Active Now

Danilo_G
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Isn't Jeremy Corbyn denying being a pacifist like Dolly Parton denying having large breasts?

Isn't Jeremy Corbyn denying being a pacifist like Dolly Parton denying having large breasts?

He did deny this, and I just don't believe it.

Posted - May 19, 2017

Responses


  • 6477
    Ha ha great question :P I happen to be a huge Dolly fan and have been since I was 8 :)  But yes she is not lacking when it comes to boobs.. and pretty much that's the same with Corbyn :P Yes, he is a pacifist.. no idea why he would try to deny it
      May 19, 2017 11:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 739
    Because someone advised him that, in order to be Prime Minister, he needs to look like he could take the tough decision to lead the country into war, if need be. Which is, to reference the expression Barack Obama once used, trying to put lipstick on a pig. Considering the way I phrased it, everyone else seems to have taken this question awfully seriously.
      May 22, 2017 7:36 AM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    Well we smiled as we were typing our answers :P
      May 22, 2017 7:40 AM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    The reason the left give mixed messages on these kind of issues is because they are obsessed with virtue signalling. They're the most vicious ****s imaginable, but they'll always try to appear sweet.

    Double think comes very naturally to them. They don't really believe in anything. They just care about how they are perceived. They have a need to be seen as virtuous by others. So they often get drawn into putting out mixed messages in an effort to be morally acceptable to everyone.

    Leftists are very greedy, slothful, envious people. It's pure sin from start to finish. They absolutely depend on convincing people they have the moral authority to control other people's lives. They can't admit what they really are. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 19, 2017 5:16 PM MDT
      May 19, 2017 12:29 PM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    Ditto the far right :P
      May 19, 2017 12:53 PM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    Firstly the term "far right", in the sense of something extreme, doesn't really exist. Fascism is actually a species of socialism. There is nothing right wing about it. "Far right" doesn't really mean anything. It refers to a diverse range of different philosophies and is really an intellectually dishonest term.

    People like Ayn Rand could be called far right in the sense of extreme individualism. I think she was wrong in many of her ideas. Though I don't find her morally objectionable, just wrong. She was a product of the intense abuse she suffered at the hands of socialists and took individualism a little bit too far.

    Politics and morality will always be intertwined. People will always argue about where the moral high ground is. Naturally, both sides believe they have the moral high ground. 

    The difference is that the left needs to win the moral argument and the right doesn't. I'm fine with people being communists so long as they form their own commune and don't try to pull me in. I don't need to convert them to my ideas, just persuade them (or force them) to leave me alone.

    Leftism requires unity to function. Liberty doesn't. To the right, victory is just winning elections. For the left, victory requires 100% to be true believers or it just falls apart. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 19, 2017 7:12 PM MDT
      May 19, 2017 1:53 PM MDT
    1

  • 739
    I agree with every word of that, Zeitgeist, except that I am not familiar with Ayn Rand. I have heard of her, but never read her to date.
      May 22, 2017 6:56 AM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Well see if you say that the far right, (and that would include any mention  of right) is a diverse term and we cannot assume they have the same idealisms... then you have to accept that the same applies to these lefts that you rave on about..  my point is.. that anything and everything you apply to the lefts can be applied to the rights... I don't much care either way, and you should know enough to know I am not a lefty... but this is just logic.. you cannot one the one hand speak about Lefts, and lefties and Leftism in a derogatory way, without accepting that the same applies to the *right* factions.. 

    Oh and just as a further matter of pedantic-ism you might like to know that in actual fact the extreme rights DO very much care if they have the moral high ground and they DO need to win.. They tend to get very peeved about it all and at the drop of a hat resort to insults and swearing.. oh and they frequently claim God is on their side.. lol calling in the big cards :P  It would also be true to say that living by the extreme right doctrine DOES require utter obedience and conformity.. that's part of their thing it's quite a restrictive way of life...

    I suspect that what you are saying is that YOUR form of right wing isn't that way.. but out there things are quite hairy.. 
      May 22, 2017 7:52 AM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Well see if you say that the far right, (and that would include any mention  of right) is a diverse term and we cannot assume they have the same idealisms... then you have to accept that the same applies to these lefts that you rave on about..  my point is.. that anything and everything you apply to the lefts can be applied to the rights... I don't much care either way, and you should know enough to know I am not a lefty... but this is just logic.. you cannot one the one hand speak about Lefts, and lefties and Leftism in a derogatory way, without accepting that the same applies to the *right* factions.. 

