Nutters who shoot grey squirrels

This part gets me a bit. First of all I'm not sure it is true. Tory austerity cuts have been made (ignoring Keyenes, but that is another topic).

Too, there are human rights concerns when you start targeting people. I know human rights have become dirty words as of late, but gosh we've seen some pretty nasty things when they are suspended.

Like I said, you don't have to agree with the criticisms for it to be fair. There's two different perspectives.

Labour's claim that it's conservative cuts to the police budget is crap. That's a chance to shift blame, and take advantage of the tragic situation to argue against austerity and for higher budgets for government employees.

Were there cuts to the police budget? Sure. But then there's a choice of where to pull back. Either terrorism investigations or low level policing. That decision was made by civil servants under political pressure.

That aside, the immigration policy and abbreviated investigations of people coming to/from threat countries wasn't caused by budget cuts. There were not similar cuts to domestic military and civilian intelligence operations.

The truth is none of those people slipped through for lack of adequate resources. It's a lie for labour to blame cuts, and they know that, but it's fair criticism.

I get the human rights concern. The problem is there's probably 15-25k people legally present in the UK who have served with, are closely related to, or in active communication with Islamic extremists orgs. There are imams openly preaching that Allah commands death to infidels and start with the Jews, quoting the Nazis apparently if the paper today is right. So, do you allow all those people to stay in the country? How long and how intensively can you surveil them before it's a breach of their human rights? Or racist to continue targeting them despite no act on their part to indicate immediate threat? Cause the point you say, we'll let them enter or stay in the country or we'll lift surveillance cause not doing so threatens their human rights... then they turn around and kill lots of people.

You can't throw human rights at me and then say it's the conservative budget cuts that took away the resources with which the police would have breached these people's human rights & thereby prevented attacks. It's one way or the other. If you want to claim the human rights line, as the mayor does, then the cost of that is there will be continuous attacks that cannot be prevented and we just have to take it. The mayor said that too. If that's what you believe, then that's fine. But own it. Don't try to shift blame on the budget. And if you're going to own that philosophy then you have to accept the criticism when there are attacks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the way...

Story in the telegraph today telling an extremely different version of that grey squirrel issue.

And, apparently the hospital going back to the high court now that experts from Rome & the US have weighed in on the Gard case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Texas, I've been thinking a lot about our discussions and why I frequently find some of the things you say so bizarre, like if society gives healthcare to everyone then the taxes will be so high that everyone will literally starve, or that arguments about squirrels should be framed as multicultural, or that the issue with the treatment of baby Charlie is cost. I'm starting to think you get all your news about the UK from Rush Limbaugh.  You keep trying to apply the disfunctional arguments happening in America to the UK, and getting it wrong because you don't live here and get your facts about the UK second hand.

First, your assertion that immigration controls and border security have loosened is ridiculous.  Just like in the US, border controls get tighter and tighter all the time.  It's practically all we talk about here, we've all seen it.  In real life.  Have you been through the channel tunnel in Calais recently?  I go several times a year and have personally seen tons of security increases. 

Your assertion that this loosening of security is because of political correctness is also ridiculous.  In this climate, cracking down on Islamic extremists is seen as necessary and every politician supports it.  If anything, this crackdown goes too far in the other direction .  And if you actually believe that police numbers and resources have not declined because of austerity, you are not paying attention to UK politics.  Nobody who lives here would argue otherwise, it's simple fact.  You don't get it because there's no austerity in the US and probably police spending only goes up. 

Show me one bit of evidence that there has been an abbreviation of investigations of people entering the UK because of fear of offending some community and I might consider it.

Show me one case where surveillance was lifted for human rights.  It doesn't happen. 

Give me one single bit of evidence where the mayor has said we have to accept terrorism because of human rights?  You can't even though I have been begging you to for weeks.  The reason is because the mayor doesn't say those things, doesn't believe those things because they make no sense.  Mayor Khan said we are likely to have more terrorist attacks like the Lone Wolf attack on Parliment because there is no way to stop it.  Human rights has nothing to do with it, if one guy rents a truck and uses a knife and tells no one, violating all the human rights in the world is not going to catch him .  Rush Limbaugh or some alt right news sources have told you that the issue is terrorism versus political correctness with the Muslim Mayor supporting political correctness because he's Muslim.  You could not be more wrong about the actual issues.  It's more about terrorism versus armed police, tighter controls on where people can go, blighting our roads and bridges with concrete barriers and also spending a lot more money on surveillance and tracking extremists.  It's not about Political correctness, that argument is stupid in the states and consequently we simply do not have it here.

