twit of the Week

Please enter your nomination for last week....

Corbyn and his shoot to not kill policy

3 this week. All of them in London on Saturday night.

So sad.

Corbyn

Diane "cannot bring herself to say the word terrorist" Abbott.

Abbott, they are terrorists, a cup of tea and a chat is never gonna change their minds..

And "principled" Corbyn can do one too. Fast becoming the most dangerous man in Britain.

It was he who appointed her Shadow Home Secretary..

Bob Mills (one for Fighting Talk fans).

Murderers are worst than twits.

Tim "won't answer the fu*king question" Farron

Quoted from Bigdog

Diane "cannot bring myself to say the word terrorist" Abbott.

Abbott, they are terrorists, a cup of tea and a chat is never gonna change their minds..

And "principled" Corbyn can do one too. Fast becoming the most dangerous man in Britain.

It was he who appointed her Shadow Home Secretary..

According to Abbott anybody calling her is a racist,

I think she is the biggest racist of the lot.

Trump

Theresa May.

Theresa May.

Responsible for the security services since 2010.

"Enough is enough"

Sadiq "don't be alarmed" Khan

Quoted from cmackenzie4

Tim "won't answer the fu*king question" Farron

To be fair Chris, non of the fukers will !!!

Corbyn

People who misquote politicians on social media.

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

Sadiq "don't be alarmed" Khan

Khan was quite right to say, "Don't be alarmed" about the extra armed police who would be seen on the streets following the Westminster attack.

Context is everything - check your sources, especially if you're listening to Donald Flipping Trump deliberately misquoting somebody he perceives as an enemy.

Fake fricking news.

tories, all of them

Quoted from Hagrid

tories, all of them

For what reason?

Quoted from Fat Cobra

For what reason?

Because they will say absolutely anything to win power and then do absolutely nothing to help the poorest in our society all the time filling the pockets of their wealthy mates (and themselves, of course).

The bigots on here and the media who try to make political capital out of Saturday's events for their own ends.

Piers Morgan for his slur on Ariana Grande  

CNN

May for getting rid of 20,000 cops.

Quoted from Maringer

Khan was quite right to say, "Don't be alarmed" about the extra armed police who would be seen on the streets following the Westminster attack.

Context is everything - check your sources, especially if you're listening to Donald Flipping Trump deliberately misquoting somebody he perceives as an enemy.

Fake fricking news.

Don't be alarmed Maringer  but I agree with you on this one.

Quoted from Maringer

Khan was quite right to say, "Don't be alarmed" about the extra armed police who would be seen on the streets following the Westminster attack.

Context is everything - check your sources, especially if you're listening to Donald Flipping Trump deliberately misquoting somebody he perceives as an enemy.

Fake fricking news.

What about the "terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city" quote? Was that fake fricking news?

Quoted from paramariner

May for getting rid of 20,000 cops.

Abbot.

For thinking she could get them back for £4.26.

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

What about the "terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city" quote? Was that fake fricking news?

Glad you agree your original post was quoting Khan out of context.

I think, in the current climate with these attacks occurring, you'd have to surely agree that terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city? Big cities are where all these attacks have taken place thus far because of the notoriety these terrorists are looking for.

You'd have to say, if any more of these sort of attacks do occur, I would hope it would be in big cities where there are plenty of armed police ready on call to respond to such events. What was it in this case - something like 8 minutes from the start until the terrorists were dead?

Imagine if such an incident had occurred on a Saturday night in a small or even medium-sized town. Where would the nearest armed response unit be then? It would just be the bobbies with their batons trying to stop things.

Let's hope the authorities manage to get enough intelligence to stop this type of attack as much as possible, but in the modern era it is incredibly easy to commit havoc with little expenditure or planning.

Not sure that Twit is a good strong enough word for those illegitimates

Quoted from Maringer

Glad you agree your original post was quoting Khan out of context.

I think, in the current climate with these attacks occurring, you'd have to surely agree that terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city? Big cities are where all these attacks have taken place thus far because of the notoriety these terrorists are looking for.

You'd have to say, if any more of these sort of attacks do occur, I would hope it would be in big cities where there are plenty of armed police ready on call to respond to such events. What was it in this case - something like 8 minutes from the start until the terrorists were dead?

Imagine if such an incident had occurred on a Saturday night in a small or even medium-sized town. Where would the nearest armed response unit be then? It would just be the bobbies with their batons trying to stop things.

