twit of the Week

Quoted from Maringer

Wrong yet again, I'm afraid.

Thornberry didn't accept money from the firm in question. Not a penny. The monetary value quoted was for them donating work by legal assistants to help her do her job of Shadow Attorney General. This was in 2014, long before Leigh Day were reported to the tribunal:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.....legal-firm-1-4379576

How do you suggest she returns work carried out in years past by young solicitors? It looks as though legal firm did indeed carry out some dodgy dealings for which they got into trouble in 2016, but how was Thornberry to know about this back in 2014? Do you want our politicians to be psychic as well?

I realise that you believe everything you read in the Telegraph/Mail verbatim but do try to read between the lines sometimes.

Both Corbyn and Thornberry are against the use of anti-terror legislation to infringe on our rights such as detention without charge. That's fine by me. As I mentioned in the previous post, I think you should have something to charge somebody with if you've held them for 28 days (and I think you can apply to judges for further time if required?). Changing the law to 90 days and you're well on your way down the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

If you're happy for May to rid of the Human Rights Act, then good for you. It was brought in to bring us in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the brainchild of that notorious pinko Commie Winston Churchill.

As for Corbyn, you're still wrong. Back in 2015 he said a "shoot to kill policy" is quite dangerous and counter-productive, which it is.

The thing is, you're obviously still confused about what a shoot to kill policy actually is, even though I explained it earlier in this thread!

Bear in mind that the unarmed Brazilian De Menezes was killed by the police when we don't have a shoot to kill policy. Can you imagine how many mistakes could be made if an official STK policy was enacted?

I can imagine how harder it would be for the terrorists to wander around if they were full of lead. And that's what counts.
Bleeding liberals would rather have De Menzes alive but 5000 other innocents dead. Just so we didn't accidentally offend some hell bent foreigner from blowing up people indescriminantly. De Menzes was of course regretable. But if he ha done as the armed police asked he would still be alive today.

Quoted from supertown

If the Labour Party had a half decent leader and a shadow Secretary of State for health that wasn't a total embarrassment they would win this election due to the Tory inadequacies . But I'm afraid Corbyn and Abbott with make sure they are a distant loser. I'm not a Tory, I am very much an influenced voter and none of these parties or individuals will get me to the polls on Thursday . I'm out !

Poor Diane.

I've seen her described as shadow health secretary, shadow foreign secretary as well as the correct shadow home secretary. It's no wonder she's buckling under the weight of three portfolios.

Quoted from Civvy at last

I can imagine how harder it would be for the terrorists to wander around if they were full of lead. And that's what counts.
Bleeding liberals would rather have De Menzes alive but 5000 other innocents dead. Just so we didn't accidentally offend some hell bent foreigner from blowing up people indescriminantly. De Menzes was of course regretable. But if he ha done as the armed police asked he would still be alive today.

Look, we don't have a shoot to kill policy and, as Saturday night's incident showed, we don't need a shoot to kill policy. A shoot to kill policy means that no attempt at all is made to arrest the suspect, regardless of whether arrest is possible or not. We have never had such a policy and I hope we never do. It is especially counter-productive when you are trying to gain evidence to halt other attacks.

This doesn't mean you can't shoot a suspect if it is judged necessary, as it was at the weekend!

I simply can't believe the fact that Jeremy Corbyn agrees with the accepted and legal tactics and policies of the police has somehow been spun as a criticism of him! It is utterly nonsensical - literally, nonsensical in fact. It just doesn't make sense. How dare Corbyn not like the idea of a policy which we don't operate, is illegal under current law and which absolutely nobody has promoted as necessary!

As regards De Menezes, I don't think what you think happened there is actually what happened. The initial reports ('leaked' to the media) were that he ran away from the police into the underground station when challenged, resisting arrest. This was later proven to be completely and wholly untrue - it was completely made up.

The wikipedia page gives a rundown of what actually occurred after he walked into the station and caught a train completely unaware he was being followed by undercover policemen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The IPCC Commissioners report into the event said of De Menezes, "There is no action he could have consciously taken that would have saved him".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559318/Menezes-could-not-have-saved-his-life.html

This whole tragedy shows what would happen more frequently if an official shoot to kill policy was actually enacted. Highly-trained policemen who were on edge after the failed bombings completely lost their nerve and murdered a completely innocent civilian in a tube station because they panicked and forgot their training. He was shot in the head 6 or 7 times as he was pinned to the ground and helpless.

They didn't prosecute any of the shooters, which is understandable given the situation, but the Met was found criminally negligent for their behaviour.

