I think a lot of the time people hide their anti-semitism behind an anti-Israel agenda. I've always found the anti-Israel/pro-Palestine bias in the media and, frankly, amongst the thick, quite mystifying.
when we had the London bus bombs I was working for a utilities company. Got to say their handling of the situation was first class. Made sure everyone got home safe by avoiding the Underground. A hotch potch of Nationalities that looked after each other on that tragic day
What an absolutely shocking story about the Muslim shop keeper Asad Shah, who posted a goodwill Easter message to all his Christian customers and was stabbed to death by an extremist Muslim nutter. Has there ever been a less tolerant religion than the Muslim faith?
It's a bit like football teams. All have a small, violent minority but some have a larger, more violent minority than others. Why doesn't this happen with 1% the regularity in any other faith in this country?
No, it's out there on its own for attracting a high percentage of repellent psychopaths. What's worrying is that some so called peace-loving Muslims tolerate the presence of these malicious psychopaths among the general Muslim community - as seen in Brussels. The Muslim leaders and their communities have to put their own house in order
I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have significant blood on its hands, against their own adherents as well as other religions/the secular. It goes in historical waves. While Christianity was locked in a rigid hierarchy where heretics were tortured and burned, Muslim scholars were translating and interpreting the great Greek classics which would have been lost without them. Decades were spent in Christian v Christian bloodshed during the reformation. The current stuff seems bad to us simply because it's happening now, in our lifetimes. It is an inbuilt part of all the monotheistic religions which hold that there will be a grand reckoning and only the chosen will be saved. What incentive does that give them to care about this life? There are Christians (obviously not all of them, but those who take Revelations seriously, a sure sign of mental illness) who are rubbing their hands with glee over the anarchy in the Middle East which they think is a sign of the approaching apocalypse and they can prepare for the rapture. Fortunately they are wrong, as all of us who are prepared to think for ourselves know.
Many of the fundamentalists in the USA and elsewhere. Ronald Reagan was a prominent believer. Of course all Christians who know what they have bought into believe in the second coming of Christ and the general resurrection of the dead. It's all in the Bible, which, just like the Koran, can be interpreted in multiple ways.
It's a bit tough on poor old Ronald to associate him with glorying in the anarchy in the Middle East and a possible apocalypse. If you sit them down, loosen the straps on their straight-jackets, I dare say there might be one or two White Supremacists that would fit your description, but they're hardly run of the mill.
Does the UK require the ability to manufacture steel within its borders? Why do some industries (financial services) deserve 'protection' while others don't? If the British steel industry was located between Clerkenwell and Canary Wharf, as opposed to Wales and the North, would it make a difference? Discuss.
From a purely practical stance, no. From a more holistic view, taking into account the impact of removing the industry from the communities, the need to make sure we have access to good quality, fairly priced steel, and for political reasons related to how the de-nationalisation was handled in the 70s and 80s, then probably yes, we do. My only thought is that some industries have become too intertwined with the entire economy (both national and personal) to be allowed to fail. Other industries do not have so many interdependencies, and as such by definition wouldn't receive so much protection. Not necessarily saying it's how it should be but I can't see any other reason. No - I sincerely don't think it would make any difference.
Certain banks were afforded time to gather themselves after a crisis, when the government stepped in. The same should be done for the Steel Industry imo - once that industry is gone, its gone. Government help cannot be open ended however. The EU is partly to blame for the crisis, by making illegal any serious tariffs that we can place on Chinese steel, to stop them dumping and undermining the market. The US for example has placed massive tariffs on imported steel to protect its own industry.
We would be the only permanent member of the UN who didn't produce their own steel. Not a good thing from an armed forces point of view.
We import a lot more steel from the EU than we do from China, despite the Chinese stuff being much cheaper. Not sure what this says about the UK industry, which is of course largely owned (until now) by foreigners anyway. So presumably 'free trade' agreements are not so important after all. We buy a lot more from than we sell to them, stick a few tariffs on and we might reduce the gap a bit. Only consumers will suffer.
British and European steel tends to be a better quality than Chinese steel, from what I have heard from news reports. I guess the balance between the two sources would depend on what we are using the steel for.
Would it not be cheaper to subsidize the steel than paying out dole money to all those out of work? (Although being in the EU they wouldn't allow that)