Let's hope the authorities manage to get enough intelligence to stop this type of attack as much as possible, but in the modern era it is incredibly easy to commit havoc with little expenditure or planning.

I'm still voting Tory.

The SCUM news paper??

Not content with upsetting both all Mersey side clubs and getting banned they have to highlight this on their front page.

Arsenal fans are taking about a total ban as well. Fecking Murdoch is pure scum who knows no depth when it comes to gutter press.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/the.....terror-attack-128300

The teenage drivers of two cars in the car park at Anthony's Bank, who decided it would be a good idea to rev their engines and play their rap music at full blast, when I was having a bit of quiet time watching the ships go by.....twits!

Globalists

Anyone who goes out to kill innocent people in the name of religion.

The @rsehole that threw paint down the side of my car sometime last Wednesday night.

may for cutting Police numbers and refusing to answer any questions about Tory policy.

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

I'm still voting Tory.

Your choice, of course.

I'd imagine you go around in the mornings greeting your neighbours with a cheery "intercourse you" as well. Pretty much the same thing as voting Tory in Grimsby in my eyes.  

Terry Fenwick

Trump for his arseholery in his comments about Khan.

Special Relationship? With friends like him........

Quoted from Maringer

I think, in the current climate with these attacks occurring, you'd have to surely agree that terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city?

Usually it's only the city's with large Muslim populations, the more Muslims the more risk sad fact of reality.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Trump for his arseholery in his comments about Khan.

Special Relationship? With friends like him........

............and to think this goon as enough nuclear weapons at his disposal to destroy the world.

Quoted from Grim74

Usually it's only the city's with large Muslim populations, the more Muslims the more risk sad fact of reality.

So, every big city then? It's not more Muslims, more risk, it's more people more risk.

Big cities have big Muslim populations and big everyone populations.

Look, we know these terrorists are Islamist dickheads, there's really no need to search for some other sort of correlation about their targets. It's pretty simply busy places in major cities. Whether they live there or not isn't particularly relevant.

The 7/7 bombers were mostly from Leeds, I seem to recall.

Quoted from Maringer

So, every big city then? It's not more Muslims, more risk, it's more people more risk.

Big cities have big Muslim populations and big everyone populations.

Look, we know these terrorists are Islamist dickheads, there's really no need to search for some other sort of correlation about their targets. It's pretty simply busy places in major cities. Whether they live there or not isn't particularly relevant.

The 7/7 bombers were mostly from Leeds, I seem to recall.

It's not to do with numbers, it's to do with how those numbers integrate, or if they even want to integrate and be a part of the general population. There is more terrorism fermented in cities with identifiable Muslim areas because those areas encourage, feed, support and finance terrorists either directly or tacitly by not identifying them.

Diane Abbott, although to be fair she is the gift that keeps on giving from any anti Corbyn point of view.

As a member of the NHS there is no way I would vote for a party that will probably by the next election have destroyed it altogether. Hope you have some private health insurance marinerronnie.

They won't, and haven't seen any evidence that they will either.

Quoted from Maringer

Your choice, of course.

I'd imagine you go around in the mornings greeting your neighbours with a cheery "intercourse you" as well. Pretty much the same thing as voting Tory in Grimsby in my eyes.  

They're voting Tory as well, also I don't need somebody telling me who to vote for, your vote is your own, it should only affect you and your family, what I want and what you want are totally different, hence the difference of vote.

Quoted from Maringer

So, every big city then? It's not more Muslims, more risk, it's more people more risk.

Big cities have big Muslim populations and big everyone populations.

Look, we know these terrorists are Islamist dickheads, there's really no need to search for some other sort of correlation about their targets. It's pretty simply busy places in major cities. Whether they live there or not isn't particularly relevant.

The 7/7 bombers were mostly from Leeds, I seem to recall.

Tokyo, Budapest, Prague, Warsaw, etc etc etc
Big City's with low Muslim population which have no Islamic terror attacks.

Quite a spicy week.

Rupert Murdoch.

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

They won't, and haven't seen any evidence that they will either.

There is a list of aspects of the NHS that are already privatised doing the rounds. Google it if you are serious about wanting the truth.

How the hell TOTW becomes a political debate is beyond me.

If you want to discuss cities with a large Muslim population I'd be happy to inform the uninformed about my experiences.

The complete div that doused Clive the UKIP van man with bleach, assaulting a pensioner because he doesn't support the same political party.