    Oh and just as a further matter of pedantic-ism you might like to know that in actual fact the extreme rights DO very much care if they have the moral high ground and they DO need to win.. They tend to get very peeved about it all and at the drop of a hat resort to insults and swearing.. oh and they frequently claim God is on their side.. lol calling in the big cards :P  It would also be true to say that living by the extreme right doctrine DOES require utter obedience and conformity.. that's part of their thing it's quite a restrictive way of life...

    I suspect that what you are saying is that YOUR form of right wing isn't that way.. but out there things are quite hairy.. 
      May 22, 2017 7:52 AM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    I find nothing logical in your first paragraph. Real life is not like mathematics. Left and right are not perfect mirror image opposites of each other.

    The right is about individualism (i.e. everyone going their own way) and the left is about collectivism (i.e. society going one way united). It should be obvious that greater diversity is possible among individualists. Individualists can coexist. Collectivists will always be in conflict until one group reaches total victory over all others.

    A right winger can say to another political philosophy (whether right or left) "Ok let's agree to disagree. You go your way and I'll go mine". The left NEVER accept that deal because the relationship between the left and the right is like the relationship between a parasite and its host. Too much leftism kills the host and then the parasite dies too. 

    The right wing does aggressively push its opinions because we have to fight back against the left's aggression. I would quite happily allow the left to go their own way if they would let me go my way. They won't, so we are in conflict.

    The left will only ever offer compromise, not the freedom to go one's own way. They never really compromise about their objectives they just accept they're going to have to wait a while. It's an insidious creep.

    The need of the right to spread its ideas is defensive. The need of the left to spread its ideas is aggressive. Yes I spread my ideas, but only to win elections. I don't have an emotional need for others to agree. I only have an emotional need for freedom (which depends on a majority agreeing with me.)

    Yes, the right is deeply angry because we can see there is no future. An economic and societal collapse is more or less inevitable at this point barring a political miracle. That's a very depressing realization to come to, so we act out a bit sometimes. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 22, 2017 12:52 PM MDT
      May 22, 2017 12:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Quote, 'I find nothing logical in your first paragraph' - well doesn't that just say it all.. emphasises exactly what I was saying.. the rights really cannot see when they spout nonsense that's of equal nutso value as the lefts... they think they are right..blah blah..  That you cannot see it is par for the course.

    I highlight just one comment from many many many many you have said over the past and here now.. you say, 'the need of the right to spread it's ideas is defensive...' I ask you hand on heart.. you really DON'T see that that's exactly what the right extremists do too????? really?? I think you need to look a little harder my friend cos I have to say, as a member of neither extremist camp.. I have certainly seen and know of many, many examples of the right doing just that! I suspect your denial has more to do with the fact that as you agree with the right camp you don't see... 

    Anyway.. late here and bored now.. this is one of those truly pointless discussions where you will deny and deny because you are, by your own admission biased on this one... but I willl leave you with a few links that show right wing people DO want and believe they have the moral high ground, they DO seek to influence others and bring them to their side... they do NOT believe in the right for everyone to go their own way.. there's a doctrine and it's limiting.. sorry you can't see it but then this is perhaps largely due to your being overly influenced by certain elements of American perspectives

    http://www.nationinstitute.org/featuredwork/books/1665/big_lies%3A_the_right-wing_propaganda_machine_and_how_it_distorts_the_truth/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/unbalanced-the-propaganda-of-rightwing-media_us_57b65402e4b029a9a4652ab1


      May 22, 2017 4:07 PM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    Everything you've said is fallacious.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/59/Argument-to-Moderation

    I'm not biased. Bias is when a person claims neutrality but isn't neutral. I openly admit I have right wing views, so I'm not biased. I just have an opinion.

    On the contrary, it is you that is falsely claiming neutrality. Neutrality doesn't exist. There are just different philosophies that are in conflict. So called centrism is simply the belief that compromise works when all the evidence is that it doesn't. Under centrism debt still accumulates, just as it does under socialism. Society will still collapse, it will just take longer.

    There are extremists who get called "right wing". Whether they truly should be called right wing is debatable. Nazi refers to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National-SOCIALIST German Workers' Party)

    There are also so called mainline right wingers (like the average British conservative or American republican) who are really just conservative in name only. The left has massively infiltrated these groups. So what they do doesn't reflect on what real right wingers are.