Unfortunately, tragedies like this will occur from time to time. Let's try to keep them to a minimum.

We could also bring this whole election thing closer to home - Grimsby. Melanie Onn was chosen by the local Labour Party from an only female list - surely discrimination? She voted to remain in Europe and took part in a no-confidence vote against Corbyn remaining as Labour Leader. She now wants to continue representing a constituency that voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit, with a leader she had no confidence in!!You couldn't make it up!! And posters on here accuse May of u-turns. I  voted Labour all my life ( I'm 69 years old) but stopped when Blair came on the scene. Voters accuse Tories of only looking after the rich and their own kind but Blair was out for himself and in my eyes damaged the Labour Movement. Corbyn is a dreamer, a very clever man and good orator, but still a dreamer .

A quick glimpse at the Scandinavian countries shows everything in the manifesto is achievable. The really wealthy will obviously lose out a bit and end up being just seriously rich, but everyone else will benefit. Just don't see what's to dislike about that.

Never met Onn but I hear she's a decent constituency MP (as, apparently, is Vickers) though she's definitely a New Labourite and was associated with Cooper, so I understand. At least she's a local so cares about the area (same goes for Vickers). Apparently Vickers knocked on our door while I was still out at work. Such a pity I wasn't home so I could ask him a few awkward, unanswerable (for a Tory) questions.

I'd have loved to hear his comments about the Magic Money Tree and see if he actually understood what money is or not.

Quoted from Maringer

Wrong yet again, I'm afraid.

Thornberry didn't accept money from the firm in question. Not a penny. The monetary value quoted was for them donating work by legal assistants to help her do her job of Shadow Attorney General. This was in 2014, long before Leigh Day were reported to the tribunal:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.....legal-firm-1-4379576

How do you suggest she returns work carried out in years past by young solicitors? It looks as though legal firm did indeed carry out some dodgy dealings for which they got into trouble in 2016, but how was Thornberry to know about this back in 2014? Do you want our politicians to be psychic as well?

I realise that you believe everything you read in the Telegraph/Mail verbatim but do try to read between the lines sometimes.

Both Corbyn and Thornberry are against the use of anti-terror legislation to infringe on our rights such as detention without charge. That's fine by me. As I mentioned in the previous post, I think you should have something to charge somebody with if you've held them for 28 days (and I think you can apply to judges for further time if required?). Changing the law to 90 days and you're well on your way down the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

If you're happy for May to rid of the Human Rights Act, then good for you. It was brought in to bring us in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the brainchild of that notorious pinko Commie Winston Churchill.

As for Corbyn, you're still wrong. Back in 2015 he said a "shoot to kill policy" is quite dangerous and counter-productive, which it is.

The thing is, you're obviously still confused about what a shoot to kill policy actually is, even though I explained it earlier in this thread!

Bear in mind that the unarmed Brazilian De Menezes was killed by the police when we don't have a shoot to kill policy. Can you imagine how many mistakes could be made if an official STK policy was enacted?

Yes she did accept money - https://order-order.com/2016/01/18/thornberry-declared-another-leigh-day-donation-in-kind-last-week/
You have the cheek to post links to the Guardian (not long now before it's out of business🎉) at every opportunity, but feel the need to criticise any newspaper with alternative views!  and then to top it off you send me a link to the flipping Islington post with their pin up up girl in denial!! I don't think there will be many locals in that metropolitan elite bubble wanting to challenge her spin, but then it's the only place in the Country she has a connection with people. This is now her legacy - https://www.theguardian.com/po.....abour-shadow-cabinet

Try using logic from time to time Maringer anti terror legislation is never ever going to infringe on our rights unless we all decide to become terrorist overnight, we know the whereabouts of trained Jiahadi fighters who have returned from Syria, let's get doors kicked in and get these of our street right now, they are a danger to us let's keep them detained until they have deradicallised or deported..... have you seriously got a problem with this?

Ha ha! You're absolutely comical, sometimes, Grim.

Read what you linked: "Donation in kind"

Yes, that's right, it was exactly the same as the first one - the company provided her with assistants to help her with her work which was valued as a £4,800 donation in kind when the regulator was notified.

So now, you surely accept that she didn't accept any cash donations - your link shows this is the case. Just a simple yes or no will do, ta.

If you're happy for our civil liberties to be removed, then good for you. I'm not. If you think there isn't something risky about this, then consider that the police have misused anti-terror legislation for years already. Here's what your mates at the Mail think about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....s-phone-records.html

Admittedly, the Mail journalists probably have a lot to hide, but you must surely agree with their viewpoint that this is wrong. History has shown that you create laws and they are often misused and this is why it is important we protect our civil liberties, especially when the Prime Minister has just started shouting that she will tear up the Human Rights Act!