Star of the week Clive the UKIP van man for being a big town fan.

Quoted from barralad

There is a list of aspects of the NHS that are already privatised doing the rounds. Google it if you are serious about wanting the truth.

To be fair Barra, privatising parts of the NHS has been done by all the main parties in power, somehow it's airbrushed out of history in some memories. Not sure whether it's right or not for the private sector to be involved, I don't know enough, but by trying to point privatisation in one direction colourwise is just inaccurate. On top of this.. anyone remember PFI that we're all still paying for?

Quoted from Bradford Mariner

How the hell TOTW becomes a political debate is beyond me.

If you want to discuss cities with a large Muslim population I'd be happy to inform the uninformed about my experiences.

I know all I need to to know about segregation white flight and riots.

Anyone who walks up to a bar or food counter and says
"Can I get..."
A big up to the barman in the Skegness boozer who replied.
"You stay there mate, it's my job, I really don't mind."

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

They're voting Tory as well, also I don't need somebody telling me who to vote for, your vote is your own, it should only affect you and your family, what I want and what you want are totally different, hence the difference of vote.

No problems with you voting however you please.

If you want to continue to transfer wealth from the poorest of society to the richest, that's entirely up to you. Same goes for your neighbours, of course.

Quoted from Maringer

No problems with you voting however you please.

If you want to continue to transfer wealth from the poorest of society to the richest, that's entirely up to you. Same goes for your neighbours, of course.

I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, I'm not saying they should pay less, but the richest 1% pay twice as much tax in hard cash as the poorest 50% in the country added together. They also pay three times more as a proportion under this Tory government than they did in James Callaghan's tax crazy Labour government in the 1970s. They also spend their cash on goods and services which provide jobs in retail and the services industry.

I'm not voting for any party on Thursday because I feel neither of the big two deserve my vote after this shambles of an election. What I do hate though is the politics of generational envy with statements that bear no resemblance to facts.

What's happened to aspiration in this country?

Quoted from Maringer

No problems with you voting however you please.

If you want to continue to transfer wealth from the poorest of society to the richest, that's entirely up to you. Same goes for your neighbours, of course.

So how is wealth transferred from the poorest to the richest?

Quoted from paramariner

As a member of the NHS there is no way I would vote for a party that will probably by the next election have destroyed it altogether. Hope you have some private health insurance marinerronnie.

Wasn't it Tony Blair and a Labour Government that introduced PFI thereby allowing the NHS to use private companies to provide services ?

Quoted from arryarryarry

So how is wealth transferred from the poorest to the richest?

Ask the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Quoted from cmackenzie4

Tim "won't answer the fu*king question" Farron

Does anyone really want to hear what the 'God bothering' twit has to say anyway???

It's Abbott again for me 👍👍

Quoted from Bigdog

I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, I'm not saying they should pay less, but the richest 1% pay twice as much tax in hard cash as the poorest 50% in the country added together. They also pay three times more as a proportion under this Tory government than they did in James Callaghan's tax crazy Labour government in the 1970s. They also spend their cash on goods and services which provide jobs in retail and the services industry.

I'm not voting for any party on Thursday because I feel neither of the big two deserve my vote after this shambles of an election. What I do hate though is the politics of generational envy with statements that bear no resemblance to facts.

What's happened to aspiration in this country?

Right, a few (maybe, a couple) posts coming from me responding to previous questions, so just skim past if you want to go after the TOTW bit.

Firstly, in reply to Bigdog, of course the top 1% pay a lot more tax. They take a much higher share of the nation's income so obviously their tax is going to be higher. The, "rich pay most of the tax" meme is a favourite of the right-wing media and 'think tanks', for instance, because they always seem to conveniently neglect to mention how much of the income these wealthy people receive. It's actually quite tricky to track down accurate figures about this, but here's a useful chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gLyV1hisR3c/U82T4dH6lQI/AAAAAAAAAq0/DbNaD4nBAJw/s1600/Onepercent.png

Only accurate up to 2012 (and things have got much worse since then thanks to [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank]QE[/url]), but the chart shows that the top 1% of UK earners have more than doubled their share of the nation's income since 1978. Hmmm. Wonder what happened soon after that date?  

In fact, the actual numbers are probably worse than this because the 1978 figure includes not just individuals but married couples as well. The 2012 figure is for individuals so the top 1% much more than doubled their share of income up to 2012 and will then have further increased it as QE has continued.