    You're entitled to your opinions, but they are just your opinions. Politics is not logical. It's subjective. It's controversial. It's emotional. It's about how we wish to live. There is not a single person in the world who truly has a logical basis for their political views. It's just what their heart wants.




    This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 23, 2017 12:34 PM MDT
      May 23, 2017 12:20 PM MDT
    0

  • 739
    See my answer to Daydream.
      May 22, 2017 7:37 AM MDT
    0

  • 124
    Jeremy Corbyn isn't a pacifist he is part of the Fabian Society (so was Obama), which is linked with the Bilderbergers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQ0fzABh5Y

    Conservatives are the now blue labour and all political parties goals are the same, Marxist socialism.  This is why you see individualism being phrased out. Why our country has been flooded with immigration, and why patriotism is frowned upon and been given a bad name.  This is why Christianity is becoming more of a joke than a religion as atheism takes over, why Islam is linked to terrorism as it is a harder idea to dissolve.  Why children are being taught they can choose their gender, and why homosexuality is being taught to children four years and up. This is why the word race is out of fashion and so is being proud, the only people who can be proud are gay people.
    You can no longer call someone fat, black coffee is now coffee without milk, blackboard is chalkboard, when black is just a colour and in of itself non offensive, the list goes on.  

    There main weapon Political Correctness. So what is political correctness, how did it start and how did it become so successful? Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free  speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by  the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural  Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness. 




    For example, if you  question  whether unfettered immigration into this country is necessarily a good thing or perhaps whether immigrants should be health checked, then you must be a nasty bigoted 'Little Englander'. Come on everyone - shout him down with cries of 'racist'. Of course, only the hard of thinking could be drawn into this charade - anyone with an ounce of common sense can see right through it.

    So how did it all start? Political Correctness  started in a  think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923.  The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

    I'll leave this link, I don't agree with all the comments, but it certainly is an eye opener to what our country has become.

    http://politicallyincorrect.me.uk/

    George Carlin covered this too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

    It's really comical that Corbyn blasted Boris as a "wolf in sheeps clothing," when that is the badge of the Fabian Society.  They must all be having a jolly good laugh with these inside jokes. This post was edited by Pepper Pot at May 19, 2017 11:22 PM MDT
      May 19, 2017 7:04 PM MDT
    1

  • 1233
    Bill Whittle has given some great talks on cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n8wQceQq_Y
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fo5jLdJlgI
     
    We have absolutely no future if people don't see those wolves in sheep's clothing for what they are.
      May 19, 2017 11:52 PM MDT
    1

  • 124
    Absolutely, but In The Land Of The Blind The One Eyed Man Is King.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgyDjl2nCU


    This post was edited by Pepper Pot at May 20, 2017 6:48 AM MDT
      May 20, 2017 6:33 AM MDT
    0

  • 739
    Alas, I disagree with pretty much every word of that, Pepper. Whether Corbyn is in the Fabian Society or not, he has never even faintly hinted at supporting any sort of military intervention. Labour are the only party in this country that want any sort of socialism/communism, and the public will not vote for it. The Americans have no idea what socialism is. They think Obamacare is a socialist policy, and it is private insurance based! Incidentally, do you know the Morning Star, which used to consider itself to be the organ of the Communist Party, now calls itself the organ of the Labour Party? Which considering that no-one reads it, does not concern me in the slightest.
    I do not insult people of different racial groups, or gay people, and it has nothing to do with political correctness. It is just common, human decency. Political Correctness, in my opinion, obsesses about the names given to things, in the manner you describe, but does nothing to help such groups.
    Islam has become linked to terrorism because they are afraid of social progress, especially as represented by the Western world, and like an animal backed into a corner, they come out fighting.
    Why shouldn't young children be taught about homosexuality? They might grow up to be gay! They are only teaching them it exists, not encouraging them to start practicing it. Come on, Pepper!
    People can choose their gender, and gender dysphoria is a very real medical condition, and yes, people who have it are aware of it in childhood. You clearly don't understand it.
    As someone who grew up in the North of England, where you hardly ever see anyone of a different ethnic group or nationality, and now lives in Cambridgeshire, where you get people from all over, I see those who object to immigration as Little England/Britainers. The fact is, you need immigrants to do the jobs that the people who have lived here all their lives won't do, then, after a few generations, their descendants become the people who have lived here all their lives, won't do the jobs, and you need a fresh wave of immigrants to do those jobs. That is just common-sense, free-market economics.
      May 22, 2017 7:29 AM MDT
    1