Quoted from Hagrid

cant stand them, may's the worst of the lot, whats she going to do for my future?

You'd have no future with labour either Hagrid.

Quoted from Maringer

Ha ha! You're absolutely comical, sometimes, Grim.

Read what you linked: "Donation in kind"

Yes, that's right, it was exactly the same as the first one - the company provided her with assistants to help her with her work which was valued as a £4,800 donation in kind when the regulator was notified.

So now, you surely accept that she didn't accept any cash donations - your link shows this is the case. Just a simple yes or no will do, ta.

If you're happy for our civil liberties to be removed, then good for you. I'm not. If you think there isn't something risky about this, then consider that the police have misused anti-terror legislation for years already. Here's what your mates at the Mail think about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....s-phone-records.html

Admittedly, the Mail journalists probably have a lot to hide, but you must surely agree with their viewpoint that this is wrong. History has shown that you create laws and they are often misused and this is why it is important we protect our civil liberties, especially when the Prime Minister has just started shouting that she will tear up the Human Rights Act!

Calm down old boy stop getting ahead of yourself.... where did I say cash donation??? The whole point of the article was a follow up to my previous comments on her being a fat greedy anti - English out of touch pig, the article shows the hypocrisy from yet another metropolitan elite who's sees fit to take a donation from her immoral, thieving ambulance/tank chasing lawyer chums.

Quoted from Maringer

Look, we don't have a shoot to kill policy and, as Saturday night's incident showed, we don't need a shoot to kill policy. A shoot to kill policy means that no attempt at all is made to arrest the suspect, regardless of whether arrest is possible or not. We have never had such a policy and I hope we never do. It is especially counter-productive when you are trying to gain evidence to halt other attacks.

This doesn't mean you can't shoot a suspect if it is judged necessary, as it was at the weekend!

I simply can't believe the fact that Jeremy Corbyn agrees with the accepted and legal tactics and policies of the police has somehow been spun as a criticism of him! It is utterly nonsensical - literally, nonsensical in fact. It just doesn't make sense. How dare Corbyn not like the idea of a policy which we don't operate, is illegal under current law and which absolutely nobody has promoted as necessary!

As regards De Menezes, I don't think what you think happened there is actually what happened. The initial reports ('leaked' to the media) were that he ran away from the police into the underground station when challenged, resisting arrest. This was later proven to be completely and wholly untrue - it was completely made up.

The wikipedia page gives a rundown of what actually occurred after he walked into the station and caught a train completely unaware he was being followed by undercover policemen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The IPCC Commissioners report into the event said of De Menezes, "There is no action he could have consciously taken that would have saved him".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559318/Menezes-could-not-have-saved-his-life.html

This whole tragedy shows what would happen more frequently if an official shoot to kill policy was actually enacted. Highly-trained policemen who were on edge after the failed bombings completely lost their nerve and murdered a completely innocent civilian in a tube station because they panicked and forgot their training. He was shot in the head 6 or 7 times as he was pinned to the ground and helpless.

They didn't prosecute any of the shooters, which is understandable given the situation, but the Met was found criminally negligent for their behaviour.

Unfortunately, tragedies like this will occur from time to time. Let's try to keep them to a minimum.

Unsurprisingly your opening line is 100% incorrect.  We do have a shoot to kill policy, the Police and armed forces are trained to aim for the largest body mass which happens to be the centre of the chest.  No attempt is ever made to either 'wing' the target, neither are shots fired without issuing a clear warning.

However, if your post (and many other posts spouting the same blind allegiance) is in any way referencing a scatter gun approach, then I think you'll find that Labour have already adopted that policy.  How to win voters Labour style.... I know, let's give the pensioners more..... I know, let's pay the nurses more.... I know, let's have another 20,000 police.... I know, let's abolish university fee's.... and so on.  No clear plans on how to finance the dream sheet, not properly considered.  Just to add some balance you have the wonderful Conservative party, adding wealth to the rich while supporting the welfare state, albeit on a more realistic scale.  The reality is that the opposite ends of the scale are pandered to by the two leading UK political party's, meanwhile the ones who foot the bill are those in the 50 to 100k bracket.  I worked hard all my life to get into that bracket, I wasn't anticipating having to pay more than my fair share to subsidise those who contribute less, nor those who don't need my help.  I'd like to see a party that stands up for the rights of people in my bracket, oh pray doyen of all things political, who might that be?