As an aside, an interesting study has just been published which looks at tax evasion in Scandinavian countries (which, of course, have much higher tax rates than us already), and this seems to show that the wealthiest attempt to evade a higher percentage of tax than those on lower incomes. Interesting, eh? Here's a good chart which shows this.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-31-at-10.50.58.png

Now, assuming the paper is accurate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rich in the UK definitely attempt to evade tax in the same way (evade which is illegal, not avoid which isn't), but let's face it, they probably do. How many reports do you hear about the wealthy and their shady offshore tax havens, for example? They can afford expensive accountants to come up with complex schemes to avoid paying their dues and so tend to do so.

I realise Bigdog isn't putting a view forward saying they don't pay enough or pay too much, but you have to remember that we're talking about the richest of the rich who have gone from being unfeasibly rich back in the 1970s to preposterously, almost unthinkably rich in the modern era. And much of it has come due to the property boom, not through clever inventions, manufacturing or anything creative which actually adds anything to society. Just being rich enough to own stuff in the 1970s and then continually cashing in ever since.

My view is that these incredibly wealthy people (top 5% or 10% in particular) have benefitted massively from changes in our society over the past 40 years and can easily afford to pay more back into it, so they should.

Quoted from Maringer

Right, a few (maybe, a couple) posts coming from me responding to previous questions, so just skim past if you want to go after the TOTW bit.

Firstly, in reply to Bigdog, of course the top 1% pay a lot more tax. They take a much higher share of the nation's income so obviously their tax is going to be higher. The, "rich pay most of the tax" meme is a favourite of the right-wing media and 'think tanks', for instance, because they always seem to conveniently neglect to mention how much of the income these wealthy people receive. It's actually quite tricky to track down accurate figures about this, but here's a useful chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gLyV1hisR3c/U82T4dH6lQI/AAAAAAAAAq0/DbNaD4nBAJw/s1600/Onepercent.png

Only accurate up to 2012 (and things have got much worse since then thanks to [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank]QE[/url]), but the chart shows that the top 1% of UK earners have more than doubled their share of the nation's income since 1978. Hmmm. Wonder what happened soon after that date?  

In fact, the actual numbers are probably worse than this because the 1978 figure includes not just individuals but married couples as well. The 2012 figure is for individuals so the top 1% much more than doubled their share of income up to 2012 and will then have further increased it as QE has continued.

As an aside, an interesting study has just been published which looks at tax evasion in Scandinavian countries (which, of course, have much higher tax rates than us already), and this seems to show that the wealthiest attempt to evade a higher percentage of tax than those on lower incomes. Interesting, eh? Here's a good chart which shows this.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-31-at-10.50.58.png

Now, assuming the paper is accurate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rich in the UK definitely attempt to evade tax in the same way (evade which is illegal, not avoid which isn't), but let's face it, they probably do. How many reports do you hear about the wealthy and their shady offshore tax havens, for example? They can afford expensive accountants to come up with complex schemes to avoid paying their dues and so tend to do so.

I realise Bigdog isn't putting a view forward saying they don't pay enough or pay too much, but you have to remember that we're talking about the richest of the rich who have gone from being unfeasibly rich back in the 1970s to preposterously, almost unthinkably rich in the modern era. And much of it has come due to the property boom, not through clever inventions, manufacturing or anything creative which actually adds anything to society. Just being rich enough to own stuff in the 1970s and then continually cashing in ever since.

My view is that these incredibly wealthy people (top 5% or 10% in particular) have benefitted massively from changes in our society over the past 40 years and can easily afford to pay more back into it, so they should.

Can't agree, a lot of rich people have worked hard to earn their money and be in the position they're in. It'd be an injustice to give their money to people that can't be arsed.

Quoted from TAGG

Does anyone really want to hear what the 'God bothering' twit has to say anyway???

It's Abbott again for me 👍👍

Sorry would like to change to the scum who robbed my neighbors house and stole his medals.
Any one with info please pass on to the coppers.
http://m.grimsbytelegraph.co.u.....20-detail/story.html

Quoted from arryarryarry

So how is wealth transferred from the poorest to the richest?

Government policy, of course.

Cut tax on higher earners, increase the income tax threshold, cut tax credits, cut benefits. Defund HMRC and let them come to cosy agreements with the wealthy/corporations caught trying to dodge tax. Fail to even investigate tax evasion by the wealthy when given all the information you need to do so ([url=http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/02/09/200000-people-were-prosecuted-for-not-having-a-tv-licence-last-year-but-hmrc-wont-prosecute-swiss-tax-cheats/]shocking![/url]).

