One of Amber Rudd's opponents tried to make a similar point yesterday, before the attack: She passes a note to the moderator, who shuts him down. The BBC political reporting has been taken over completely now. Harding and Kuenssberg aren't even trying to be subtle about it any more.
The UK is institutionally right wing. The Conservatives I am sure, truly believe that much of their politics are not political at all. When May starts giving her political opinions I am sure she believes it's not political at all, because she has no understanding or interest in the world most people live in.
Where was that taking place PNP? I've worked it out now Rye Hustings in Sussex. Good find PNP. Democracy at work but only in a Tory sense.
At a hustings in Rye. Clearly in a church, but I'm not sure which one, I'm afraid. Edit: It was St Mary’s Church.
I can't stand the Tories, but at least Cameron wasn't anywhere near this fond of censorship. May's got a very disturbing authoritarian streak and I can only see it getting worse.
In other words, the "Good Guys with Guns" argument - an argument that is worryingly reliant on the GGG aiming for the right person not just the person they believe looks more like a terrorist, let alone the idea that nobody could possibly get caught in the crossfire. The one tweet from the Oompa Loompa that pisses me off more than anything is him criticising Sadiq Khan for telling Londoners not to panic. So that jumped-up little prick is saying that Londoners should be running around screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" because it fits his agenda, an agenda he's had Nigel Farage and that failed gameshow contestant fly over to the US to parrot on Fox News in the past few months? Let's put it this way, I was on Pixlr drawing an diagram that shows in remarkable detail what he can do with that agenda, but Photobucket would probably close my account if I hosted it there...
****ing Farage was repeating it today on Fox: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-london-blighted-wholly-muslim-areas-defends/ Making false claims about wholly Muslim areas, while attacking the American judiciary, France and Belgium? The quicker the FBI pick the twat up the better, frankly.
"Broadcasting to the subjects of our Lord the King propaganda on behalf of the said enemies of our Lord the King.” That was the charge against Lord Haw-Haw. Just saying...
Given the likelihood of money being involved, perhaps Lord Whore-Whore's more appropriate? Having said that, it would probably be seen as a slight on prostitutes and they do honest work, so I wouldn't want to put them in the same bracket.
As long as Britain remains the lap dog of the U.S so far as foreign policy is concerned, we will be a target for terrorists. It's easy to dismiss terrorists as religious fanatics or as just plain "evil" (devils, witches etc), but the reality is that most will be politically motivated based on a grievance against Britain because of our foreign policy. Being defiant, standing together, laying flowers, having pop concerts won't discourage terrorism as long as Britain continues to support U.S foreign policy - particularly towards the Middle East. This is no different in essence to the I.R.A. They were dismissed out of hand as evil. Eventually, the government had to look at the motivation for the terrorism and address the issue. The present government will eventually have to face up to the consequences of bombing places like Iraq and Syria and consider whether the terrorism we get in response is a price worth paying. Many Western countries support the aims of NATO and many of the U.S 's objectives in aspects of their foreign policies without having to get involved militarily up their necks like Britain does.
It isn't helped that, when combating either the IRA or al-Qu'eda/ISIS the British approach has been the exact same: more bullets, more bombs - yet that approach has proven time and again to be the exact wrong approach to take, because every single time a drone strike hits a wedding or a school or anything else that isn't a terror cell that's the perfect recruitment tool, just like the idea that killing bin-Laden would end terrorism once and for all was hopelessly misguided. You cannot battle terrorism like you battle a standing army, because the two things are not the same: an army is limited by many criteria, be it the number of available recruits to the cost of arming, feeding and transporting every single soldier in the field - none of which can be said for terrorism, so the short game serves only to produce one martyr after another, while the long game simply cannot work because entering a war of attrition with terrorists is self-defeating.
It's the, I know best, syndrome I've seen it too often. Cameron is rather like Heath as near as you can get to a decent Tory.
And Major for that matter..... a decent man who was put in an unenviable position as PM but has always stuck to his soft-Right political beliefs. Compared to the current crop this guy could be regarded as a saint.
Ken Clarke's is probably the most decent one at the moment: voted against the Iraq war, regularly going against the hard lines of the Dire Leader (especially on Britait), voted on raising welfare benefits, has a good record of voting for equal rights - although he also voted against the hunting ban, so it's not like he's a saint. It's also worth mentioning that, since leaving politics following the 1997 election, Michael Portillo has certainly become a lot more even-handed, to the point that when he was a regular on the Daily Politics he came across as a long way to the left of the Blairites they had appearing (including the other regular on the show, a certain Dianne Abbot) - although, on the other hand, Bernard Ingham lives pretty close to me and he can best be described as a sociopathic NIMBY who sets out to ruin his neighbours' lives because he feels that he can, and having shared a station platform with him for about three minutes I can attest to what a hateful being he is.
Major was a decent man. Cameron, I'm not so sure. He could come across that way, but ultimately he and his cronies (Osborne, especially) have been shown to be typical career politicians - out to feather their own nests and those of their kind. But that was true of Blair too.
Not entirely true, Luke, I'm afraid. ISIS are religious fanatics, and regardless of the situation in the Middle East would still attack us. Granted they may have been born of our actions in that area, but it's gone far beyond that now. ISIS had/has a magazine called Dabiq - now Ramiyah. In one of the last issues of Dabiq they gave their reasons for what they do. And I quote... 1) 'We hate you first and foremost because you are disbelievers. You reject the oneness of Allah, whether you realise it or not. You blaspheme against him by claiming that he has a son. And you indulge in all manner of devilish practices' . 2) 'We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power'. 3) 'In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you because you disbelieve in the existence of our lord and creator' It's not until we get to reason six that any mention of 'invading our lands' is mentioned. Simple fact is that whatever the reasons, whatever brought about the existence of ISIS, they hate us because we don't believe as they do.