  • 124

    Well, as always HarryDemon it is your prerogative to disagree, but the Fabain Society has an agenda, both Jeremy Corbyn and Obama are members and the goal isn't pretty.  Their, slogan is that of a tortoise that says when they hit they hit hard, so they've been in it for the long game. You have actually agreed with me though Harry at least on Political correctness, as manners and the PC Brigade are very different, one is simple politeness the other is a war on freedom of speech. 
    I will never agree to four years olds learning about homosexuality, four years olds haven't even developed hormones so why the need to teach them about homosexuality?  I'd rather my four year old have fun and learn basic dexterity skills, vocabulary and social interaction with other four year olds. My brother pushed a pram with a dolly in, he didn't grow up gay, my friend played with dollies and she grew up a lesbian, all this is not needed in a four year olds brain, leave them be.
    I do enjoy it when people say you need the immigrants to do the jobs that people here won't do, when contrary to fact there are people who will do those jobs but are losing them to immigrants.  I always like the other argument of our people not wanting to work for those wages either, that's like advocating slave labour as a good thing, instead of seeking for a raise in wages for those doing domestic or farming labour.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gHLfMXb0Yg
    Note the woman shouting hysterically at this man, doesn't know the difference between Europe and the EU.

    Also, when did it become unfashionable to love your country, all the freedoms your grandfathers fought and gave their lives for, and your own culture and way of life. It appears all other countries can be proud of their heritage and culture except Britains and especially the English, must be that PC brigade again. I have a very good friend and all round decent guy who is Polish. He has lived and worked in this country for 15 years, and he voted for Brexit, why? Because he watches immigrants, including Polish immigrants come to this country and claim benefits at the same amount he works his ass off for each month and he knows that this is wrong.  Without a cap on immigration and freedom of movement, Britain cannot realistically sustain that kind of influx, and because of our benefit and housing system people will seek their way here.  It takes me three weeks to get an appointment with my GP due to the influx in immigration and not an increase in services, our local hospital is tiny and we already have to wait months for an appointment. Kent has seen a massive influx of immigration, there are homeless people sleeping in Sainsburys car park and the local park, many have turned to alcohol and spend the day drinking in the park. This is also seen in London with some immigrants turning to cooking rats and eating them.   I saw this same immigration a few years back in Rome, when homeless people were sleeping on the roundabouts.  This isn't fair on immigrants, refugees or our country. Common sense would deem that if people like our system then they should create it in their own countries instead of trying to fit everybody on this tiny island.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/12/homeless-poles-rough-sleepers

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453586/Immigrants-sleep-rough-with-babies-on-Park-Lane-in-near-freezing-temperatures

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138713/Homeless-migrants-sleep-huddled-steps-one-London-s-prestigious-address-just-metres-grounds-Buckingham-Palace.html
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442169/Flood-of-immigrants-make-township-ghettos-out-of-Britain-s-seasides

    The only thing Jeremy Corbyn and any politician has in common with Dolly Parton is that they are as fake as Dolly Partons breasts.


    This post was edited by Pepper Pot at May 24, 2017 5:28 PM MDT
      May 24, 2017 4:30 PM MDT
    0

  • 739
    Playing with dollies has nothing to do with homosexuality. I am not sure if children as young as four ARE taught about homosexuality, but I don't see anything wrong with making children aware of it from an early age. I had my first sex education lessons in school when I was eight, and it was all about having babies. Homosexuality was never discussed, except in the sniggering of the school playground. Isn't it better to have it discussed in a sensible manner than that?
    Immigrants ARE needed to do jobs that workers here, or in any other country, won't do.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/10/cbi-need-immigrants-uk-young-britons-wont-move-get-jobs/
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/701860/Back-breaking-hell-paid-peanuts-why-Brits-won-t-slave-on-farms-swamped-by-EU-migrants
    https://openborders.info/immigrants-do-jobs-natives-wont-do/
    I am proud of my country. We are the model for Parliamentary democracy and criminal justice throughout the world, and however badly served we are by our politicians, we are a country where an idiot like Donald Trump could never take power, or get on a candidate list. You linked the socialist Fabian Society to the Bilderberg Group, who are proponents of the free-market system, which is, frankly, illogical. You are seeing conspiracies seemingly because you cannot accept that people have democratically voted for policies you do not like. I keep reiterating this point on various pages of this website, but most countries, including ours, are mixed economies, with some free-market elements, and some state-owned ones. The proportional representation systems in use in many countries make it impossible for any one party to completely push its agenda. I am not a fan of PR, as it often leads to governments too weak to get anything done, but that is a separate argument.
      May 26, 2017 9:32 AM MDT
    0