What else? Who owns shares? The wealthy. When you cut Corporation Tax, it turns out that the companies don't invest more as they always claimed they would! Who'd have thunk it?

[img]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screenshot-256.png[/img]

Here's what the IFS thinks will happen to the income of the poor and the wealthy (and everyone else) if the Tories retain power:

[img]https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/bns/bn202_fig7.jpg[/img]

Here's what happened under the coalition where the very richest actually took a bit of a hit (don't worry, they can afford it!) but the very well off benefited whilst the poorest suffered:

[img]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cGBSsUPc8sc/VGsocH40chI/AAAAAAAAA3g/drM_D6bu2rA/s1600/distribution.jpg[/img]

Government policy shapes the way the economy operates. Pretty obvious who the Tories care about, isn't it?

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

Can't agree, a lot of rich people have worked hard to earn their money and be in the position they're in. It'd be an injustice to give their money to people that can't be arsed.

I think you'd be surprised how many rich people didn't do much to earn it, especially considering the housing boom over the past 40 years. If they'd all earned it (as most of them do in Germany, for example), we'd have loads of great, well-paid and productive jobs available in all sorts of industries. As it stands, we're becoming a rentier society with rent-seeking smothering innovation and industry long sent overseas.

I see you're a subscriber to the myth of the benefit scrounger. Although there certainly are a very small number of people who can't be bothered to work and live a relatively comfortable life on benefits, it is far from the norm. Useful information here:

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/exposing-benefit-%E2%80%98myths%E2%80%99

A few highlights if you can't be bothered to look at the link:

'There are generations of workless, work-shy families'
Among households with two or more generations of working age, there are only 0.3 per cent where neither generation has worked.

'Most claimants are sitting at home on benefits for years'
Fewer than half of jobseeker’s allowance claimants claim for more than 13 weeks, and fewer than 10 per cent for more than a year.

'We are spending vast amounts on huge families with hordes of children'
Families with more than five children account for just 1 per cent of out-of-work benefit claims. 91 per cent of benefit-claiming households have three or fewer children.

Quoted from rancido

Wasn't it Tony Blair and a Labour Government that introduced PFI thereby allowing the NHS to use private companies to provide services ?

PFI isn't anything to do with privitisation. It's off-book borrowing by government which provides a big return to investors. It's a bloody ridiculous idea when you consider how much more cheaply governments can borrow (borrowing is effectively a zero cost at the moment because the interest on gilts is so low). Major's government started it, New Labour continued it enthusiastically (the worst thing they did economically by far) and, despite all their criticism of it back in 2010, the Tories have continued to do it with gusto since then.

Edit: forgot to explain a bit more about PFI - a PFI hospital would be constructed by a private company/consortium and the NHS then lease it back, paying generous (often extortionate) terms to use it over a number of years. Needless to say, it ends up costing the government a hell of a lot more than just borrowing the money to build a hospital and then running it themselves.

I think privitisation of the odd bit of the NHS might have begun under New Labour but the Tories have continued onwards with great gusto. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that they are deliberately running it down so they can claim, "Oh look, private healthcare must be the only solution - let's sell it off". It's why they are massively underfunding the NHS.

About 4% of nhs money went to private care providers when Labour left office in 2010. It's at around 9% now and will continue to rise.

It will become the norm to see the nhs logo next to that of care UK or virgin health or primecare. Just sensible marketing to boost your brand with one that is already well established.

Paramariner is spot on. Whilst  there is some money to be made in parts of the health service(the blood plasma service was sold to an American venture capital group in 2013 for £230million and sold on for about 3 times that recently - to Russians I think) the real golden calf will be the introduction of additional health insurance. Want a better service? Pay a little extra. Simple innit. Sadly healthcare, one of the original 5 giants, will become just another market place. Few will really have any idea of how much the nhs provides until it's not there when they need it because their level of insurance doesn't cover them.

Bloody Hell did not realise I was on an Economics website giving a lecture on fiscal policy.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

It's not to do with numbers, it's to do with how those numbers integrate, or if they even want to integrate and be a part of the general population. There is more terrorism fermented in cities with identifiable Muslim areas because those areas encourage, feed, support and finance terrorists either directly or tacitly by not identifying them.

Not true.

