards to public facades, do you really believe that we see the 'real' anybody in life, beyond our immediate circle of friends and family? I'm choosing Corbyn because I like Labour's policies more than the Conservatives. If you disregard the sour grapes factor, I find it telling that even George Osborne is talking May down in the Standard. George Osborne's London Evening Standard labels Theresa May's manifesto 'most disastrous in history' | The Independent