I'm not sure it's completely irrelevant that the mayor is Muslim when he takes the positions he has on immigration, refugees, and police surveillance/investigation/etc, because he so closely identifies with those specific population groups based on his personal situation, and when the result of those policies does lead to attacks by people who had been under surveillance.

Can you expand on this a little because I just can't see it.  What policy of Mayor Khan has led to attacks?  He's the mayor, he doesn't have any control over National security matters or immigration policy?  He doesn't control the border guards at the airport.

We seem to be falling into a pattern where you declare something as absolute truth, only a biased idiot could think otherwise, but then you can't come up with a scintilla of evidence when challenged.  You make Mayor Khan sound like a hook handed hate preacher.  I'm not sticking up for him because I have some special love for him, but rather what he says is public record.  It's black or white, he either said it or he didn't. 

And that's the way it usually goes with all the alt right Trumpian BS, once you actually nail down the facts, it all ends up being exaggerated and part truths.  Mounds and mounds of it, so much that most people can't keep up with fighting for the truth. 

Fill me in Mr Texas, provide some proof!

By the way...


And, apparently the hospital going back to the high court now that experts from Rome & the US have weighed in on the Gard case.

The hospital hasn't changed it's opinions on the efficacy of the suggested treatments.  I think they are seriously showing their good intentions by admitting that the courts should be the ones to decide , no matter how silly this new unpublished evidence turns out to be.

I am disgusted by that American "spokesman " who has shown up to exploit the whole thing for his own ends. 

Can you expand on this a little because I just can't see it.  What policy of Mayor Khan has led to attacks?  He's the mayor, he doesn't have any control over National security matters or immigration policy?  He doesn't control the border guards at the airport.

We seem to be falling into a pattern where you declare something as absolute truth, only a biased idiot could think otherwise, but then you can't come up with a scintilla of evidence when challenged.  You make Mayor Khan sound like a hook handed hate preacher.  I'm not sticking up for him because I have some special love for him, but rather what he says is public record.  It's black or white, he either said it or he didn't. 

And that's the way it usually goes with all the alt right Trumpian BS, once you actually nail down the facts, it all ends up being exaggerated and part truths.  Mounds and mounds of it, so much that most people can't keep up with fighting for the truth. 

Fill me in Mr Texas, provide some proof!

I did NOT say he personally made national policy that led to these attacks.

What I said was... As a prominent leader in Labour he publicly and repeatedly espoused a perspective from the left. That is evident is many many sources. Try google. I'm busy.

The gist of those sources say... we should welcome millions of immigrants, hundreds of thousands of which will be from high threat regions. That, as rich countries, we should welcome these less fortunate people, treat them well, not offend them, and that eventually they'll integrate themselves into our societies while maintaining their own culture and loyalties. If we mistreat or offend them, then that will make them vulnerable to radicalization and cause a threat to us.

In no way did I describe him as a hook handed evil whatever you said. Quite the opposite. I've referred to him with respect. What I think is that he's a soft-hearted naive optimist who sincerely believes that people should be able to move where they want, that rich countries owe something to poor ones, and that if you treat people well then they'll happily abandon their beliefs and loyalties to latch onto your values and interests just because you've been nice to them. I believe he understands this will not work in some cases. That a few people, despite that treatment, will still attack us; and that, some who started out bad guys will use that system to get here for the purpose of attacking us. His position is that those attacks are the cost of having our values, etc.

That's perfectly fine for him to believe all that (and again, try google, there's endless sources of quotes from him relating that position). And, when we follow that policy and attacks still happen, then it is also perfectly fine to criticize him for it.

If you agree with the Mayor's position then you may feel uncomfortable with the criticism. In your case, it seems you cannot accept the reasonableness or logic of that criticism, and so deflect to attacking the messenger. It doesn't hurt that President Trump was the messenger and you already have a well formed opinion that makes it easy for you to pile more hate onto him, but it's deflection just the same.

If you still do not believe the narrative I'm attributing to the mayor and would like for me to walk through it piece by piece with multiple article citations to show that it comes from his own words, then I will do that for you. But, it's going to be a month before I have time. I really don't think it's that hard to google up those results for yourself in about 10mins.

I love your journey from (if you'll allow me to paraphrase your arguments) "It made sense for Trump to attack Khan because he said all kinds of things about how we should hug terrorists and give them a council house " to "he didn't actually personally say any of that stuff, but he's on the left and I imagine that somebody on the left said this laundry list of ridiculous things so he must have said something similar. And you should Google to find proof yourself for my arguments.  "

Well, as I said earlier, I actually did Google the mayoral tweet stream around that time and found nothing. 