A disproportionate percentage of Islamist terrorists in the UK have been converts (from white and black 'Christian' backgrounds) or 'born again' Muslims with a Muslim heritage but who have previously led 'westernised' lives.

I've changed my nomination.
It's anyone who doesn't realise TOTW is just for nominating TOTW's

Quoted from Bigdog

To be fair Barra, privatising parts of the NHS has been done by all the main parties in power, somehow it's airbrushed out of history in some memories. Not sure whether it's right or not for the private sector to be involved, I don't know enough, but by trying to point privatisation in one direction colourwise is just inaccurate. On top of this.. anyone remember PFI that we're all still paying for?

It happened under Blair/Brown but it won't under Corbyn/McDonnell.

Quoted from Grim74

Tokyo, Budapest, Prague, Warsaw, etc etc etc
Big City's with low Muslim population which have no Islamic terror attacks.

Also big cities in countries without a history of occupying, bombing and invading Muslim countries. Bar a few minor exceptions (Japan - Indonesia in 1942; Hungary/Poland v the Ottomans but that was to re-take Christian areas).

Quoted from Maringer

Government policy, of course.

Cut tax on higher earners, increase the income tax threshold, cut tax credits, cut benefits. Defund HMRC and let them come to cosy agreements with the wealthy/corporations caught trying to dodge tax. Fail to even investigate tax evasion by the wealthy when given all the information you need to do so ([url=http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/02/09/200000-people-were-prosecuted-for-not-having-a-tv-licence-last-year-but-hmrc-wont-prosecute-swiss-tax-cheats/]shocking![/url]).

What else? Who owns shares? The wealthy. When you cut Corporation Tax, it turns out that the companies don't invest more as they always claimed they would! Who'd have thunk it?

[img]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screenshot-256.png[/img]

Here's what the IFS thinks will happen to the income of the poor and the wealthy (and everyone else) if the Tories retain power:

[img]https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/bns/bn202_fig7.jpg[/img]

Here's what happened under the coalition where the very richest actually took a bit of a hit (don't worry, they can afford it!) but the very well off benefited whilst the poorest suffered:

[img]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cGBSsUPc8sc/VGsocH40chI/AAAAAAAAA3g/drM_D6bu2rA/s1600/distribution.jpg[/img]

Government policy shapes the way the economy operates. Pretty obvious who the Tories care about, isn't it?

Sterling work Maringer. Judging by the red crosses, people on here obviously don't like facts.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

It happened under Blair/Brown but it won't under Corbyn/McDonnell.

100% correct there Kingston.. it will never ever happen under Corbyn/McDonnell ..

My vote for TOTW goes to Khan and all the liberal elitists that like to have their vigils and minutes silences and be filmed and photographed as if they really care.

They quite clearly don't otherwise they would have done something about it by now. It is 12 years since the 7th of July bombings and people are still being murdered on the streets. FFS World War 2 only lasted 6 years.

May has now said enough is enough, far too late and Corbyn would prefer to talk so I bet he is really drunk the feds shot the excrement out of them, he probably wanted to invite them round for tea and ask "what's up lads".

They are all flipping twits.

Quoted from arryarryarry

My vote for TOTW goes to Khan and all the liberal elitists that like to have their vigils and minutes silences and be filmed and photographed as if they really care.

They quite clearly don't otherwise they would have done something about it by now. It is 12 years since the 7th of July bombings and people are still being murdered on the streets. FFS World War 2 only lasted 6 years.

May has now said enough is enough, far too late and Corbyn would prefer to talk so I bet he is really drunk the feds shot the excrement out of them, he probably wanted to invite them round for tea and ask "what's up lads".

They are all flipping twits.

One of the reasons why I will be voting Tory on Thursday.

Can you list them all?

Quoted from arryarryarry

My vote for TOTW goes to Khan and all the liberal elitists that like to have their vigils and minutes silences and be filmed and photographed as if they really care.

They quite clearly don't otherwise they would have done something about it by now. It is 12 years since the 7th of July bombings and people are still being murdered on the streets. FFS World War 2 only lasted 6 years.

May has now said enough is enough, far too late and Corbyn would prefer to talk so I bet he is really drunk the feds shot the excrement out of them, he probably wanted to invite them round for tea and ask "what's up lads".

They are all flipping twits.

It's getting tiresome but Corbyn fully supported the decision taken to neutralise the terrorists on Saturday night...

Quoted from LH

Can you list them all?

