Didn't mean anything aggressive (I enjoy Stroller's posts immensely). I just don't think how you dress automatically precludes the ability to integrate into society.
I didn't perceive it as an aggressive post, I just thought it was out of kilter with KooPeeArr's usual modus operandi, which is thought provoking and measured.
It doesn't preclude it, but it has to make it much more difficult, surely. Her point was absolutely correct, but her appearance (or not) was totally incongruous with what she said.
More difficult, yes. Statistically, if she's a lawyer then she won't come from a deprived background. That is, to me, as likely to distance her comments from the issue (and if she has come from an insular ghetto estate then her comments are valid whatever).
Ignore that part (with my apologies), I started writing, responded to Strolls instead and then realised my part reply to you had got caught up unedited and incomplete. We'll just call it heat of the moment posts (and people are rightly angry and fearful) and leave the worms in the can.
No apologies needed Matt me old mate. These are difficult times for all of us. How horrid that folk can't live and do what is a perceivable perfectly normal activity of going out and enjoying a drink or a meal and suffering this act of barbarity?
Agreed. The sooner the core of ISIS is obliterated the better. Hopefully that will fragment any attempts to brainwash and weaponise individuals. There'll be more hard times ahead and more hard work for the security and police services for a long time still I fear.
I think that's a great riposte but I'm not too sure what the long term game plan will be. Off to bed now as this has been a long and emotional day. This is truly horrible stuff and it's actually happening ... to what end? What have these three blokes actually accomplished?
Not a peep out of the shadow home secretary Ms Flabbott on the London Bridge attack. You would have thought she would have been front & centre of Labours responce.
I think (hope) they've realised she's a disaster that has cost them enough already and in the unlikely event Corbyn has to form a government she'll be moved aside quickly.
She probably should. Meanwhile, Corbyn opposes a shoot to kill policy if there is a terror attack on Britain's streets, & this bloke wants to be the PM. The pity is they didn't shoot the scum who murdered Lee Rigby, that was a failure for sure.
This is what Corbyn said yesterday...... Speaking as the brief pause in campaigning came to an end, Mr Corbyn said: "Our priority must be public safety and I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. "That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March."
Not what he said in this interview 6 months ago. Will the British public trust him ? I ****ing hope not. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34836582/jeremy-corbyn-opposes-shoot-to-kill-policy
Yes, the BBC Trust censured Laura Kuenssberg over her use of that quote to suggest that it was in response to a question about a terror attack. It was made in a different, more general context. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour I'm happy to go with what he said yesterday.
Totally disagree with the now defunct trust as did the BBC themselves. Straight question & no ambiguity in his answer. I guess people can look at the clip & make their own minds up. Corbyn is a long time appeaser of terrorists. I see no reason to believe he would be any different if he came to power.