  • 124

    From NHS website -"The first signs of gender dysphoria can appear at a very young age. For example, a child may refuse to wear typical boys' or girls' clothes, or dislike taking part in typical boys' or girls' games and activities.

    In most cases, this type of behaviour is just part of growing up and will pass in time, but for those with gender dysphoria it continues through childhood and into adulthood."

    Hence there is no need to talk about homosexuality when a child is four, they haven't even developed their hormones, just because a boy prefers a girls toys or dress, or a girl prefers a boys doesn't mean they want to be that gender, even research says this, and this has NOTHING to do with teaching four year olds homosexuality.  Homosexuals are NOT gender dysphoria.  Homosexuality is a man being attracted to a man, since when does this matter to a FOUR year old? Four years olds do not have to worry about things like this they are FOUR!  To teach any sex education to a four year old is age inappropriate. All they need to know is what bits they have, that's it.  You have a penis/winky like daddy, and you have a vagina or Mini like Mummy, and a snotty nose let's wipe it.  Homosexuality can be taught in sex education at an age appropriate time.
    Lol!! I like the way you are still avocating immigrants working at jobs in our country because their the only ones that will work for slave labour as if that's ok, it isn't.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx5t6QTWYP8

    Are you saying that Jeremy Corbyn is not part of the Fabian Society? He speaks at their conferences they are online.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0dS8xnrGg

    Finally, I voted Brexit therefore I do vote, and I will wait and see if it happens. The reasons why I voted I have listed on another post of this topic "Brexit." I went to a meeting which had Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, UKIP, members who were FOR leaving the EU, not many people bothered to actually go to these meetings if they'd had, they would have learned that ALL political parties were divided on the matter, however this was just a YES or NO vote.  I am not a Tory, I always had voted Labour, however having looked into the Fabian Society and the founder George Bernard Shaw, who said "I don't want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just like it might before the income tax commissioners and say every 5 years, or 7 years, Just put him there and say Sir or Madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you are not producing as much as you consume, or more, then we cannot use the big organisation or our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be very much use to yourself."
    He also said "I appeal to the chemist's to discover a gas that will kill instantly and painlessly in short a gentlemanly gas, deadly by all means, but humane not cruel."  This goes back to genetics, because of population growth and the disdain for genetically "less desirable." He was a fan of Hitler and especially Stalin.


    Margaret Sanger was also another Fabian Socialist




    Tony Blair was also Fabian Society, and he got us into a war where a lot of our service men got killed, and civilians abroad, and there were NO weapons of mass destruction and still hasn't been held accountable.



    These are not conspiracy theories, the members of the Fabian Society, history and it's agenda is available to view.  To say otherwise is to say that these groups don't exist when they do, and that's like burying your head in the sand.  May it also be noted that the word conspiracy theory has been mired, to prevent people from thinking for themselves in fear that they'll be called tin foil hat wearers, when the fact is there have been many conspiracy theories that have come true. 

    Also to understand the economy you have to understand the banking system, because it is run by the federal reserve and is a world wide banking system. Then you will see it doesn't matter who get's in, if Labour they will promise to spend more, which means enjoy now pay later, putting future generations in perpetual debt.  The blues may make cuts, but then sell off our industries, most of the UK's industry is owned by other countries.  So instead of putting money into these industries, they sold us off, hence we still work in these industries, but other countries benefit from the profit not us.  Search how many of our industries have been sold off since we've been in the EU, and not just to countries in the EU.  The EU was a dictatorship that we had no say in which isn't democratic. Oddly, the liberal "democrats" want to overthrow democracy by stating in the referendum that if our Brexit deal is worse than the one with the EU then we get to stay in the EU, which basically means, a less crap deal, for a still crap deal.  Hence, as the clip shows, it is the banks that control inflation, because we can never get out of debt with the way our political system is run. The only way to overcome it, is to put the banks back in the ownership of the People.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haZkpaWIkjM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGwfKnrH3c