I don't dislike Corbyn as a person I just think he isn't going to get us the best Brexit deal, just my opinion.

For the record I have voted Labour many times in the past.

Quoted from promotion plaice

I don't dislike Corbyn as a person I just think he isn't going to get us the best Brexit deal, just my opinion.

For the record I have voted Labour many times in the past.

Surely nobody believes that either May or Corbyn are going to be directly involved in negotiations? Labour have barristers with over 20 years experience in Starmer and Thornberry. The Tories have Boris and David Davies...

Quoted from barralad

It's getting tiresome but Corbyn fully supported the decision taken to neutralise the terrorists on Saturday night...

Yup, after the event.
I'd like to know what he would have advised if it was ongoing and he had any say on the matter.

Go on then: what's a good deal?

Quoted from LH

Go on then: what's a good deal?

You tell me ?

Quoted from barralad

It's getting tiresome but Corbyn fully supported the decision taken to neutralise the terrorists on Saturday night...

He has regularly said he wouldn't support a shoot to kill policy.

Surely you aren't stupid enough to accept after all these years he has changed his mind and if he did support what happened it is purely because we are a couple of days before the election.

Quoted from barralad

Surely nobody believes that either May or Corbyn are going to be directly involved in negotiations? Labour have barristers with over 20 years experience in Starmer and Thornberry. The Tories have Boris and David Davies...

Thornberry? you're having a laugh. Over the past few weeks she has shown she hasn't got a clue just like that other dumbo, Abbot.

Quoted from arryarryarry

Thornberry? you're having a laugh. Over the past few weeks she has shown she hasn't got a clue just like that other dumbo, Abbot.

Well she's a qualified barrister who would be going into the most complex legal negotiations ever undertaken by any British government. On the other hand the Tories have Boris who before the Referendum wrote two letters one in favour of Leave and one for Remain and who despite having a considerable intellect (double first at Oxford) chooses to hurl childish insults at the people who will be round the table with him.

I don't think some people realise what a shoot to kill policy actually is. We don't have a shoot to kill policy now yet the police took down these terrorists in minutes at the weekend.

NOT HAVING AN OFFICIAL SHOOT TO KILL POLICY DOES NOT MEAN THAT POLICE AREN'T ALLOWED TO KILL TERRORISTS WHEN IT IS DECIDED THAT IS NECESSARY!

Thought I'd better 'shout' there to make the point.

The whole 'shoot to kill' claptrap controversy in this election is a nothing, made up story. The police are legally bound to use the minimum of force to carry out their duties. This is a good thing. Obviously, in a terrorist attack, the police may use lethal force if deemed necessary as they did at the weekend.

The police simply do not have a shoot to kill policy. In the US where the cops kill thousands each year they also don't have a shoot to kill policy.

Quoted from arryarryarry

He has regularly said he wouldn't support a shoot to kill policy.

Surely you aren't stupid enough to accept after all these years he has changed his mind and if he did support what happened it is purely because we are a couple of days before the election.

Oh dear you surely aren't stupid enough to think that u-turns are only the province of the leader of the opposition? Judging by her non-performance in this campaign May will be struggling to find her way to the Polling Station. Theresa May has had a long history of supporting the European Human Rights legislation. Yesterday she signalled a change in that view due to the changing world circumstances. If that is credible why would Corbyn's change of heart over a shoot to kill policy be any less so?

Quoted from barralad

Well she's a qualified barrister who would be going into the most complex legal negotiations ever undertaken by any British government. On the other hand the Tories have Boris who before the Referendum wrote two letters one in favour of Leave and one for Remain and who despite having a considerable intellect (double first at Oxford) chooses to hurl childish insults at the people who will be round the table with him.

In my view Barra nothing seems to be suggested by any party to actually solve ANYTHING. All they seem to do is find fault with other parties.Not everything is wrong that is suggested by different parties. All the parties are the same in refusing to accept suggestions by others. Surely some should bite the bullet and agree on common ground

Quoted from golfer

In my view Barra nothing seems to be suggested by any party to actually solve ANYTHING. All they seem to do is find fault with other parties.Not everything is wrong that is suggested by different parties. All the parties are the same in refusing to accept suggestions by others. Surely some should bite the bullet and agree on common ground

I'd support a cross party approach to Brexit negotiations but our electoral system doesn't really create the environment for it.

Quoted from promotion plaice

You tell me ?

I didn't vote for it!