You know what, I think I'm getting a bit busy as well so I'm going to stop .  I'm not sure this is productive any more. 

I still reserve the right to have a go at you again on a different subject though!

What about Sharia law?  Do you believe that Sharia law courts are a problem here?  Or that Birmingham is a no go area for non Muslims?  I understand those are common beliefs held by right wingers in the states.

What about Sharia law?  Do you believe that Sharia law courts are a problem here?  Or that Birmingham is a no go area for non Muslims?  I understand those are common beliefs held by right wingers in the states.

I'm gonna go ahead and answer those questions. I'm not a conservative, but I've read conservative sources on the internet, which you can go ahead and Google yourself because I'm way too busy.

Sharia law in the UK: Sharia law is now in common use throughout the UK, with most people compelled by the European Union to take their cases to Sharia law courts. This is due in part to efforts by Labour party politicians to cater to the needs of the hundreds of  millions of Muslim immigrants they've allowed to enter the UK, and partly due to the austerity cuts put in place by Labour governments which eliminated things like courts, parks, the police, and happiness. These are facts which, again, you can look up yourself. I'm very busy, and would really appreciate it if you would educate yourself on these matters.

Birmingham: No non-Muslim has been to Birmingham since 2005, and all of the non-Muslims were relocated out of the greater Birmingham metropolitan area by the Labour party, so it is impossible to say with any certainty what the situation is there from a non-Muslim perspective. Again, these are facts. You should Google them yourself. Busy.

Dude, you are a sly one.  I was frothing at the mouth and showing the first signs of brain bleed.

I've been reading about Donald Juniors meeting with the Russians. It didn't look like much at first, but as he keeps giving different versions of the story, it's getting better and better.  We've got all the biggies but Trump Sr in the room, we've got discussion of Leaked emails (possibly before anyone else knew)  and very possibly discussions about lifting sanctions under the guise of "adoptions". 
E

Who could have known that President Trump is not even the stupidest Donald Trump out there.

No wonder Mueller is not using hardly any investigators and is hiring a dream team of prosecutors.  The facts are known, now it's all about sizing up the orange jumpsuits.
 
Warning, the above is mostly based on Reddit comments, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Edit: Ive had to take out some bits that proved to be untrue.  That's why I added the above warning

Here's a great podcast about what the Trump Presidency can teach us about constitutional law.  I have a feeling this is going to be relevant very quickly: can the president pardon someone by tweet?

3- Pardon Power
http://one.npr.org/i/534025832:534025834

I've been reading about Donald Juniors meeting with the Russians. It didn't look like much at first, but as he keeps giving different versions of the story, it's getting better and better. 

I hope you're right, but I don't know that any of it will matter in the long run. I don't see Congress doing anything while the Republicans are running it, and I don't know how likely it is that the mid-term elections will put the Democrats in charge. Without that, Congress will continue to ignore all the stuff they don't want to deal with (Russia, etc) so they can keep working on their goal of making rich people richer.

It won't matter if it turns out Trump personally asked Putin to fix the election for him if nobody is going to hold him to account. I don't know enough about Mueller's powers in this case to say if he could be that person or not, and my cursory Googling hasn't answered the question in enough detail to say.

I hope you're right, but I don't know that any of it will matter in the long run. I don't see Congress doing anything while the Republicans are running it, and I don't know how likely it is that the mid-term elections will put the Democrats in charge. Without that, Congress will continue to ignore all the stuff they don't want to deal with (Russia, etc) so they can keep working on their goal of making rich people richer.

It won't matter if it turns out Trump personally asked Putin to fix the election for him if nobody is going to hold him to account. I don't know enough about Mueller's powers in this case to say if he could be that person or not, and my cursory Googling hasn't answered the question in enough detail to say.

I really hope you are wrong, but everything you have written could absolutely come to pass. 

I'm hoping that the intelligence community is going to save America on this.  Trump has made sworn enemies out of the CIA , FBI and others, and Mueller comes from that background.  I hope they are all planning a big reveal that culminates in a public showing of the pee tape. 

At least I can dream!

I hope they are all planning a big reveal that culminates in a public showing of the pee tape. 

At least I can dream!

Ha! It's good to have goals.

I figure it'll just keep going like this, with the continual White House scandals rolling on and on while Congress quietly unravels whatever is left of the safety nets put in place years ago.

Then, in 2018 or 2019, The Rock will announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination - which he'll get easily - and then it'll be Trump v The Rock for the 2020 election.