    As for our criminal justice system, our prisons are over run, and most criminals do not get the sentences they deserve as a result. Also, it is known that most criminals can get what they want inside including drugs and further education from others on committing criminal acts.  Many have televisions, and a better life than some on the street and so they re-offend.  Then you have the people who are hurt or even killed by the police, but rarely do the police get held accountable for it, even when there is video evidence, it will be overturned on appeal. This may be due to how the system works, the police force gets to investigate themselves, and they have a code of brotherhood (this info from an ex police officer).  The only complaint that go to the Independent Police Complaints commission is murder, and still it is rarely upheld.




    This post was edited by Pepper Pot at May 28, 2017 5:41 PM MDT
      May 28, 2017 12:52 PM MDT
    0

  • 739
    Gender dysphoria and homosexuality are completely different things. Once again, I am not sure if children as young as four ARE taught about homosexuality, but if they are, I doubt if they are taught much more than the fact that it exists, and I don't see that as a problem.
    I still don't see how the socialist Fabian society could be linked to the free market Bilderberg group. I think you are getting a bit too hung up on talking about the Fabian Society. I am not a supporter of socialism. I don't doubt that Corbyn is a Fabian, but he probably couldn't swat a fly without having a discussion on what it would accomplish for human/fly relations.
    I understand perfectly well that the economic system runs on all major nations remaining in perpetual debt, and it is a bad system that needs to be changed.
    As for prisons, I don't believe they are the cushy places some tabloids paint them as. Sending people to prison doesn't solve anything; they do just get an education in crime from worse criminals, as you said. Also, the mentally ill end up in them, because of the shortage of mental hospitals, and the largely failed policy of care in the community, and it is not the right environment for them. I agree about the Police investigating themselves.
    I voted remain, and I'm sure "Brexit" will be a mess, but only time will tell.
    I have very little faith in any political party. The Conservatives are the only ones who can win. The telling story of the election will be how many seats Labour lose, because it will indicate whether they continue to exist as a party.
      May 30, 2017 5:57 AM MDT
    0

  • 124
    Voting Remain was like a death sentence, we've bailed our nearly every country in the EU, the Italian president described it as the orchestra playing on the Titanic, we have no cap on immigration which means any number of people can come here, they've sold off all our industries, they shut down our fisheries, they paid off our farmers not to work their land so that there wasn't competition.  The EU was flooding the markets and undercutting third world countries (this was information from a Green party member), she was also concerned that the EU does not care about recycling materials, her business was undercut by a bigger business who was not recycling simply because it was cheaper to hire.  The EU makes laws without our say so, it was a dictatorship.  We paid money in for unbent fruit and veg, their policies were ludicrous.  No surprise Merkel is a  guest to the Bilderberger meetings. We were held hostage by the EU unable to do other deals with other countries without consulting them first.  Our car parks are owned by France, our cars by Germans, our steel industry by India, southern trains are to be sold off to China. If we don't take back our sovereignty the UK will have nothing left we will be of no value. Our workers still create cars etc but the companies and so profits are owned by other countries.  Our markets were flooded with cheap Chinese steel, China pays no fees and yet manages to trade perfectly well with other countries.  Our public services are under pressure due to the influx in immigration and it not having a cap. We would have been in for the TIPP deal with America :-
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

    Yet despite our majority vote for Brexit,  May and Corbyn, who for some reason the government have made this all about (I've noticed there are far fewer candidates in the polling this year) are promising nothing to reduce immigration!! So in reality Brexit will be no different to being in the EU so the Remainers shouldn't worry.  
    Did you watch Theresa V Corbyn last night Harry? I enjoyed what the audience and Jeremy Paxman, funny neither leader appears to be able to answer a straight question, nothing changed Lol!! Bloody politicians. Enjoy the weather, let's hope it lasts!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mN_zZqlQts

    This post was edited by Pepper Pot at May 30, 2017 12:05 PM MDT
      May 30, 2017 12:02 PM MDT
    0

  • 2327
    He isn't a pacifist. Why? Because he wouldn't be able to pacify Tyson Fury. I'll tell you what would happen if he attempted it: he would get slapped up the side of the ear, and Corbyn wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. He would say ouch, and the he would walk away rubbing his sore ear. 
      May 19, 2017 7:07 PM MDT
    0